Usual but Necessary

[muse]

I would invite Indian and Chinese forum members to read critically - and begin a debate, don't count on Pakistani members, they have neither the grey matter power nor courage of conviction - but they can be made to limp along -- while he title indicates that such a "Trilateral" dialogue is unusal, it must be made usual:


Unusual trialogue


Dr Maleeha Lodhi
Tuesday, March 26, 2013





The writer is special adviser to the Jang Group/Geo and a former envoy to the US and the UK.

Recent years have seen a profusion of Track II meetings between former officials and scholars from Pakistan and India aimed at finding common ground on contentious issues in an effort to help the formal dialogue. Many of these informal discussions have had western sponsorship.

A Track II round-table organised last week in Dubai by the Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies was in a genre of its own. The meeting had no ‘external’ participation. It assembled experts from the strategic community of China, India and Pakistan in a trilateral security dialogue to discuss nuclear and security issues, assess the challenges posed by developments in Iran and East Asia as well as take stock of global disarmament developments.

The discussion was instructive in highlighting how the three countries conceptualise strategic stability in different ways and identify varying elements as being necessary to achieve this. A common strategic vocabulary remains elusive among them.

The proceedings showed that strategic stability could be defined in narrow terms as the absence of incentives to use nuclear weapons first and engage in an arms race. Or it could be envisioned more broadly as the absence of armed conflict between nuclear weapon states.

It emerged from the discussions that ‘minimum credible deterrence’ meant different things to participants from the three countries. But there were also commonalities in several areas and agreement on the need to establish sustainable stability especially when the most profound power restructuring was unfolding in Asia since the end of the Second World War. As one speaker put it Asia was at an inflection point. This urged critical choices on all three nations.

Reduction of mistrust and building mutual confidence was deemed crucial to each country’s internal progress. Participants agreed that in coming years all three nations will be preoccupied by domestic issues and challenges. A Chinese delegate also pointed out that for all the recent turbulence in East Asia, it remained more peaceful than other regions in the world and retained strong dynamics and incentives for economic development and cooperation.

The session on nuclear doctrines and policy produced a lively if inconclusive debate about the extent to which technology was driving doctrines but more importantly how changes in the regional and global landscape were shaping nuclear policy and postures. That all three countries’ nuclear posture rested on a de-mated and de-alert – and thus a delayed response – status was seen by participants as a factor for deterrence stability and providing a degree of reassurance about nuclear safety. This posture avoided the ‘hair-trigger alertness’ of the Cold War but needed to be supplemented by commitment from these countries to abjure nuclear competition, arms racing and other behaviour associated with a bygone era.

Chinese and Pakistani speakers voiced concerns about the development and deployment of missile defence systems in Asia. A Chinese participant pointed out that if India joined the US-led Asia-Pacific missile defence system this would have significant influence on China’s nuclear modernisation plans.

A key conclusion to emerge from the meeting was that discussion on nuclear issues and CBMs in this sphere could not be divorced from the wider context of lack of political trust and unresolved disputes among these nations, which remained the cause of recurring tensions. Unless strategic matters were discussed as part of overall relations they could not be meaningfully addressed, said a Chinese speaker. Indian participants concurred and urged broadening of the trialogue agenda. Others agreed that the underlying causes of tensions had to be addressed to establish the political foundation for nuclear confidence building and strategic stability.

The opportunity to listen to the views of Chinese scholars on the sidelines of the conference turned out to be equally instructive. It became evident from this engagement that views in China of global developments and Sino-US relations are much more diverse and nuanced than media accounts suggest. One of the Chinese scholars I spoke to about the US ‘pivot’ or rebalancing to Asia-Pacific had interesting perspectives to offer. Yes, he said, China was concerned and was following a hedging policy on the rebalancing. But there were indications of a more cooperative US approach at the start of President Obama’s second term. His choice of secretaries of state and defence signalled seriousness about engagement with China, even if the US had fuelled Beijing’s suspicions by relocating military resources to East Asia in previous years. For now, he said, China had adopted a wait-and-see approach.

He said there was open debate in China about whether Beijing’s own confrontational conduct during 2009-2010 had prompted certain ‘rebalancing’ moves by the US. As an example he cited China’s official silence or ambiguity on the South China Sea issue for 15 months prior to October 2011, when Beijing finally clarified that it did not claim all of these waters. No country after all can accept China’s control of all of South China, he added.

I asked him what he thought of a recent article by another Chinese academic, in which he argued that China today lacked a foreign policy (International Herald Tribune, March 18, 2013). He said he agreed with the proposition, as China was too domestically preoccupied to think coherently and consistently about foreign policy. China’s economic and trade interests today dictated its external policy. There was no longer any values-based foreign policy. He characterised this as an ‘opportunist’ strategy. The only exception to this, he said, were relations with Pakistan, which was regarded as a country that had always stood by China and remained vital for Beijing’s own balancing strategy in Asia.

Was the world moving towards a G-2 arrangement between China and the US? No, he said, the global landscape is still marked by a weakened G-One. US power had drained as a result of its economic problems. This weakening was accelerated by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it had not yet been replaced by any G-2 configuration, because China remained hesitant to shoulder the burden of international responsibility.

Did that mean that western criticism was justified of China being eager to reap the benefits of its new global power status without undertaking any obligations? His answer was revealing. The US and its western allies wanted China and everyone else to play by the international rules they had set themselves, a process in which China was excluded. China could not be expected to play by rules that hurt its interests. Beijing could not accept rules over which it had no sense of ownership or if it felt it was not being treated fairly or equitably. Responsibility came with rights.

The concerns voiced by these scholars about China’s inability, at a time of intense domestic focus, to conduct a predictable and coherent foreign policy seems to mirror a view expressed by many in the US strategic community about America’s foreign policy.

In a recent article by David Rothkopf in Foreign Policy, the author critiques President Obama’s “light footprint diplomacy” for its dangerous potential to invite tomorrow’s problems. He depicts Obama’s international approach to be bereft of a strategy, as well as lacking political will to take risks in many important parts of the world.

This has produced a telling absence of American leadership in the international arena and doing too little to address global problems. This is captured in the popular description of ‘leading from behind’ This seems to reinforce Ian Bremmer’s characterisation of the present era as a world without leadership – a G-Zero world – where there is no single power or alliance of powers able to take on the challenges of global leadership.

 

[neehar]

i must point out..china is doing really well trying to balance its economy and strategic policies..its using use currency to devaluate its currency.and at the same time trying to point out that its rise would not be a favorable one for u.s and obviously u.s doesnt want its position taken by somebody else..ofcourse with the most formidable defence forces in the world u.s is still going to assert its influence for some time to come..but with the slowing growth rate and increasing debts its highly unlikely for it to maintain its superiority.european nations are already in a declining path.

china and india have more in common than differences..the serious problems between them might be boader diputes and ofcourse pakistan..but as the relations between india and pakistan gets better relations between china and india gets better..china and india voted together against u.s number of times on the world stage.but india is going to play safe till its economical goals are reached..its not going to choose sides yet not atleast permanently and not definitely with u.s india is aware of u.s's foreign policy.india has an independent foreign policy which is not the case with other u.s allies.. mean while india builds her defences wary of the political implications of this big game.i'd like to mention also about russia which has similar goals to these 2 countries.for now india has 3 challenges developmental challenges which are being attended at a high pace as we speak.economic growth and its geopolitics...

pakistan is in a transformation to either towards growth or towards abbys..its new govt would decide.it has greater challanges at home compared to abroad.it got a taste of the friendship from u.s and a responsible leader coming next would maintain an independent foreign policy.a strong democracy in pakistan is good for india.india will have trouble when ever pakistan is unstable.and its army have taken the issue of terrorism seriously..i'm hopeful they would have considerable success with in 5 years if their labour is continued...relations with india improves unless some other attack happens..

so why not i'm sure things would be much better in asia with in a decade from now..

 

[Contrarian]

The purpose of this thread muse?

It is given that there must be constant talks and interactions regarding security concerns between India, China and Pakistan. The only thing unusual would be a trilateral summit.

And to me it appears that this would serve absolutely no purpose. The problems that India had with Pakistan or rather the sense of insecurity that India had with Pakistan is on the wane because of rising Comprehensive National Power of India vis-a-vis Pakistan.

At the same time, with China's CNP rising faster than India's, India has increasing cause of concern with China. That coupled with the fact that India's resources have for the first time increased to allow an arming of the Northern borders while still keeping the Western borders armed.

There is no substantial meeting of concerns that India has with Pakistan and China, nor that Pakistan has with India along with China save for the general cry of India and China arming themselves too fast for comfort of their respective neighbours.

 

[muse]

The purpose of this thread muse?

It is given that there must be constant talks and interactions regarding security concerns between India, China and Pakistan. The only thing unusual would be a trilateral summit.

And to me it appears that this would serve absolutely no purpose. The problems that India had with Pakistan or rather the sense of insecurity that India had with Pakistan is on the wane because of rising Comprehensive National Power of India vis-a-vis Pakistan.

At the same time, with China's CNP rising faster than India's, India has increasing cause of concern with China. That coupled with the fact that India's resources have for the first time increased to allow an arming of the Northern borders while still keeping the Western borders armed.

There is no substantial meeting of concerns that India has with Pakistan and China, nor that Pakistan has with India along with China save for the general cry of India and China arming themselves too fast for comfort of their respective neighbours.

Yes, some Indians are persuaded that the sun now rises and sets in India - then when some one points out sanitation in India they get bent out of shape - perhaps we should be more sober - whether you may or may not want to admit it, the ability of an adversary to destroy the other is always sobering and it will always be important to ensure that any such possibility is attenuated - such trilateral meetings should be seen as the seeds of a much larger project - as the article suggests today, all three are primarily focused inward, however, it's important that they not only focus outward but towards each other - together these three constitute close to half the world, many do not yet realize the potential for good that remains latent as each of these focus inward - Policy makers are aware of this potential, yet unless ordinary people made aware and participate to release this potential, it will remain unrealized.

 

[Contrarian]

Yes, some Indians are persuaded that the sun now rises and sets in India - then when some one points out sanitation in India they get bent out of shape - perhaps we should be more sober - whether you may or may not want to admit it, the ability of an adversary to destroy the other is always sobering and it will always be important to ensure that any such possibility is attenuated - such trilateral meetings should be seen as the seeds of a much larger project - as the article suggests today, all three are primarily focused inward, however, it's important that they not only focus outward but towards each other - together these three constitute close to half the world, many do not yet realize the potential for good that remains latent as each of these focus inward - Policy makers are aware of this potential, yet unless ordinary people made aware and participate to release this potential, it will remain unrealized.

You make a fallacy in your assumptions.
I make a simple point which is all but evident to most. That India is today more focused on China's threat than Pakistan's. While most Pakistani's find this incorrect and point to how the bulk of India's military is geared towards Pakistan.

I and most others have grown hoarse over implying again and again that India's existing force structure at the western borders will remain as it is. It will not be reduced or removed because our threat perceptions are towards China.
Instead all new and more potent acquisitions are being pointed northwards.

The bulk of military infrastructure build up is China facing. Our gold plated assets are also being stationed for Chinese threat - case in point - the Apache's will be in West Bengal. An entire new strike corps is being sanctioned to be based in West Bengal.
The biggest naval base in India is being built on the Eastern Coast.

And Pakistan's ability to pose a threat to India is vastly diminished in the last decade.
With Pakistan finding zero favour with the Global community
Pakistan having a precarious economy unable to fund any major equipment purchases.
Pakistan's very low growth rate over the last few years and continuing weak outlook.
Pakistan's raging insurgencies.

All these in stark contrast to India, mean that Pakistan no longer enjoys a position of strength that India should or would really care about Pakistan's concerns of any kind - from Kashmir to Siachen.

In this backdrop i ask you-this is my first question to you - what purpose does it solve for India to address any of Pakistan's concerns?

The next aspect is that you say India, China and Pakistan are inward looking. That is true to an extent, but you would notice that despite tensions - India and China have nothing less than vast trade relations. And they are only looking up. India and China and also building trade agreements with other neighbouring countries, and constantly striving for increasing their share of global trade.

Pakistan is the only exception in this.

So i repeat - and this is the second question- what purpose does the summit serve?

 

[muse]

You keep telling us about the many muscles India are flexing, and yet the article is not about muscle flexing - and you contradict yourself, if indeed China is the greater threat, why then the majority of Indian forces arrayed against Pakistan? The article makes the point that policy makers understand that this trilateral equation is one that must be fostered, even as it acknowledges that the three are at present internally focused and their perceptions of concepts such as "credible minimal deterrence" are not similar.

 

[scorpionx]

Before having a tri lateral partnership,An India-Pakistan peaceful settlement is utmost necessary which is more urgent than an India-China settlement in the region. If we have the former the later will follow its own way.
Politicians,military generals and media from both sides of the border should come out from the institutionalized machinery of hatred and animosity considering our lack of ability to change our geographical border.But it requires to overcome certain constraints.

1.Pakistan do have to realize that India is not it's enemy.Pakistan's enemy lies within.Spending billions of dollars to have a suitable deterrent against India should not be the priority of the moment.

2.Pakistan has to come out from Kashmir syndrome.It has to realize that Kashmir will never come to any bargaining equation and India is never going to give independence to Kashmir.India has encountered Kashmir issue not only with military power but with its increasing economical strength and growing trade with the US and Europe have gained support for its claim on Kashmir.

3.Pakistan Must punish the anti Indian terror groups.We can not have a fruitful dialogue when you deny any kind of such existence on your soil when your own media exposes the harsh reality infront of the world.

A useful negotiation demands patience and time.It took eight long years for Indus water treaty,the only successful treaty between the two to come to a shape.So,lets not hurry for anything agreeable very quickly on the plate and lets not try to overpower the other with arrogance and facts twisted with lies on negotiation table.We can see the result then and can afford a tri lateral partnership.

 

[Contrarian]

You keep telling us about the many muscles India are flexing, and yet the article is not about muscle flexing - and you contradict yourself, if indeed China is the greater threat, why then the majority of Indian forces arrayed against Pakistan? The article makes the point that policy makers understand that this trilateral equation is one that must be fostered, even as it acknowledges that the three are at present internally focused and their perceptions of concepts such as "credible minimal deterrence" are not similar.

There is a very very simple reason for that.

India does not ever expect that there would be a war with China.
Even if India and China want to, the scope of war is very limited. The Himalayas form an impenetrable boundary for most of the border between India and China. At best there would be skirmishes in 3 areas identified as Western Sector, Central Sector and Eastern Sector.

And out of the three, only the Eastern Sector - Arunachal Pradesh has enough scope for a conflict of scale.

That apart, China and both India are responsible powers, both realize that a war would only benefit third parties without the commiserate returns for either of them. Both are large nations with considerable resources at their disposal. And both realize that the only thing a nation has to focus on is economic growth - that is where true might lies.

Now contrast this with Pakistan, an unstable country with regular military coups. A military that is accountable to no one but itself and one that needs to reaffirm its relevance and superiority to its own citizens with regularity to maintain the power that it does. A nation that feels incomplete as long as they dont have Kashmir. A country which has no control over its terrorist organizations it formed itself. And finally a country where the Prime Minister calls for peace and bus travels while its own military is executing a war strategy!

You tell me which of the two countries between Pakistan and China are likely to execute a move which would lead to war and you will have your answer.

---
That said - I repeat from my last post - all existing force structures for our western borders will remain as they are. The NEW forces which are being acquired would be dedicated to the Northern Borders.

India does not forsee China taking recourse to military actions to settle the border disputes in the future and thus there is no need to move existing forces from West to the North. That would only be done in an emergency.

 

[muse]

There is a very very simple reason for that.

India does not ever expect that there would be a war with China.
Even if India and China want to, the scope of war is very limited. The Himalayas form an impenetrable boundary for most of the border between India and China. At best there would be skirmishes in 3 areas identified as Western Sector, Central Sector and Eastern Sector.

And out of the three, only the Eastern Sector - Arunachal Pradesh has enough scope for a conflict of scale.

That apart, China and both India are responsible powers, both realize that a war would only benefit third parties without the commiserate returns for either of them. Both are large nations with considerable resources at their disposal. And both realize that the only thing a nation has to focus on is economic growth - that is where true might lies.

Now contrast this with Pakistan, an unstable country with regular military coups. A military that is accountable to no one but itself and one that needs to reaffirm its relevance and superiority to its own citizens with regularity to maintain the power that it does. A nation that feels incomplete as long as they dont have Kashmir. A country which has no control over its terrorist organizations it formed itself. And finally a country where the Prime Minister calls for peace and bus travels while its own military is executing a war strategy!

You tell me which of the two countries between Pakistan and China are likely to execute a move which would lead to war and you will have your answer.

---
That said - I repeat from my last post - all existing force structures for our western borders will remain as they are. The NEW forces which are being acquired would be dedicated to the Northern Borders.

India does not forsee China taking recourse to military actions to settle the border disputes in the future and thus there is no need to move existing forces from West to the North. That would only be done in an emergency.

You are all over the place, first you said India see China as THE threat, now you say China is responsible and not THE threat and it is Pakistan that is THE threat - I think you are trying to as they say, have your cake and eat it too - I would readily grant that Pakistan are unstable because they refuse to demonstrate will to confront militancy, but this has not changed the fundamental equation in which Pakistan and India and China are in - while the opinion you represent is certainly popular in sentimental triumphal circles in India, policy makers in India see the need to bring attenuate possibilities of conflict by attempting to gain and transmit a greater understanding of perspectives from Pakistan and China. This is simply reality - unless this reality can be brought into the public consciousness and pressure built to integrate these perspectives to give them a common understanding in all three countries, a historic opportunity, and one that is a necessity, will not just be furthered but the very security of these countries endangered.

Now you can imagine that this is not the case, and many do, however, the sooner you and those who are persuaded by the sentiment you express, begin to reconsider the utility of narrow conceptions of security, the sooner we can begin to create joint conceptions of security and prosperity.

 

[Sergi]

India and china always supported and demanded Bilateral talks on many issues.

Pakistan always want trilateral talks on many thing from Past.
Accepting This might have some advantage for Pak but for india and China it's a no go.

If China agrees triateral talks here they can't morally deny to same thing in SCS.

 

[Contrarian]

You are all over the place, first you said India see China as THE threat, now you say China is responsible and not THE threat and it is Pakistan that is THE threat - I think you are trying to as they say, have your cake and eat it too -

Again mate, its quite simple. The likelihood of war with China is least. Both nations assiduously avoid it. But if dragged to war they have the capability to cause massive damage to India. And thus all new force accretions are towards them. Earlier we could not to add forces because of our budgets and so the game we played against them was based on diplomacy, international opinion and inaccessibility of Jungles and mountains in the North East. Today we have the resources, we are cutting up the forest to make roads and putting our own assets there.

Pakistan cannot cause any major damage to India and does not have the ability to take and hold any territory from India as long as it does not use nukes and the probability of going to war with Pakistan is far more than with China. Our existing forces geared towards the West are sufficient to cause major damage to Pakistan without the use of nukes.

Please tell me that you NOW got what I am saying? That there is no dichotomy.

I would readily grant that Pakistan are unstable because they refuse to demonstrate will to confront militancy, but this has not changed the fundamental equation in which Pakistan and India and China are in - while the opinion you represent is certainly popular in sentimental triumphal circles in India, policy makers in India see the need to bring attenuate possibilities of conflict by attempting to gain and transmit a greater understanding of perspectives from Pakistan and China. This is simply reality - unless this reality can be brought into the public consciousness and pressure built to integrate these perspectives to give them a common understanding in all three countries, a historic opportunity, and one that is a necessity, will not just be furthered but the very security of these countries endangered.

Now you can imagine that this is not the case, and many do, however, the sooner you and those who are persuaded by the sentiment you express, begin to reconsider the utility of narrow conceptions of security, the sooner we can begin to create joint conceptions of security and prosperity.

I will ask you a simple question, a simple answer would be greatly appreciated. What benefit would it yield to India to have a trilateral security summit between India, Pakistan and China when India holds dialogue with both Pakistan and China. Considering especially that the dynamics of relation between India and Pakistan, India and China are as different as chalk and cheese.

 

[muse]

I will ask you a simple question, a simple answer would be greatly appreciated. What benefit would it yield to India to have a trilateral security summit between India, Pakistan and China when India holds dialogue with both Pakistan and China. Considering especially that the dynamics of relation between India and Pakistan, India and China are as different as chalk and cheese.

I'm not going to suggest that Pakistan and India are the same cheese, they are however both cheese in the sense that they are both nuclear powers -- Many in India hold that India have now left Pakistan behind and made it irrelevant, that's fair enough, one can think whatever they find satisfying, the fact policy makers do not concur,as evidenced by such track II and trilateral meetings, suggests that there is a body of opinion grounded in reality and not sentiment.

So what's the benefit? The purpose of such talks is to discover commonalities to not just attenuate the possibility of conflict but to allow others to discover how security concepts are perceived and how these perceptions can be brought in to a common framework - WHY? to attenuate the possibility of conflict and to set the stage of the integration or development of common positions - Why is that helpful? See above, unless conflict is something you may consider a positive.

 

[Contrarian]

I'm not going to suggest that Pakistan and India are the same cheese, they are however both cheese in the sense that they are both nuclear powers -- Many in India hold that India have now left Pakistan behind and made it irrelevant, that's fair enough, one can think whatever they find satisfying, the fact policy makers do not concur,as evidenced by such track II and trilateral meetings, suggests that there is a body of opinion grounded in reality and not sentiment.

Do you know that Track 2 was particularly frustrating for Pakistani entourage because they found India obstinate and unwilling to deal with them on even keel. One has even remarked that India's stance has become harder.

Now what do you think is the reason for this attitude of the Indian delegation?
The answer is clear. India does not want a resolution. A resolution would mean that we have to withdraw from Siachen. Now why would be want to withdraw from Siachen when the loss of lives of Indian soldiers there is negligible, the expenditure on keeping the soldiers there is nothing but peanuts for the Military.

Do you get the drift? India gains absolutely zilch by satisfying any of Pakistan's wishes or by compromising. A compromise entails that India also gains something in lieu of letting some things go. As things stand, Pakistan can offer India nothing.
Pakistan is no longer militarily capable of taking territory and we are happy with what we have. It is only Pakistan that wants more.

If you feel otherwise - that India has something to gain out of compromising with Pakistan, please elucidate in no uncertain terms.

So what's the benefit? The purpose of such talks is to discover commonalities to not just attenuate the possibility of conflict but to allow others to discover how security concepts are perceived and how these perceptions can be brought in to a common framework - WHY? to attenuate the possibility of conflict and to set the stage of the integration or development of common positions - Why is that helpful? See above, unless conflict is something you may consider a positive.

There is already a very sound mechanism and very strong political directives in both India and China to avert any increase in tensions between the two. There are already talks of integration and development of common positions- it was signed with the Chinese a few years back - the guiding principals of boundary settlement and what not to do.

The Chinese know full well that a war with India would cost them dearly, and Indians know that a war with India would weaken them terribly so. They know it only plays in the hands of the Western nations. Both have strongest desires to avoid it.

So what new happens at a trilateral summit that India is not already doing with China on its own?

 

[third eye]

You keep telling us about the many muscles India are flexing, and yet the article is not about muscle flexing - and you contradict yourself, if indeed China is the greater threat, why then the majority of Indian forces arrayed against Pakistan? The article makes the point that policy makers understand that this trilateral equation is one that must be fostered, even as it acknowledges that the three are at present internally focused and their perceptions of concepts such as "credible minimal deterrence" are not similar.

Post No 1 is too long to catch my attention span. Relevant excerpts would have helped.

On the underlined point above, I have read this numerous times on this forum & others. Pakistan is an ever present threat closer home. As seen by most Indians it is nation born out of a persecution complex. Its Army has cleverly used that complex to keep its stranglehold on the nation & its policies.The complex remains a part of national psyche thanks to the vested interests who would like it to remains so.

In fact, animosity to India has become its raison d'être. The nation needs to be anti - someone. Indians, Bengalis, Baluchis , Shias & back to Indians or else would devour itself.

China is no where close to this level of paranoid animosity. Its clash with India ( if it can be called a clash) is like two adolescents growing up in the same neighborhood. Elbowing for space is natural. With age & maturity things will settle down. Both nations have the ability to pose greater & long term threats to each other Militarily & Economically.

Pakistan like N Korea is becoming a delusional nation obsessed with itself. It is willing to cut its own nose to spite others & is hurtling down the path of self destruction. Besides weapons it has little else of value to show to the world which others would like to emulate. Like N Korea it blames others for all its self inflicted ills.

There are Japan & S Korea making progress in all spheres , what has N Korea achieved by doing what it does best ?

Similarly, there is Pakistan obsessed with J&K and other anti Indian issues - none of which have changed an inch since 47 . Where has it led Pak to ?

Its for Pak to decide where it wants to go & what it has achieved this far.

India , meanwhile sees Pak as a danger closer home which has a track record of being irrational hence would need immediate attention & China as a possible danger in the future which is not irrational.

As regards locations, forces can be switched at will .

 

[illusion8]

@muse - don't you think it's Pakistan and as an extension Afghanistan that needs immediate and urgent attention?

Pakistan's current crop of problems don't stem from India, the problems that Pakistan faces are in danger of spilling over into India or to an extent into China.

China's problems don't stem from India neither does India's current problems stem from China directly though there are concerns both ways and are being looked into by both.

This trilateral or any near future discussions should center around how can China and India being Pakistan's neighbors help in solving Pakistan's major issues - that would be quite helpful rather than dragging such discussions into Kashmir, water, two front wars, nuclear issues etc which is not of immediate concern and can be solved later.