Beijing reaches out to Delhi to safeguard its interests

[Yusuf]

NEW DELHI: Early this year, China reached out to India to start a dialogue on Afghanistan. This led to China, Russia and India meeting together for the first time in Moscow on February 20 to consult on Afghanistan's future. This is the second trilateral dialogue India has started on Afghanistan — the first being with the US and Afghanistan that met a day before the China-Russia-India trilateral.

When the Chinese leadership first approached India, New Delhi's reaction was "why now?" The Chinese response was that they had $3 billion in investments in Afghanistan. Indian investments are over $2 billion. China's approach to Afghanistan has largely been driven by its all-weather ally, Pakistan, thus far. But, China has expressed growing alarm about the possible return of the Taliban in Afghanistan that appears to be part of Pakistan's design. Beijing is anxious about the export of extremism and terrorism into their restive Xinjiang province.

Besides, the uncertainty over the 2014 US drawdown of troops has spooked all stakeholders. This has led to the every body hedging every possible outcome. US diplomatic sources said America and China are locked in their own conversation on Afghanistan. India is engaging with Russia, China and Iran. In addition, India is ready to hold talks with Pakistan on Kabul's future, but there is no interest from the Pakistani side.

For Russia, the problem is more proximate. The prospect of Taliban and its ideology travelling into the central Asian states remains a matter of apprehension. Russia has been trying to befriend Pakistan for some time now, to incentivize Islamabad to use its influence to prevent Taliban ingress into these countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin even contemplated a maiden visit to Pakistan last year, which could have seriously affected the India-Russia relationship.

However, in recent months, the renewed push by western governments to accommodate the Taliban in "reconciliation" — a power-sharing arrangement in Kabul — has complicated matters for all three countries. India is deeply opposed to the reconciliation process because it believes Taliban's extremism would overwhelm all other shades of opinion, pushing Afghanistan back to the 1990s. But Russia and China are fearful of what they believe could become a US-Taliban "deal" that allows continued American presence in Afghanistan. This they reckoned to be "destabilizing" for their future.

But for India, the Chinese request was also interpreted to mean that they may also be hedging against a Pakistan-led approach to Afghanistan. Pakistan has not shown any move to divorce itself from the Taliban. Islamabad continues to harbour Afghan Taliban leaders in its territory, despite much pleading by the West to release them for talks with the Karzai government. A Taliban office has been in operation in Doha, Qatar, for some time, without the reconciliation process making much headway largely because of the lack of credible Taliban leaders to talk with.



There is talk of the US trying to directly reach out to Taliban leaders, an effort that is being replicated by UK, France and Germany. The upshot of all of this is that the Karzai government has been brought to the same level as the Taliban — it is being treated as just another faction instead of being a legitimate government in Kabul. To many countries, the legitimization of the Taliban is complete. Diplomatic sources observe that if in 2001, there were only three countries, which had recognized the Taliban, there are many more in 2013.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai is swinging wildly between trying to "accommodate" the Pakistani Army's version of the Taliban's return, to openly criticizing them. After the head of the Pakistan Ulema Council, Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi, was quoted as saying suicide attacks in Afghanistan were legitimate, Karzai said on Sunday, "Afghanistan wants a real struggle against terrorism and wants the Pakistani government to realize that both our nations are burning in the same fire.

"The Pakistani government has an essential and important role in putting out this fire," he sad. "We see that practical steps are not being taken to fight terrorism," Karzai added.

Af phir Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai? Beijing reaches out to Delhi to safeguard its interests - TOI Mobile | The Times of India Mobile Site

 

[pmaitra]

If only Karzai and his entourage were truly free of corruption, the people would have stood completely behind him, and he would have found almost everyone listening to him. Sadly, that is not the case. As long as there is corruption, there will always be pockets of discontent, and this leaves the Afghan government weak. Ruling a country should never be a business; it should be a sacred duty.

 

[Yusuf]

Every country is worried about post US dispensation for both investment security as well as national security. I think India and the rest of the countries should nix any "deal" making with Taliban.

Can the issue of "Islamic" extremism get India and China together in the long term? Time will tell but I had quite some time back written on how China could upstage the US vis a vis India. For that China will have to shelve its "I am the sole lion" of the Asian jungle idea. More than the boundary issue its now about domination of Asia and then the world for China which controls its policies towards India as well as other Asian nations.

 

[hit&run]

Reading diplomatic moves in one hell of a job.

1. China do not need to convince or be friend with India for its investment in Afghanistan. The only mischief monger there is Pakistan who is it's friend, ready to drop pants at their nod. Chinese investment in Afghanistan is as safe as it is in Pakistan.

2. China will spend its money independent of any friendly influence of India, I mean there is no need to make it unnecessarily complex. They will keep it simple by dealing directly with Afghan faction and Pakistan for any of their pressing concerns.

3. China is talking to India just to sniff what we are cooking for herself and Pakistan. It is their effort to stay relevant for free on money and resources spent by India trying build consensus and loop having Russia, Iran et al on board for post USA Afghanistan.

4. Possibility is that they are aware of, that any confrontation between India and Pakistan on Afghanistan will jeopardize their mission post US withdrawal with an understanding that now India is well settled in Afghanistan can have the same nuisance value Pakistan has. Having said that I assume given the money Chinese have they would be happy to prime and push Pakistan in that case to make sure they win and dominate, not to mention make India bogged down if we commit army in Afghanistan.

Such moves they are initiating now will make sure their role in bleeding India or USA and its investments through its proxy Pakistan remain hidden and not scrutinized then.

 

[pmaitra]

PRC's philosophy is grab as much land as you can the moment it is opportune. They will extend such olive branches to India, but given one opportunity, they might even strike a deal with Taliban and de-facto grab more territory in Afghanistan, and further cut India off. India should focus on Gilgit-Baltistan first, and as long as Chinese are building infrastructure there, there is no point in getting into any deal with PRC over Afghanistan.

 

[roma]

PRC's philosophy is grab as much land as you can the moment it is opportune. They will extend such olive branches to India, but given one opportunity, they might even strike a deal with Taliban and de-facto grab more territory in Afghanistan, and further cut India off. India should focus on Gilgit-Baltistan first, and as long as Chinese are building infrastructure there, there is no point in getting into any deal with PRC over Afghanistan.

absolutely !

nothing for me to add to make this more corrrect !!


MOD Edit: There was one typo in my post, and I have corrected it. - PM

 

[Tianshan]

or maybe pakistan is just losing reliability.

 

[Bhadra]

If only Karzai and his entourage were truly free of corruption, the people would have stood completely behind him, and he would have found almost everyone listening to him. Sadly, that is not the case. As long as there is corruption, there will always be pockets of discontent, and this leaves the Afghan government weak. Ruling a country should never be a business; it should be a sacred duty.

Corruption is a tool adopted by the US and Western powers to control the elites and have a starblehold over the power inderectly...

 

[Bhadra]

or maybe pakistan is just losing reliability.

And when were they reliable ? Before 1947 ?

 

[pmaitra]

Corruption is a tool adopted by the US and Western powers to control the elites and have a starblehold over the power inderectly...

You mean the US and the West have deliberately asked Karzai to be corrupt? Why do you say so?

 

[Bhadra]

PRC's philosophy is grab as much land as you can the moment it is opportune. They will extend such olive branches to India, but given one opportunity, they might even strike a deal with Taliban and de-facto grab more territory in Afghanistan, and further cut India off. India should focus on Gilgit-Baltistan first, and as long as Chinese are building infrastructure there, there is no point in getting into any deal with PRC over Afghanistan.

PRC's love for land is ingrained in their tradional fuedal or Maoist leadership and emantes from their historical past wherein every one grabbed their lands and they fancy grabing every land to feel good.

But then land was the major means of production and currency of power, means of communications and trade.

Now Chinese modern leaders concentrate on trade which is the currency of power for Maoist Capitilist economy. Trade is the major way of building Capital (supluses). The national image of Chinese today is trade rather than their vast land. But old habits die hard.

 

[Bhadra]

You mean the US and the West have deliberately asked Karzai to be corrupt? Why do you say so?

In uncertainities, instabilities and home invorenment not being that safe and certain, corruption is the best way to buy out the ruling elites and obtain favourable decisions or actions.

It is not only Afghanistan but in almost all developing countries like India that corruption is the major tool for maintaining control over the those who matter. Indian story is the same. So is Pakistan...

 

[pmaitra]

PRC's love for land is ingrained in their tradional fuedal or Maoist leadership and emantes from their historical past wherein every one grabbed their lands and they fancy grabing every land to feel good.

But then land was the major means of production and currency of power, means of communications and trade.

Now Chinese modern leaders concentrate on trade which is the currency of power for Maoist Capitilist economy. Trade is the major way of building Capital (supluses). The national image of Chinese today is trade rather than their vast land. But old habits die hard.

It might be an old habit, but quite relevant today. Land is as useful today as before. Two things that PRC needs are, (1) resources, and (2) geographical land access for trade. Both require land.

 

[Tianshan]

And when were they reliable ?

i don't know.

 

[hit&run]

or maybe pakistan is just losing reliability.

First I thought the same, but the way you guys are getting their deep ports (I mean sea) it contradicts it.

 

[panduranghari]

The art of war, Chinese style
BY BRAHMA CHELLANEY

The art of war, Chinese style | The Japan Times

NEW DELHI – The recent 50th anniversary of China's invasion of India attracted much discussion, especially within India. Yet the debate shied away from drawing the broader, long-term lessons for Asian security.

The lessons are also relevant for China's other neighbors because the 1962 war helped uncover the key elements of Beijing's war-fighting doctrine — a doctrine it brought into play in 1969 (provoking bloody border clashes with Soviet forces), 1974 (occupying the Paracel Islands), 1979 (invading Vietnam), 1988 (seizing Johnson Reef), and 1995 (grabbing Mischief Reef). In each of those aggressions, the major 1962 elements were replicated.

As a 2010 Pentagon report citing the 1962 war, among others, put it, "The history of modern Chinese warfare provides numerous case studies in which China's leaders have claimed military pre-emption as a strategically defensive act." In fact, a 2010 essay in the Qiu Shi Journal — the ideological and theoretical organ of the Chinese Communist Party's central committee — underscored the centrality of "offense as defense" in Chinese policy by declaring that "Throughout the history of new China, peace in China has never been gained by giving in, only through war. Safeguarding national interests is never achieved by mere negotiations, but by war."

Unlike India, which still naively believes that it gained independence through nonviolence, not because a war-debilitated Britain could no longer hold on to its colonies, "new China" was born in blood after a long civil war. And it was built on blood, with Mao Zedong and other revolutionaries ever ready to employ force internally and externally. No sooner had the new China been established than it doubled its territorial size by forcibly absorbing Xinjiang and Tibet. Domestically, countless millions perished in witch-hunts, fratricidal killings and human-made disasters.

In fact, Mao attacked India after his "Great Leap Forward" created the worst famine in recorded world history, with the resulting damage to his credibility serving as a strong incentive for him to reassert his leadership through a war. The military victory over India indeed helped him to consolidate his grip on power, besides raising his international stature.

Yet, like a rape victim being scolded for inviting the attack, India was repeatedly rapped by some analysts during the anniversary debate for having brought on the Chinese aggression through "provocative" gestures and moves.

When the Chinese military marched hundreds of miles south to occupy the then-independent Tibet, bringing Han soldiers in large numbers to the Himalayan frontiers for the first time and setting the stage for China's furtive encroachment on Indian territory, this supposedly did not constitute sufficient grounds for India to try to guard its undefended Himalayan borders. So when India belatedly deployed some units of its army, the action became, in Beijing's words, a "forward policy" — a term lapped up by biddable analysts and still being bandied about.

India does not commemorate war anniversaries the way the United States does — with annual ceremonies honoring its fallen heroes. For example, at the exact time the Japanese began bombing Pearl Harbor 71 years earlier, commemorations were held last weekend at Pearl Harbor and memorials elsewhere, drawing thousands of Americans. India, in fact, has not built a single memorial to honor those who were martyred in 1962 or any of its other wars. China, by contrast, has a 1962 war memorial in Tibet and its Beijing military museum depicts India as the "aggressor."

In this light, the 50th anniversary of what American scholar Roderick MacFarquhar has dubbed "Mao's India War," which killed 3,270 Indian troops and 725 Chinese, ought to have served as a time for reflection on its larger lessons. By baring key features of Beijing's warfighting doctrine, the 42-day war indeed holds lasting lessons for India and other countries locked in territorial disputes with China.

Here are six of the 1962 principles China replicated in its subsequent aggressions: (1) take the adversary by surprise to maximize political and psychological shock; (2) strike only when the international and regional timing is opportune; (3) hit as fast and as hard as possible by unleashing "human wave" assaults; (4) be willing to take military gambles; (5) mask offense as defense; and (6) wage war with the political objective to "teach a lesson" — an aim publicly acknowledged by Beijing in the 1962 and 1979 attacks.

The Chinese strategy to choose an opportune moment to strike became evident before 1962 when China invaded Tibet in October 1950 while the world was preoccupied with the Korean war. China's rapid success in seizing eastern Tibet emboldened it to intervene in Korea.

The classic case of opportunistic timing, however, was 1962: The attack coincided with the Cuban missile crisis, which threatened to trigger nuclear Armageddon and helped cut off India from potential sources of international support. But no sooner had the U.S. signaled an end to the faceoff with the Soviet Union by terminating Cuba's quarantine than China declared a unilateral cease-fire. Such was the shrewd timing that throughout the Chinese attack, the international spotlight remained on the U.S.-Soviet showdown, not on China's bloody invasion of India.

Similarly, China seized the Paracel Islands from South Vietnam in 1974 after the U.S. military withdrawal from there had created a strategic vacuum. It occupied the disputed Johnson Reef in the Spratlys in 1988 when Moscow's support for Vietnam had petered out after the Soviets stopped using Cam Ranh Bay as a major forward deployment base. And in 1995, China seized Mischief Reef when the Philippines stood isolated after having forced the U.S. to close its major military bases at Subic Bay and elsewhere on the archipelago.

The 1979 attack on Vietnam occurred after Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping convinced U.S. President Jimmy Carter during his Washington visit that a "limited military action" against Vietnam was essential to contain Soviet and Vietnamese influence in Southeast Asia and to force Hanoi to withdraw its forces from Cambodia. After 29 days, China ended its Vietnam invasion and withdrew, claiming Hanoi had been sufficiently chastised.

It is apparent that new China hews to ancient theorist Sun Tzu's advice: "All warfare is based on deception. "¦ Attack where the enemy is unprepared; sally out when it does not expect you. These are the strategist's keys to victory."

 

[no smoking]

And when were they reliable ? Before 1947 ?

They are quite reliable in anything regarding india.
They are also quite relliable in China's fight against uyghur extrimism. Yes, thanks to their assistance, Uyghur's threat to China is kept at minimum level.

 

[arya]

we have to invest and makesure investment remain safe

 

[Sam2012]

They are quite reliable in anything regarding india.
They are also quite relliable in China's fight against uyghur extrimism. Yes, thanks to their assistance, Uyghur's threat to China is kept at minimum level.

You are absolutely right then why don't China engage Pakistan in restoring its national interest in Afghanistan? Since India is the least reliable country in the world in chinese eyes:thumb:

 

[t_co]

You are absolutely right then why don't China engage Pakistan in restoring its national interest in Afghanistan? Since India is the least reliable country in the world in chinese eyes:thumb:

When did his response state anything about India being unreliable? All he has noted is that Pakistan is a nation that has worked well with China, year in, year out.

Anyhow, no doubt China and Pakistan are working together on Afghanistan...

Pak, China, Afghanistan hold trilateral meeting - PakTribune