Beijing reaches out to Delhi to safeguard its interests

Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Yusuf, Mar 5, 2013.

  1. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    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
     
    panduranghari and hit&run like this.
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    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.
     
  5. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,498
    Likes Received:
    4,679
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2013
  6. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
    desicanuk and roma like this.
  7. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,863
    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
     
  8. Tianshan

    Tianshan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    249
    or maybe pakistan is just losing reliability.
     
  9. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Corruption is a tool adopted by the US and Western powers to control the elites and have a starblehold over the power inderectly...
     
  10. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    And when were they reliable ? Before 1947 ?
     
    rock127 likes this.
  11. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    You mean the US and the West have deliberately asked Karzai to be corrupt? Why do you say so?
     
  12. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    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.
     
  13. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    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...
     
  14. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
  15. Tianshan

    Tianshan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    249
    i don't know.
     
    arnabmit likes this.
  16. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,498
    Likes Received:
    4,679
    First I thought the same, but the way you guys are getting their deep ports (I mean sea) it contradicts it.
     
  17. panduranghari

    panduranghari Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,790
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    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.”
     
    arnabmit and Yusuf like this.
  18. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    422
    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.
     
  19. arya

    arya Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    340
    we have to invest and makesure investment remain safe
     
  20. Sam2012

    Sam2012 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    205
    Location:
    Bangalore
    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::namaste:
     
  21. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    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
     

Share This Page