Global Insights: China-India Strategic Relationship Marking Time

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Global Insights: China-India Strategic Relationship Marking Time

Richard Weitz | Bio | 21 Dec 2010
Column

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited New Delhi last week for the first time in almost five years, accompanied by more than 300 Chinese business leaders. The composition of Wen's delegation made clear that the Chinese were eager to return to the formula successfully pursued by Chinese and Indian officials during the past two decades: keeping their issues of divergence -- primarily strategic issues such as their boundary disputes, PRC ties with Pakistan, and the Sino-Indian military rivalry -- in the background, while focusing their talks on areas of greater potential convergence, such as expanding mutual trade and investment opportunities.

Although this approach was pioneered by former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandhi in 1988, when he became the first Indian prime minister in 34 years to visit Beijing, some Indians now worry that Beijing seeks to make their country economically dependent on China in order to enhance the PRC's leverage regarding areas of competition and conflict.

Indian trade with China has been growing faster than with any other country, making the PRC India's largest trading partner in 2008. Whereas bilateral commerce amounted to only $3 billion in 2001-2002, two-way trade should reach approximately $60 billion this year. Yet, the trade imbalance in Beijing's favor has widened just as dramatically in recent years, and could exceed $25 billion for 2010 -- India's highest bilateral annual trade deficit with any single foreign partner. The multi-billion trade gap is partly caused by the Chinese buying primarily low-value Indian products: More than half of the PRC's imports consists of raw iron ore and other low-end commodities and raw materials, rather than high value-added goods such as processed steel.

Both sides complain about barriers to their direct investment in the other country. These impediments often reflect strategic considerations, such as India's concerns about giving the Chinese -- who the Indians suspect of conducting cyber-spying on Indian computer networks -- access to India's information-technology sector. For whatever reason, Chinese investment in India was a mere $221 million in 2009, representing just 0.1 percent of the PRC's total external foreign direct investment. By contrast, Chinese investment in Pakistan is seven times greater.

Shortly before Wen arrived, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao called on PRC authorities to help create "a level playing field" for Indian investors in China, citing the need to expand "access to Chinese markets especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, IT, engineering goods, where our companies have often faced non-tariff and opaque barriers." Rao said that the Indian government aimed to take reciprocal measures to encourage Chinese investment in India, since "India needs an investment of $1 trillion during the next Five-Year Plan period in infrastructure." Rao further added that "China is well-positioned to participate in this process." One notable difference between the Chinese and Indian economies is that the PRC has far superior economic infrastructure, whereas India's global economic potential is hobbled by its lagging energy, transportation, communications, and other networks.

In New Delhi, Wen said that Chinese and Indian companies would sign six major business deals worth an estimated $16 billion, several billion more than what U.S. President Barack Obama announced during his visit the previous month. The new China-India contracts include power, communications, and other infrastructure equipment -- with Chinese banks supplying most of the funds.

Following Wen's meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the two issued a joint communiqué that provided some details regarding how they would improve their bilateral economic ties. According to this document, China and India will establish a CEO forum to consider how to overcome barriers to mutual direct investment. They will also open a strategic economic dialogue on macroeconomic policy coordination. Finally, Wen and his Indian hosts announced a goal of $100 billion for two-way trade by 2015.

Wen said he was eager to see an early beginning to the negotiations regarding a possible free trade agreement between the world's two fastest-growing major economies. Yet, there was no mention of a possible start date for such talks in their communiqué. Although the Chinese government has sought an FTA with India for years, Indians fear that such an arrangement would lead to a further deterioration in their trade balance due to the resulting influx of cheap Chinese goods. That could also devastate India's weaker domestic industries, most of which need to develop further to compete effectively with their Chinese counterparts.

The communiqué avoided direct mention of how the two governments might address their strategic differences. Rao said that Wen and Indian leaders engaged in frank discussions in private about their regional concerns, including Pakistani-based terrorism. For the first time, the Chinese government implicitly acknowledged Indian concerns about Pakistani extremists by publicly reaffirming its support for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267, which imposes sanctions on individuals, companies, and other entities engaged in international terrorism. Rao also confirmed that the Sino-Indian communications hotline, one of their confidence-building measures negotiated earlier but not yet implemented, had begun operating shortly before Wen's arrival.

As in their other previous joint statements in recent years, the two governments reaffirmed their desire to resolve their border disputes peacefully. Special representatives from both countries have held 14 rounds of talks on the issue over the past years, with few results. In his public remarks, Wen said it could take generations to resolve the complex disputes, which are embedded in each country's lengthy history and sense of national identity.

Indian critics of New Delhi's non-confrontational stance toward China noted that, despite his conciliatory rhetoric, Wen gave little evidence of actually changing Chinese policies that challenge Indian sovereignty. These include Beijing's claims that the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh is an extension of Chinese-ruled Tibet; and the PRC's refusal to grant regular visas to Indian citizens of Kashmiri origin who travel to China. On this occasion, India responded by refusing to include its usual recognition of the PRC's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan in the joint communiqué.

Critics also noted that Wen continued on to Islamabad immediately after leaving India. While there, he reaffirmed PRC military and nuclear assistance to Pakistan, which Indian strategists see as designed to enhance Pakistan's potential as a military rival to India, and with it, Beijing's leverage over New Delhi.

In contrast to their bilateral tensions, China and India cooperate more effectively on a number of global issues. For example, they have aligned in several multinational dialogues, including the BRIC grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, and multilateral initiatives to reform global financial institutions and enhance global food security. The United Nations has also offered opportunities for cooperation, with China even supporting India's recent successful bid to occupy Asia's non-permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council beginning in January 2011. Still, Wen failed to echo Obama's call a few weeks ago to make India a permanent UNSC member. The joint communiqué simply states that, "China attaches great importance to India's status in international affairs . . . [and] understands and supports India's aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council."

To prevent another five-year gap in senior-level bilateral visits, the joint communiqué said the two countries would conduct such reciprocal exchanges more regularly. That can only be a positive development given both countries' surging economic growth and increasing international influence in recent years -- and likely in years to come. But in future, leaders on both sides must make a greater effort to use those meetings to address their strategic differences if enduring progress in the bilateral relationship is to occur.

Richard Weitz is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Review senior editor. His weekly WPR column, Global Insights, appears every Tuesday.

Kadam Tal
The over dependence on cheap Chinese products, to include heavy machinery would be paving a way for Chinese neo colonialism.

It maybe noted that the article states - More than half of the PRC's imports consists of raw iron ore and other low-end commodities and raw materials, rather than high value-added goods such as processed steel.

It is the Chinese way to ensure a slow dependence on China.

While China cannot change Indians into vassals of China as they did not other non Han races who were slowly assimilated, the Chinese way of slowly converting people to their way of thinking should never be forgotten. It is subtle and unobtrusive and is projected as a 'win win' for those following their ways.

An explanation that it is so is the simple allegory that China is actually a devious imperialist and colonialist country with cunnig ways to make people dependent on them.

To believe that China is not a colonialist or an imperialist power would be a wrong premise. It may appear incongruous prima facie, but a look at their history would indicate that precisely the size of China today was but a legacy of colonial pursuit. The key 'magic wand' was to change the population brought under Chinese rule, by Chinese expansion and colonial pursuit was to do so 'by the Chinese way'. In short, destroy the captured peoples' culture, heritage, traditions, customs, languages and instead transplanting it with Han replicas. In addition, the Chinese employed humiliation on the captured people by calling them barbarians, wherein they found solace and respect into 'converting' to being Hans!!! I have at length explained in many of my posts and so recounting would be repetitious.

However, for those interested, here is an interesting link on the Ancient Chinese Barbarians;
Ancient Chinese Barbarians

That said, it will be seen that while India is having a huge trade deficit with China and that too buying cheap and low end goods, China with stoic ensured that India does not get a headway into China with high end products and services which can queer her commanding economic leverage.

It is interesting how the Chinese are touting a FTA with all due politeness and with the ulterior motive to destroy India's economic growth!!

The Chinese chicanery is worth observing. While reaffirming its support for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267, which imposes sanctions on individuals, companies, and other entities engaged in international terrorism, Wen praised Pakistan for its immense effort in the War of Terror. It short, it indicates China has no principles.

In the strategic realm Wen gave little evidence of actually changing Chinese policies that challenge Indian sovereignty. These include Beijing's claims that the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh is an extension of Chinese-ruled Tibet; and the PRC's refusal to grant regular visas to Indian citizens of Kashmiri origin who travel to China.

However, it appears that India's patience is wearing thin. India responded by refusing to include its usual recognition of the PRC's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan in the joint communiqué.

Therefore, as it stands, there is little hope of an Sino Indian thaw.

In this connection, the visit of the Russian President and signing of the huge defence deal is an indicator of India, resolve to identify the Chinese puzzle in concrete strategic terms, wherein, while keeping the Indo US strategic ties in place to ensure that the seas remain strategically sanitised, she also attempt to woo Russia into a partnership whereby China has little elbow room for manoeuvre in the neighbourhood, with Russia imposing her squeeze on the land mass. Hence, China from all ends remain 'boxed' and confined from any attempts at mischief.
 

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
My friend Ray:

First, nobody can contain China, just like nobody can contain India. European countries once tried to contain newly born USA, what's the result? Roman was collapsed from inside, so did Soviet Union. As long as China and India people keep dreaming about better future and work on it, they are unstoppable. You've been to Singapore before; you must experience the vital force behind Chinese culture. The real danger to undermine China and India's development comes from within. We should keep a very sharp eye on how our government is running the country.

Second, India is not vassal of China. Yes you have big trade deficit with China, so does the world! Few countries have trade surplus with China for now. Australia export way more iron ore to China than India; Indonesia export way more rubber material to China; Thailand exports way more rice to China; 27% of Korea's export goes to China. Even Brazil and Argentina are heavily depending on exporting to China. There are many countries have higher dependence rate on China than India has. Did they claim being colony of Chinese? It's funny a lot of Americans claim their country is owned by China, do you believe it? The world is flat and international trade has been spread to every corner of the world. China just happens to be the center of manufacturing for now. It can be changed. I wouldn't be surprised if next decade India has big surplus with China.

Third, you claim Han Chinese are imperialist and expansionist. If so, I would say every race is falling into this category. Do you think Russian is naturally inheriting such vast domain? Does USA deserve 50 states in 1787? How about British, they crossed ocean to occupy India for well over 100 years. At least Han Chinese didn't do it to India. You should also check your own history find out if you are truly that innocent. Ancient China is surrounding by many states. There were constant wars and people are facing choice of "live or die". Getting bigger and stronger is the only option to survive. It happened everywhere in the world.

Like Premier Wen said, it will take generation for China and India to solve border issue. We should remain calm and restraint to deal with it. You thought India is victim, we thought China is victim too. These debates can go on and on and never ending. About Pakistan, Indian always thought China is using Pakistan to undermine India; How about you hosting Dailai Lama to undermine China since 1959? Yes, we all have good reasons. But we should not live in conspiracy and suspicious state like other Indian said. It won't help. Get out of the door to understand each other because we didn't kill each other's mother.

A lot of Chinese also have such conspiracy mentality. They often doubt intention of every action by outside world. But I think Chinese and Indian people should have growing confidence on their country, on themselves and on their future.
 
Last edited:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
About Pakistan, Indian always thought China is using Pakistan to undermine India; How about you hosting Dailai Lama to undermine China since 1959?
Could principally agree with most of the post, but giving refuge to a man and feeding an entire nation into a snake are at two very different proportions.

Yes, we all have good reasons.
Reasons ?? .... to do this ?? What hell of a reason could there be.
Get out of the door to understand each other because we didn't kill each other's mother.
What ? ........... buddy what are you trying to say, when did we kill anyone's mother by the way.
 

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
Could principally agree with most of the post, but giving refuge to a man and feeding an entire nation into a snake are at two very different proportions.


Reasons ?? .... to do this ?? What hell of a reason could there be.

What ? ........... buddy what are you trying to say, when did we kill anyone's mother by the way.
I mean we don't have hate that can not be forgotten.
 

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
Could principally agree with most of the post, but giving refuge to a man and feeding an entire nation into a snake are at two very different proportions.


Reasons ?? .... to do this ?? What hell of a reason could there be.

What ? ........... buddy what are you trying to say, when did we kill anyone's mother by the way.
Again, China is not using Pakistan to undermine India. Indo-Pakistan hate each other not because of China
 

niharjhatn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
899
Likes
391
Again, China is not using Pakistan to undermine India. Indo-Pakistan hate each other not because of China
No? Yet simply allowing His Holiness the Dalia Lama to seek refuge in India is considered a move to "undermine" China - on another forum, a Chinese member even accused the GoI of working with the Dalai Lama to fund Tibetan terrorism!

The fact remains that China are just not adopting a definite stance on Indo-Pak issues - condemning terrorism, but not using their influence in Pakistan to do anything about it.

Honestly, I feel this is not the MAIN issue, but the fact that it is one of a complex myriad of issues that are pulling bilateral relations to a standstill. But it is definitely not comforting when Mr Wei doesn't believe issues regarding borders etc. can be solved now, and instead must be thrust on "future generations".
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Kickof.

You are entitled to your views.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been given refuge as per the UN Conventions on Refugee. As per the understanding with India, HH the Dalai Lama has not been permitted to undertake anti Chinese activities from Indian soil. If it were not so, then India would not have stopped the CIA from using the Khamba rebels who were succeeding.

True, most imperialist or colonial mindsets believed and practised expansionism. Lebebsraum some dubbed it to while embarking on the same quest. I am afraid, India would not quite come into that classification because even if there was this desire, history did not permit such an adventure. On the other hand, China had the opportunity.

Why Russia collapsed is another long story. Why the Sun set on the British Empire that is another story. However, to believe that China is befriending Pakistan out of sheer camaraderie and love for humanity and not for geostrategic reasons, would be stretching the point a little too beyond the reality!

Indians do not hate Pakistanis. The animosity, if any, is the act of war she undertook immediately after Partition to forcibly take Kashmir and that too, through subterfuge of using military regulars and in the guise of tribal!! Deceit at the word, 'Go'!
 
Last edited:

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
The holy monk is not sitting there pray for the world peace. At least not in his early years before Nobel peace prize, there were thousands life lost because his holiness's desire to liberate Tibet.

Anyway, Just like you said, it's just one problem for complex Indo-China relationship. I think the main problem here is mistrust between two nations resulting from China's support to Pakistan and Chinese suspicion of India's intention toward China.

Many Indian friends here like to quote those articles claiming China is bad and evil. But most of those articles are coming from sources not friendly to China, which further enlarged the conspiracy theory Indian has about China. It's not helpful and will further delay the progress of improvement of bilateral relationship that is beneficiary to both countries.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
The holy monk is not sitting there pray for the world peace. At least not in his early years before Nobel peace prize, there were thousands life lost because his holiness's desire to liberate Tibet.
Being holy doesnt mean he is not entitled to live in peace and harmony in Tibet. He has every right to demand freedom\autonomy of Tibet. If he want he need to issue just one statement and whole Tibet will burn . Its his love for his own people that he is asking them to keep quite and protest through peaceful means . There are many groups of Tibetans who advocate armed struggle against occupation and are not able to do it only because dalai Lama is dead against it . All that poor man is aksing is limited autonomy and that too is not acceptable to CCP top brass. I see Tibet going to flames once Dalai lama dies.
China should be thankful to India that we have not allowed armed or violent struggle of Tibetans . Instead they do Just opposite by Supporting terrorism of Pakistan .
 

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
Being holy doesnt mean he is not entitled to live in peace and harmony in Tibet. He has every right to demand freedom\autonomy of Tibet. If he want he need to issue just one statement and whole Tibet will burn . Its his love for his own people that he is asking them to keep quite and protest through peaceful means . There are many groups of Tibetans who advocate armed struggle against occupation and are not able to do it only because dalai Lama is dead against it . All that poor man is aksing is limited autonomy and that too is not acceptable to CCP top brass. I see Tibet going to flames once Dalai lama dies.
China should be thankful to India that we have not allowed armed or violent struggle of Tibetans . Instead they do Just opposite by Supporting terrorism of Pakistan .
His holiness could stay in Tibet for the peaces of Tibetans instead of flee away. He did encourage restrains for Tibetans after he is awarded Nobel Prize. But before that he and his government are not that peaceful.

Regarding India's role on Tibetan exile government, I think its overall positive and Chinese government recognizes it. China seldom criticizes India on Tibetan issue.

China's support to Pakistan doesn't mean China support terrorist against India. US supported Pakistan for long time and gave billions of dollars, why India n doesn't claim they are support terrorist?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top