Modi Is Dragging India Into A US-China Conflict

Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Zebra, Jul 19, 2016.

  1. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    http://idrw.org/modi-dragging-india-us-china-conflict/#more-101917

    Modi Is Dragging India Into A US-China Conflict

    Published July 19, 2016
    SOURCE: Mani Shankar Aiyar / NDTV

    In the last century before the birth of Jesus Christ, the Roman literary critic Horace famously wrote, “quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus” – sometimes, even Homer nods. Did Sushma Swaraj nod when she was in Moscow for the tripartite meeting between India, China and Russia on 18th April this year? For, with the proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the complaint lodged against China by the Philippines drawing to an imminent conclusion, she seems to have slept off when her delegation acquiesced in the wording of paragraph 21 of the joint communiqué.

    The joint communiqué eschewed all reference to the case pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It did, of course, refer to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) but, without even a break in the sentence, added immediately after a comma, “as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the DOC”.

    Had India been alert, she should have immediately asked China how China proposed to reconcile adherence to UNCLOS, which provides for arbitration, with DOC that excludes arbitration. Instead, DOC commits the Philippines and China, along with other ASEAN countries, “to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes” through “friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned”. There is nothing there about arbitration under Annexe VII of UNCLOS.

    Note the striking similarity between this language and that of the 1972 Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan that took the issue of Jammu & Kashmir out of the international realm and placed it firmly in the domain of bilateral settlement. This was done by first affirming that “the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern relations between the two countries” – just as the Moscow joint communiqué refers to “the principles of international law, as reflected notably in UNCLOS” – and then going on to unambiguously state that “the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations” (or “by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them.”). No scope is left for third party meddling. That is exactly what China sought through DOC.

    This has enabled the Chinese charge d’affaires (acting Ambassador) in New Delhi to claim in an interview to The Hindu (15 July 2016) that India had signed a “common position” statement at the Russia-India-China (RIC) Foreign Ministers meeting in Moscow on 18th April 2016. He explained: “There is a paragraph in the RIC statement that stated the common stand of all three countries. This was in support of China’s position”. So are we in support of China’s position?There is little doubt that the RIC joint communiqué does, in fact, reflect the Chinese stand. So, are we endorsing the Chinese, and negating the position of the other littoral countries of the South China Sea, including the Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei? The MEA spokesman’s answer is, “For us, this is not an issue of being in favour or against any particular country”. Oh yeah? When the arbitration, to which China was not a party, has gone all the way with the Philippines and all the way against China, how can we hold that the verdict must be respected but should not be construed as being in favour of or against either of “the sovereign states directly concerned” – to quote once again from the wording of DOC?

    The Hindu report did in fact ask the question of “a senior official of MEA” and was given the brush-off answer, “Diplomacy is the art of reading between the lines.” So, reading between the lines, what are we signaling to China and the world? That we don’t know where we stand? Or that we, too, can be devious and say one thing to please the Chinese, and the opposite to the US and their ASEAN friends? Or not mean what we say or sign? In his reaction to the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the MEA spokesman said, “We believe all parties should show utmost respect to the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order for the seas and oceans.” He added, “the authority of the Annexe VII Tribunal and its award is recognized in Part XV of the UNCLOS itself.” Fine. Then why did we not say so three months earlier in Moscow?

    It is crystal clear that the Moscow communiqué did not seek a resolution of differences on issues relating to the South China Sea through resort to the arbitration provisions of UNCLOS, just as the Simla agreement eschews any resort to the UN or any form of international arbitration. The Moscow communiqué then advocates, in effect, that the path of “friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned” should be followed, as laid down in DOC and the DOC Guidelines. No wonder the Chinese charge d’affaires could claim that the MEA spokesman’s clarification “showed nothing that would suggest the Indian government is supporting this award.” Are we? Or does our “giving utmost respect to UNCLOS” mean we are saying, as the Americans and Japanese are, that the PCA award must be accepted by the Chinese, or otherwise enforced on China?

    The self-evident contradiction between what we said at Moscow and what we are now saying is perhaps a striking first manifestation of the new principle of our foreign policy vouchsafed by Narendra Modi to his interviewer on a prominent news channel that India had moved from being “non-aligned” to being “multi-aligned”? Is this why we were hunting with the hares in Moscow and then hunting with the hounds in Washington?

    For between the Moscow meeting and the Permanent Court of Arbitration award fell two key India-US meetings that dealt, among other matters, with the trouble in the South China Sea. The first was the Delhi meeting in April between Raksha Mantri Manohar Parrikar and the US Secretary of State for Defense, Ashton Carter. The joint statement issued after their meeting underscored their joint commitment to “safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation throughout the region, including the South China Sea” reinforced by the “Rim-of-the-Pacific multilateral naval exercise” to be held later this year. The South China Sea is the major trouble spot on the Rim of the Pacific. Are we lining up with the US against China here?

    Contrast this with the DOC preamble that commits ASEAN and China to “a peaceful, friendly and harmonious environment in the South China Sea” and enhancing “favourable conditions for peaceful and durable solutions of differences and disputes among countries concerned”. DOC also seeks to “encourage other countries to respect the principles contained in this Declaration.” So, Parrikar says one thing and Swaraj quite another. Are both on the same page?

    Modi then goes to Washington and commits India to being a “Major Defense Partner” of the US. He also jointly affirms with the US President that, “the US and India should look to each other as priority partners in the Asia Pacific”. The South China Sea is right there, in the Asia Pacific region. Are we then multi-aligned to China in Moscow and to the US in Washington?

    There is a huge military crisis unfolding in and around the South China Sea. While the US patrols the waters around the South China Sea and conducts aggressive air surveillance, Senator Joni Ernst (Republican), joined by five others, has introduced a resolution calling for the “implementation” of the tribunal’s verdict and, to this end to “reinforce US assets in the region to maintain the status quo”.

    China responds that “the temporary tribunal on the South China Sea arbitration is not an international tribunal and its composition and function has no legitimacy… The award given by the tribunal is not authoritative”. It is, adds China, “without binding force.” There can be no doubt that the award is without binding force. So, military might cannot be brought to “enforce” the verdict, whatever Senator Ernst and his companions might want. If, however, the US executive listens to its hawks and attempts any naval or air action, China has given notice that it might establish an “air defense identification zone in the South China Sea” and unambiguously warns, “If anyone challenges China’s rights and interests by taking provocative actions based on the ruling, China will surely make a resolute response” (The Hindu, 14 July 2016: China warns of air defence zone in South China Sea).

    We live in very dangerous times. The Second Cold War and, possibly, the Third World War, are in the offing in the South China Sea. Where Nehru’s India neatly sidestepped the first Cold War by preferring non-alignment to alignment, and understood that responsible government cannot be multi-aligned between contested claims with military overtones, Modi is dragging India into the middle of a conflict not of our making. We are perilously close to replacing Pakistan as America’s principal military ally in South Asia.
     
    Neo likes this.
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    It is not an anti-PRC alliance that bothers me. It is placing our faith and trust in the US that bothers me.

    I think there is a balancing act needed. We need to keep up pressure on PRC, in the wake of the several border violations by PLA. What we need to seriously plan is how do we manage our foreign relations once the US decides to dump India and move on?

    @Razor, @spikey360, your views?
     
  4. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    PM preferred to join SCO.

    It was his wish. It was his decision and authority as he got the 'executive power'.

    That is fine. Nothing wrong in it.

    But he also said we will stay on both the side.

    So people start asking about it now.

    He signed agreements for one side, what about another side ......?

    As simple as that.

    It was his idea to join both the sides, which he failed to keep in his action now.

    And about fighter aircrafts, there are many countries on earth who keep buying aircrafts from many sides.

    No one cried about it.

    One more country also can join that list.

    And there are full guarantee that Sun won't rise from west after it.

    What say .....!
     
  5. AnantS

    AnantS Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Location:
    Yatra Tatra
    especially we know how much ally US was of help during Indo China conflict of 1962. Heck our enemy Pakistan made more favorable noises than western world in 1962. But this article is written by Paki mouth piece Aiyar, so I would take his analysis with bag full of salt.
     
  6. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    India is offering a corridor to PCR.

    In a way India is also part of 'string of pearls' now.
     
    raja696 likes this.
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    It is not PM's decision. The article says Modi is dragging . . ., does not mean Modi is taking these decisions. Decisions are taken collectively by a lot of minds in the MEA and PMO.
     
    TODELU, A chauhan and raja696 like this.
  8. Mikesingh

    Mikesingh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    That clown Mani Shankar Aiyar wrote this piece of rubbish?

    Ok. Nuff said....
     
  9. airtel

    airtel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    1,625
    SOURCE: Mani Shankar Aiyar / NDTV :cruisin2::cruisin2::cruisin2:
     
  10. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    3,891
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Stopped reading at "Mani Shankar Aiyar."
     
  11. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,172
    Likes Received:
    7,724
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    Isn't the Aiyar same person who supported Paris attacks last year? o_O
    Plus he's a congi after all.

    Yes, India sidestepped in cold war and adopted socialist policies which nearly killed our economic growth and strategic interests.
    It wasn't smartness, it's foolishness.:dude:
    LOL, preferred?:biggrin2:
    Over which? NSG?
    If we preferred SCO, that means we can join only one body at once (which isn't true).
    Nor government has said anywhere that they will join SCO but not NSG.

    As I have been pointing out from some time, @Zebra is in bed with America and banned @Dark Soul with China.
    Both keep waving their tails for their masters ignoring India's national interests.:frusty:
    Half braincell, it's PRC not PCR.
    Second, only a fool can compare India with countries included in Chinese string of pearls. Just compare them with India at once. Where do they stand against India, even together.:D
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2016
    VIP, Screambowl and OneGrimPilgrim like this.
  12. Badsah

    Badsah Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    35
    Just need balls to counter chinese ...... take example of Japan tiny island country bring them to knees. Chinese knew they cannot fight with Indians from front and back-stab with hindi.. chini bhai bhai. Who cannot beat from front do backstabbing...else why would they say bhai bhai ?
     
  13. OneGrimPilgrim

    OneGrimPilgrim Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    Location:
    whr invaders hv been eulogised, heroes binned!!
    he's also the same MC-BC paikhane mein ki paidaaish sooar ki ch**t bhandwe ki muut who begged porkistanis to help the congrA$$ remove PM NaMo, & also the same person who called Maj. Gen. GD Bakshi 'stupid!' on live show for politely asking to think why civilians should keep getting sacrificed at the hands of porki terrorists and for suggesting surgical strikes, carrot and stick policies as counter-measures!
     
    VIP, A chauhan and Indx TechStyle like this.
  14. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    1,888
    Location:
    Gujarat
    Mani + NDTV . A perfect combo. I stopped reading soon as I read the writer's name.
     
  15. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Now Aman ki Tamasha brigade head is giving lessons in international politics.
     
  16. OneGrimPilgrim

    OneGrimPilgrim Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    Location:
    whr invaders hv been eulogised, heroes binned!!
    @Mikesingh @tarunraju @HariPrasad-1 - see sirs its because of ppl like YOU that the intellectual wealth of this country starting from nayantara dajjal gave up their lollipops! y'all are.......INTOLERANT, to others' views! this is why Modi/Bhakts/BJP-RSS/looney RW fringe are a threat to our Ganga-Jamuni tahzeeb, fabric of secular India, idea of India, aman ka hagaasa, ^#&* aaloo pakoda ^#&*, ^#&* udankhatola ^#&*!!!
     
    VIP, Screambowl, A chauhan and 4 others like this.
  17. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,119
    Location:
    India
    Absolutely...US cannot be trusted..so is Manisankar..

    The pressure on PRC depends upon the mess china makes with its chaddy less,shameless buddy pakistan...so far its been like that. US is the counterweight India play against china on all the spoilers china placed against India and for a fact US would take all options India would give them against china. Its a wonderful theater.
    so..if china says its a responsible administration for a peaceful rise it should act like one and not back stab a major trade partner where it matters the most.

    If china resolves its tensions with India amicably then US has less character to play upfront.
     
    VIP, A chauhan and raja696 like this.
  18. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    This is a dangerous game we are playing at the moment. It is justified only and only because China are playing dirty in Arunachal and Ladakh and doing frequent incursions. Otherwise, I find no reason or justification in antagonising China.
    Yes, China is a big power. A big nuclear power. But that is not the reason we must be wary of it. It should be because this big nuclear power with nearly 3Billion population is sitting right across the mountains.
    Bharat must attempt to make the Russia-China-India alliance work. Together, this alliance has the might to counter the whole of NATO. It is a dream(maybe nightmare for some) worth dreaming - challenging the might of the mightiest.

    US is a country ruled by Jews. Jews for their dirty monetary gains and for the purpose of protecting Israel are allowing angry young whites to travel throughout the world and kill whoever they like to satisfy their primeval lust for war. [As the dark ages, and colonial empires have so aptly shown] To ally with this country is foolishness of great degree. Especially with neighbours like China and its neighbour Russia. It is like antagonising your whole neighbourhood only to satisfy some person in another city. There is no point in allying with USA. If anything we can ally with the countries of SCO, or we can pretty much do nothing. But choosing USA, the pimp of Pakistan - is wrong, briefly speaking.
     
    Akask kumar likes this.
  19. aliyah

    aliyah Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    302
    source: manishankar iyer.......nice, dump all n follow his Pakistan policy too ;)
     
  20. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,498
    Likes Received:
    4,680
    I wouldn't touch any discussion with barge of a pole that is initiated this Macaulay's orphan, a Nehruvian plaque that is still active and propagating ischemia of pessimism and worst kind of foreign policy admonition that has military ramifications as China is out doing us in terms of parity, encroaching our meadows meters by meters that we need military alliances ASAP.

    His schizophrenic rants need no further analysis simply because it comes out of crude hate that this electorally humiliated man vomits against Modi and his government. To his stubbornness, he makes no bones about the same hate and never regrets when caught for his hypocrisies. People like him are intentionally misleading to harm India because they are out of power.

    It will be failure of this young forum to look at people like Mani Shanker Aiyer who won't get out of their Nehruvian hangover and sycophancy of Gandhi family, the same family who lost thousands of miles of land to China but a simple fact that military doctrines are always made looking at the neighbors as they (China) pose more threat than a distant enemy (USA). A bad border makes good Army, A good army makes better peace. Unlike Nehru who thought army is not required.

    It is a pity that people who do not watch China, do not know what kind of build up they are mounting and how Indian government is responding militarily are giving unsolicited advise not to antagonize China.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2016
  21. Screambowl

    Screambowl Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,645
    Likes Received:
    3,262
    Location:
    N/A
    US is more worried about Chinese military and NOT industry.

    US has invested Billions in China, why would they want it to be in water? US wants Chinese industry to run same time wants to weaken their military. And there comes India.

    If some one understands this game plan may put some light. How is US going to keep Chinese industry safe but weaken it's military?
     

Share This Page