The Hindu Business Line : Backdrop of PM’s US visit

In diplomacy, tight segregation of events is sometimes resorted to in an effort to tackle sensitive situations. Dr Manmohan Singh’s current visit to the US, which comes so soon after the US-China Joint Statement in which an uncharacteristic reference was made to the “India-Pakistan problem”, is one such instance.

Clearly, there is every likelihood that the visit will be described, in ordinary parlance, as having being “successful”, which could in effect mean that a big tug-of-war is on between New Delhi and Washington on reining in the so-called India-baiters’ club in the Obama Administration, which is becoming increasing assertive in its stance with time.

The US-China Joint Statement, issued after the recent Obama visit to Beijing, is important in view of the give-and-take approach adopted by it on a number of issues which have been nothing short of explosive in past years.

Take, for instance, the acceptance of a US role in Asia which, historically, has been considered by the Chinese to be their preserve, specifically to the exclusion of any American involvement and interference. As is usual on such occasions, the Joint Statement has the following cryptic sentence: “China welcomes the United States as an Asia-Pacific nation that contributes to peace, stability and prosperity in the region,” an innocuous assertion if there was any but one which formally admits Washington to the top rung of Asian confabulation, something that was unthinkable in the closing decades of the last century.

The statement also said that the two countries shared “broad common interests” in the Asia-Pacific region and supported the “development and improvement of an open and inclusive regional cooperation framework that is beneficial to all”. The specific point was made that they would work towards encouraging “APEC to play a more effective role in promoting regional trade and investment liberalisation and economic and technical cooperation and for the ASEAN Regional Forum to play a more effective role in strengthening regional security cooperation”.

Differences on human rights

On its part, the US has made a substantial concession on the human rights aspect of Chinese Government policy, veering away from the uncompromising line Washington has always adopted in the past, which has never failed to pull up Beijing for the numerous human rights violations perpetrated in China. Among other things, the Joint Statement said: “The United States and China underlined that each country and its people have the right to choose their own path, and all countries should respect each other’s choice of a development model.

Both sides recognised that the United States and China have differences on the issue of human rights. Addressing these differences in the spirit of equality and mutual respect, as well as promoting and protecting human rights consistent with international human rights instruments, the two sides agreed to hold the next round of the official human rights dialogue in Washington D.C. by the end of February 2010”.

On the Taiwan issue, another historical point of discord between Washington and Beijing, the Joint Statement struck a balance, which indeed could imply that the “one-China” policy espoused by Washington would not object to the absorption of Taiwan into Mainland China rather than the historical policy of backing a separate State entity of Taiwan. The Joint Statement said: “The United States and China underscored the importance of the Taiwan issue in US-China relations. China emphasised that the Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and expressed the hope that the United States will honour its relevant commitments and appreciate and support the Chinese side’s position on this issue.

The United States stated that it follows its one-China policy and abides by the principles of the three US-China joint communiqués. The United States welcomes the peaceful development of relations across the Taiwan Strait and looks forward to efforts by both sides to increase dialogues and interactions in economic, political, and other fields, and develop more positive and stable cross-Strait relations”.

The spirit of accommodation is also evident in the stand taken by the two countries on the nuclear aspirations of Iran, a subject regarding which Beijing has hitherto consistently adopted a Teheran-friendly line.

Spirit of accommodation

The Joint Statement, however, indicates a new flexibility in the Chinese stand, which could be one more bargaining point between the two sides vis-À-vis a much larger canvas. Thus, while conceding the point that Iran had the “right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy under the NPT”, the Joint Statement “welcomed the talks in Geneva on October 1 between the P 5+1 and Iran as a promising start towards addressing international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, and expressed their readiness to continue that engagement as soon as possible”.

Washington and Beijing “emphasised that all efforts should be made to take confidence-building steps” and called on Iran “to engage constructively with the P 5+1 and to cooperate fully with the IAEA to facilitate a satisfactory outcome”.

On the India-Pakistan problem, the Joint Statement said: “The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.

The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region”.

The point is: Since it is a novel inclusion in any US-China Joint Statement, who suggested the inclusion of the “South Asia” bit, and why?

Is it possible that Beijing, too, has seen the writing on the wall as far as Pakistan’s future is concerned, and realises that it can no longer use the Pakistan-card to needle India in the way it has done since the 1960s? And yet, it is clear that there can be no let-up in the effort to restrain India so far as the Asian geopolitical scene is concerned, particularly now when New Delhi’s clout in the world at large has grown exponentially. Essentially, therefore, it would appear that China would want the US to help in shoring up the Pakistani State and, in a manner of speaking, keep it going so that, among other things, it can continue to play Beijing’s game in cutting India down to size.

From China’s point of view, one way in which to get the ball rolling in this direction was, perhaps, to include the India-Pakistan “problem” in the Joint Statement with the US.

If this reading is substantially correct, what made Washington agree to the inclusion? Apart from a string of reassurances, Dr Singh will get no clear answer to this during his visit to the US.

But, probably, there is no reason to be overly concerned because, strategically, India will always be more of a “natural ally” of the US than China can ever aspire to be.

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Wide Canvas

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Backdrop of PM’s US visit

Caned!

Winds of change on the eve of Copenhagen Summit

Ethics, or its lack, in pharma

Govt’s misguided move