Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee : Opening Remarks

An IPCS delegation was in China in late November for talks with important think tanks in China. The trip was primarily focused on interactions with the China Reform Forum (CRF), a non-governmental body that is closely associated with the Central Party School. The objective of the talks with the CRF was to better understand each others' perspectives on issues related to Asian security. A considerable effort was made to flesh out the agenda and ensure an open and frank exchange of views with expert groups from both sides. In addition, the IPCS delegation also had talks with the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), Beijing on the Sino-Indian relationship in light of the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to South Asia and with Fudan University's Institute of International Studies on the Indian and Chinese worldviews their growing economic ties.

The IPCS delegation was headed by Ambassador Salman Haidar, former Indian Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to China and included Ambassador Lalit Mansingh, former Indian Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to the United States, Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee, Director, IPCS, Mr. Mohan Guruswamy, Chairman of Centre for Policy Alternatives, New Delhi, Dr. Alka Acharya, Chairperson, Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Dr. Srikant Kondapalli, Associate Professor, Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, JNU and Mr. Jabin T Jacob, Research Fellow, IPCS.The session today, aims to convey briefly, some of the impressions from the IPCS visit to China.

Amb. Lalit Mansingh

The Chinese see themselves as the second most important power in the world and as providing future leadership. They accept the large gap between themselves and the US not so much with hostility as with respect. They describe the US as the sole superpower, as the only superpower.The Chinese went to great lengths to allay fears of about themselves. They stressed that they were a peaceful country and tried to explain what their peaceful rise was all about. Apart from this they also sought to put forward how they were looking at countries that were important to India. As regards the US, they sought to deal with the US challenge in subtle ways rather attacking them frontally either in power terms or ideological terms. Opposition to unilateralism seemed the key approach.

Chinese expressions of friendship with Pakistan appeared ritualistic rather than substantive. The Chinese seem to have downgraded Pakistan from a strategic ally to a regional ally.India was being elevated from a mere regional power to a very important regional power though not yet a global power. It is apparent that the Chinese are waiting for signals from the US in this respect. Chinese actions seem to reflect the American interest in India. The Chinese talked of the inevitability of the strategic partnership with India and appeared also to make efforts to wean India away from the US embrace.On bilateral issues, there was a lack of transparency, and even though there was a willingness to negotiate, the Chinese stand still appeared to be rigid. India is in for tough negotiations.

Amb. Salman Haidar

The visit reflected the fact that Sino-Indian relations are stable at this point of time. On the Hu Jintao visit, the Chinese had however, registered the fact that the reception was rather short on ceremony.The economic relationship has several pitfalls ahead of it and therefore innovative projects need to be envisaged.

At the CIIS, especially, the Chinese indicated that Chinese would not stand in the way or let the nuclear issue be an obstacle on the development of bilateral relations.

The Chinese reacted rather sharply on what he thought was an insufficient appreciation by India of the role of public opinion in China. It seemed however, that Tibet was now much less a cause of anxiety in bilateral relationship than before.

The one theme that both sides constantly returned to was the deficit in trust and confidence in each other. The strategic dimension of the Sino-Indian relationship was constantly stressed but it was also evident there was a lot of work to be done to refine issues and to elevate this dimension to more than just words.

It has also to be noted that the discussions were held in a relaxed manner and were far from being formulaic. The talks at Fudan were especially different and reflected Shanghai's confidence in being able to find a its own distinctive way forward on issues.

Mohan Guruswamy

On the economic front, the question of discrimination against Chinese companies in India came up several times. It was also conveyed that the whole talk about cooperation in the energy sector in the form of joint bids and joint stakes in foreign oil fields was overstated as neither China nor India would own the oil fields or the oil those fields produced and would still have to pay market prices for the oil.On substantial areas for future cooperation, it was suggested that cooperation in the aircraft industry and in power plants could hold promise.

Comments

The talk of "public opinion" in China is a false claim. The figure of 87,000-odd protests in China includes also written petitions to the government. Mostly, these are related to land, property and tax disputes.

Chinese assurances on the Indo-US nuclear deal cannot be trusted. They will eventually end up opposing the deal at the NSG.

At a recent meeting about the North Korean nuclear situation, a Chinese ambassador who headed the CACDA (China Arms Control and Disarmament Association) had remarked that the case for nuclear disarmament was overstated. It all depended on which countries had nuclear weapons. Some countries like China which were responsible and peace-loving and deserved to have nuclear weapons, others did not.

The Chinese expansion into Africa is increasingly a fact and should worry Indian policymakers.

Responses

The public has opinions, whatever the country. To dismiss Chinese public opinion would be a gross misreading of the Chinese domestic situation. Further, in the making of policy, there are strong voices heard from a variety of sources, which is not the case in India.

With respect to the border dispute for example, when China and Myanmar were working out the modalities for settlement, Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai spent days and weeks explaining the situation to the people in the border regions that would be affected by the settlement.

The Chinese have declared clearly on several occasions that they would not be an obstacle to the Indo-US nuclear deal. There might however be differences of opinion within the Chinese establishment on whether to acknowledge India as a nuclear power or not.

Talk of a Chinese exploitation of Africa is overdone. The Africans are happy to receive Chinese help and investments after years of neglect by the developed countries of the west. India which had an excellent programme in Africa several decades ago has lost interest and perhaps should take the cue from China to do more in that continent. Realpolitik must not be reduced to jingoism or hypernationalism.

Closing Remarks : Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee

The exchange of views on both sides during the visit was quite fruitful and as the title of the talks at the CRF - India, China and Asian Security - Setting an Agenda for Cooperation - shows the focus was largely on Asia. Future interactions will move on to discussing issues in other areas of the world and issues that affect both Asia and the rest of the world.