Has Vajpayee's visit opened a new chapter in Indo-China relations?

It is true that Vajpayee was the first Indian Prime Minister on Chinese soil in 10 years. During the visit nine agreements were signed in areas of science, technology, commerce and education. Both countries pledged to ease visa rules and decided to set up joint infrastructure development projects, focusing on water and energy areas. China allowed border trade with Sikkim while India accepted Tibet as part of China. These steps are welcome to ease tension between the two giant nations.

Complex nature of relations

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

China-India relationships are complex. Since both are large nations with enormous natural and human resources, they have the capability to influence, in many ways, events in Asia. On some issues both nations converge and on others they differ. At an early stage both countries wanted to live in peaceful co-existence and as friends.

It may be recalled that in the 50s India's first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had dreamt of Sino-Indian friendship on the basis of "five principles" of co-existence between the two countries in the "Panchasheel Treaty" of 1954 and the slogan "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" was afloat. At the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung ( Indonesia) in 1955 it was at the sole initiative of Prime Minister Nehru, China's Prime Minister Zou-En-lai participated in the conference at a time when the US did not recognise Communist China.

But reality soon dawned on them in 1959 when the Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama ( now 67 years of age) was given political asylum in India with his 15,000 followers. Thereafter in the autumn of 1962 a disastrous border war broke out with China that culminated in a humiliating military defeat for India. The defeat squarely fell on the shoulders of Nehru and his Defence Minister V.K. Krishna Menon. The consequences were so devastating for Nehru that he did not live long and died in May 1964.

During the current visit, both Prime Ministers of China and India said all "the right words" people want to hear on furthering their bilateral relations. Both countries face economic challenges from the US, Europe and Japan that drive the global economy.

Like termites the forces of globalisation may gnaw away their influence in world economy unless China and India through their co-operative efforts can face up to the challenge. India and China can learn from each other in promoting new joint ventures and bilateral trade. However, economic relations between countries only thrive when political relations are stable and mutually trustful. For instance Pakistan-India strained relations have impeded growth of their economic relations.

Issues that divide

Each nation has developed its own national and security interests that include rivalry in domination of Asian region. The success of the Vajpayee visit may be assessed in terms of the following core political and strategic issues that divide the nations and during the visit, it appears, that none of them has been addressed.

First, although India somehow accepted Tibet as a part of China, China did not accept Indian sovereignty over former Buddhist Kingdom of Sikkim annexed by India in 1975 but only allowed border trade between Sikkim and China. The visit has not been able to resolve territorial disputes that have soured relations for the past 40 years.

India claims 38,000 square kilometers on the western end of the Tibetan plateau that is now held by China and says that Pakistan has illegally ceded 5,180 square kilometers of the part of Kashmir it controls to China. On the other hand Chinese claim 90,000 square kilometers in the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh still marked as an independent country on Chinese maps. In an interview with Indian journalist, the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao reportedly said the border question was a "historical burden on our two countries left over by the colonialists" and China wanted a "fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution".

Second, China stays angry about India's harbouring the god-king 14th Dalai Lama ( real name Tenzin Gyatso) and his Tibetan government-in-exile at Dharmasala in the Himalayan peaks in northern India. The recognition of Tibet as a part of China has not changed the status of the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile.

The Dalai Lama has been a political thorn to China because he has campaigned indefatigably for the rights of the Tibetan people. In the past the Dalai Lama's meeting with India's Prime Minister was seen as "interference in China's internal affairs". Furthermore the Tibetan Youth Congress, the largest dissident faction within the 130,000 Tibetan exile community living in India advocates a violent uprising in Tibet, if necessary. They oppose any move to renounce Tibetan sovereignty or to forego guarantees of autonomy. The Dalai Lama has reportedly angered China when he said in 1998 that "If I die in exile and if the Tibetan people wish to continue the institution of the Dalai Lama, my reincarnation will not be born under the Chinese".

Third, in the eyes of India, no other Asian country has ever backed and armed another Asian country as China backed and armed Pakistan over the last thirty years in such a consistent manner. India is annoyed about China's close relationship with Pakistan and in particular their military cooperation. India suspects that China exported missile technology to Pakistan. Wedged between nuclear China and Pakistan, India sees its strategic interests endangered. In the words of an Indian defence analyst Brahma Chellany in The Hindustan Times: " Clearly, the Chinese want peace with containment, a win-win posture that permits them to maintain direct strategic pressure and mount stepped-up surrogate threats".

Fourth, China is the biggest military power in Asia and its power is growing. It has been reported that China has over 2.2 million soldiers while India has over 1.2 million

(International Institute of Strategic Studies, London, October 2002). Although India attempts to achieve parity with China, the gap cannot be bridged and India perceives that military superiority may impinge on maintenance of its independent policy and action. Furthermore China's close relationship with Myanmar (Burma) is perceived as a new strategy of China's primacy of the Asia-Pacific region including that of the Indian Ocean.

There are reports about Chinese support to port developments along the coast of Myanmar including the construction of a two-lane highway from Hunnan province (China) deep into Myanmar. China has the capability to project military forces superior to those that could be deployed by India. China's drive southwards including its claim of sovereignty over Spratly Islands and other disputed maritime areas in the South China Sea has caused uneasiness in India about China's strategic ambitions on the Indian Ocean. On the whole China appears to increase its ability to influence and even to intervene events in the Indian Ocean ( as India deployed its carrier Vikrant into the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 war against Pakistan) and many observers believe that India sees China as the "mother" of all its security concerns from the Bay of Bengal to the Persian Gulf.

Finally, although both China and India have been alarmed by the US military action, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, it appears that China is concerned by the growing military cooperation between India and the US. The idea that India could act as a "friendly host" for the US in a future Asian crisis, say between China and Taiwan, does not provide comfort to China. Furthermore China at its heart seems to be aware that India is being militarily propped up as a counterweight to China in the Asia-Pacific region.

Conclusion

During the visit both China and India tread warily in improving economic relations but their political rivalry remains. Partnership is achievable when both share same goals and values and that stage does not appear to come in their relationship. However there is a realisation that seeking to isolate either of them is unworkable and as a result there seems to be compulsion on both sides to work out a relationship that is mutually beneficial.

Many political observers believe that the visit has been rich in symbolism but lacking in substance. Still, in the world of international diplomacy, it will probably be considered a success. As Winston Churchill once said " To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". What is necessary is a good working relationship between the two giants that do not pretend there are no differences and seek co-operation where possible. A big falling out between Beijing and New Delhi could be catastrophic for the region's security and economy and for smaller countries in South Asia. It is in that context that the visit becomes significant.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.