Nuclear / Defence Deal
Chinese duplicity
Chinese duplicity
They played strange games at Vienna
One of China?s greatest assets in its dealings with India over the past six decades has been the gullibility and readiness of Indian political leaders, diplomats, intellectuals and ideologically motivated political parties to look at every Chinese statement, both public and private, as being truthful and sincere, instead of judging China by its actions and examining the dynamics of its relations with others, particularly in our neighbourhood. It is such wishful and woolly headed thinking that landed a militarily unprepared India in the disastrous conflict of 1962 ? a conflict aptly described as a ?Himalayan Blunder?.
Similar wishful thinking led China?s many apologists and admirers in India to proclaim that there had been a great ?breakthrough? on the border issue and that China had renounced its border claims to Tawang and other border areas in Arunachal Pradesh in the 2005 agreement signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao.
The 2005 agreement stated: ?In reaching a border settlement, the two sides shall safeguard the population in border areas?. This meant that there would be no change in the status of populated areas and that the status of Tawang would not be changed. Even as Champagne bottles were being opened by China?s influential admirers in India to celebrate this ?breakthrough? in Sino-Indian relations, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi poured cold water on the celebrations proclaiming: ?The mere presence of populated areas in Arunachal Pradesh would not affect Chinese claims on the border.?
Our Sinologists were forgetting amidst their celebrations that over the past few years China has actually hardened its position on the border issue, laying claims on the whole of Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds that the entire state is a part of ?South Tibet?. Despite this, obviously not wishing to enrage the Chinese dragon as it was seeking Chinese support in the NSG for ending nuclear sanctions against India, New Delhi cravenly behaved like a supplicant, by closing down traffic and curbing civil liberties of people, merely to please the Chinese, when the Olympic Torch landed in India.
Similar wishful thinking, about ?assurances? given privately by Chinese leaders Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao to Dr Manmohan Singh that China would not come in the way of the NSG ending nuclear sanctions against India, nearly led India to a diplomatic disaster at the NSG meeting in Vienna. New Delhi had ample evidence from its diplomatic missions abroad and from meetings with NSG member-states that over the past three years, China had mounted concerted effort to persuade countries like Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland, which had strong domestic constituencies opposing the dilution of non-proliferation benchmarks, to reject US moves to end nuclear sanctions against India.
China also urged these countries that if non-proliferation benchmarks should be diluted, this had to be done on a ?criteria-based? approach, which would also exempt Pakistan from sanctions. Knowing that no country in its right senses would end sanctions on a country with Pakistan?s notorious record on non-proliferation, this Chinese ploy was primarily designed to strengthen opposition to any exemption for India. These moves were undertaken quietly. The Chinese did not want to offend the Americans by publicly opposing an initiative by President Bush, or the Russians, who had supported the American initiative.
New Delhi?s naivet? on Chinese intentions is best symbolised in the manner in which it chose to ignore reports of real Chinese government thinking voiced by the official mouthpiece, The People?s Daily. In a report in August 2007, The People?s Daily averred: ?The US-India nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance (for India) achieving its dream of powerful nation. In fact, the purpose of the US to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India is to enclose India in its global partners? camp. This fits in with India?s wishes.?
Worse still, just on the eve of the NSG meeting The People?s Daily pontificated on September 1, 2008: ?Whether it is motivated by political considerations or commercial interests, the US-India Nuclear Agreement has constituted a major blow to the international non-proliferation regime?. This article undoubtedly reflected the views of the Chinese Communist Party?s leadership. What is ironical is that the Chinese shed tears about their respect for the ?international nuclear non-proliferation regime? after having provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs, advanced nuclear enrichment equipment, ring magnets and plutonium production and reprocessing facilities for miniaturised nuclear warheads. China opposing the Indo-US nuclear deals on grounds of ?non-proliferation? is like Satan rebuking Sin!!
China rubbed salt on Indian wounds when its leaders, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, refused to take personal telephone calls from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claiming that both these luminaries were ?unavailable? ? The Chinese perhaps felt emboldened by a belief that having hosted the Congress party President twice over one year, they could take liberties and insult India?s Prime Minister. Mercifully, the Congress President responded appropriately be refusing to receive the visiting Chinese Foreign Minister. But would this alone suffice as an adequate response to the brazen insult to India?s Prime Minister?
Chinese behaviour in the NSG is best summed up by a perceptive Indian correspondent who covered the Vienna meeting extensively. This correspondent noted: ?The Chinese did manoeuvres in a procedural way in order to support the G-6 comprising Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway. But they didn?t want to come out in the open. ?They wanted to remain in the bushes rather than come on to the battlefield?, said one diplomat from a European country that backed the waiver with reservations. A ?G-6? diplomat described this phase as one where the Chinese ?offered quiet but clear support for a number of proposals put forward by the like-minded group of six?. This support, he said, continued ?right up to the last moment?.
But, when it seemed to China that the G-6 was standing resolute, the Chinese delegates also began putting forward amendments and sentences of their own. ?They suggested a lot of minor changes to the text last Friday, seemingly with the intention of delaying progress?, the diplomat said. Though these changes were more often than not unacceptable to India, the diplomats said the Chinese suggestion to include language which might open a door for ?other states? (i.e. Pakistan) to seek a similar waiver, met with stiff resistance by virtually all the NSG members, including the G-6.
?This idea was a complete non-starter?, said one diplomat. Another described it as part of a tactic of ?procedural procrastination?. Finally, a telephone call from President Bush to President Hu Jintao forced the Chinese to end their duplicity.
G. Parthasarathy
|
