(1888PressRelease)
June 19, 2007 - With china hardening its negotiating position, the chances of an early, fair and reasonable settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary dispute have retarded. Beijing has thrown clear hints that no fast-track settlement, for which the mechanism of the special representative was created, is possible. Even the settled principles for boundary demarcation agreed to in 2005 are no larger held sacrosanct. It appears that the negotiations at various levels have yielded very little over the years and are destined to drag on unless India agrees to alter the existing status quo along the still-undefined line of actual control and make further territorial concessions.
During the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Hu Jintao on the sidelines of the recent g-8 summit in heiligendams, the Chinese president urged that mutual differences, as surfaced over the issues of visa denial to an IAS officer from Arunachal pardhash which china claims, ought not to be highlighted and that the boundary issue was not yet ripe for solution, but the two countries should concentrate on improving relations in various spheres including economy, trade, culture, science and technology and possibly, military and take those to a new high.
India has never linked the boundary issue with overall strengthening of relations with its biggest neighbour, and hopes that with the boundary dispute out of the way, the relations would make a quantum jump and the two countries could together realize the Asian century. Dr. Manmohan Singh has reaffirmed the Indian position that china is its greatest neighbour and his government would do everything possible to further cement the relations. The 56.8 per cent increase in bilateral trade in the first four months of 2007 over the corresponding period of last year and having crossed $11.4 billion is citied as an example of improved relations. But as regards the boundary question everything has been put on hold as the recent rounds of talks at the level of the SRs have been unproductive.
The focus during these talks was on devising was on devising an agreed framework for a settlement of the issue on the basis of the "political parameters and guiding principles". In a joint statement issued in 2005 it was declared that both sides should in the spirit of mutual respect and mutual understanding make meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments in their respective positions on the boundary question so as to arrive at a package settlement. The wording of the statement with its reference to the concept of "adjustments" implied a give and take of territory, invoking the old western-eastern sector swap idea once again. In the intervening time Chinese and Indian leaders both have emphasized that pragmatism is key to an early solution.
The decision to raise bilateral negotiations to the political level came after dozens of rounds of border talks, joint working group meetings and exerts level discussions achieved no breakthrough. Despite these discussions stretching over a quarter century, little innovative thinking on the boundary question is in evidence. China has not even agreed to define on maps the Line of Actual Control, or the verification of alignments of respective areas on mountain tops, rivers and lake. Even though the two countries are committed to maintaining peace and tranquility along the disputed border, the forces entrusted with this task still do not know where the LOAC is, which they are supposed to hold and treat as sacrosanct. After having exchange maps of the least disputed Middle Sector of the boundary, China called off the exercise and has refused to continue the work on the un-demarcated Western and Eastern sector of boundary. The completion of the exchange of maps showing each other's presently-held military position was without prejudice to rival territorial claim and a final settlement.
Having broken off the exercise, China insisted that the laborious work done over the years to define the frontier, or at least the LOAC which each country could hold pending a final settlement, should be abandoned and, instead, the focus should be on finding an overall border settlement. The move appeared to be dilatory tactics intended to disguise breach of earlier commitments. During the New Delhi visit of Chinese premier Wen Jiabao in April 2005 it was agreed that the focus of talks should be to apply the six agreed principles to device a "basic framework" for negotiations. This means that the two sides are nowhere near discussing any package settlement idea.
When the external affaire minister Pranab Mukherjee met his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi earlier on the sidelines of the ASEM meeting, the latter caused a surprise by telling him that the presence of settled populations in regions under dispute would not affect china's aims on those regions. Mr. Jiechi's statement contradicts one of the key principles for resolving the boundary dispute agreed to by the special representatives in 2005. Article VII of the guiding principles clearly stipulates that "in reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard settled populations in border areas." This implies that if settled populations along the border strengthen India's claim over areas, china would disregard the commitment made by the SRs in pushing its claim to the area. With even the agreed principles now in doubt, India obviously does not know where it stands on the boundary question vis a vis china. Even after the many exercises at various levels, the situation seems to revert to the pre-1962 position.
China 's non-recognition of the McMohan line and its territorial claim over the whole of Arunachal Pradesh are well known. India has been dealing with them since the Chinese invaded and occupied Tibet in 1950.But what surprises the Indian officialdom is the irritating behaviour of the Chinese officialdom in denying visas to any Indian citizens from Arunachal Pradesh. This comes at a time when there a new warmth in the relations between the people of the two countries and a growing sentiment across the border with Tibet for restoration of the traditional contact and multi-faceted co-operation in keeping with the improved political relationship between New Delhi and Beijing. India has shown extraordinary flexibility by offering to negotiate on a practical and realistic basis, with the political thrust on the final disposition of the unsettled border.
In contrast, China has hardened its negotiating position on Arunachal Pradesh and by retiring that the entire Indian state is Chinese territory. In making fresh claims on the Tawang tract in this State, deep inside Indian Territory, Beijing is clearly disavowing the mutual agreed principle that there shall be no exchange of territories along the border with settled population. When the Indian Government cancelled the China visit of the entire batch of IAS officers, the China Government reacted by saying that until the boundary was settled, mutual differences "should not be brought to the front, affecting exchanges between the two countries." Obviously, such caution does not apply to Chinese officials, such as, the Ambassador to India Sun Yuxi, who declared without any provocation that the whole of Arunachal Pradesh was Chinese territory, thereby causing an unprovoked controversy which impacted on the Chinese President Hu Jintao's otherwise successful visit last year.
The two countries have been involved in negotiations over the 4,000 km plus boundary, large swathes of whish are claimed by both sides. China militarily occupied the Aksai China in Jammu and Kashmir and also claims the 90,000 sq. kms that is Arunachal Pradesh, which has been under effective Indian control even before the birth of people's China. Beijing does not seem holding on to its previous position of swap of Aksai China and Arunachal Pradesh, but wants more areas in Aksai China along the LOAC, as well as, the Tawang tract embedded deep inside Indian Territory in Arunachal Pradesh, apart from other territorial adjustments. With China's clear hint that the boundary settlement should be put on the back-burner, the only channel of negotiations still left open, the special Representatives, will also dry up for want of progress.
But, setting aside the differences over the boundary issue, the leadership of the two countries has wisely decided to strengthen political and economic relations and entered into a strategic cooperation for peace and prosperity. Bilateral trade is booming and is expected to hit the 2010 target of $ 40 billion much earlier. As the two fastest growing economies of the world, they have a major role to play shaping a new world order, ensuring security and fighting terrorism. The two are also evolving common positions on issues of mutual concern in international fora and agreed to increase military cooperation and conduct joint military expanding and encoring bilateral relations, but the atmospherics will change dramatically if the boundary issue is out of the way.
###
