It is no secret that Sino-Indian ties have been lately under considerable strain. So, when the External Affairs Minister of India Dr S. Jaishankar and Chinese Communist Party Politbureau member and Foreign Minister Wang Yi end up meeting twice in the same month, then, it is something to think about and ponder.
The first meeting on 4 July between the two men took place in Astana on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. The Indian PM gave the SCO summit a miss and it was EAM who led our delegation. The statement put out by the Chinese side after these talks is long on rhetoric: things like good neighbourliness and friendship and emphasis on the 70th anniversary of “Panchsheel”. Interestingly, the Chinese read-out does not refer to the Indian read-out that “the two Ministers agreed that the prolongation of the current situation in the border areas is not in the interest of either side”. The Indian read out also noted that bilateral ties are best served by following the three mutuals – mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interests. While India makes it a point to underline this, it is interesting that the Chinese refrain from referring to this in their readout. The meeting in Astana, at least according to our read-out, decided to continue and step up meetings of the diplomatic and military officials of the two sides to take forward their discussions to resolve the remaining issues at the earliest.
In light of the above, the meeting on July 25, close on the heels of the Astana meeting, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Vientiane (Laos) is curious. Normally, a meeting such as the one on July 25 so soon after the last one on July 4 is indicative of one of two things: one, that there is a chance of a breakthrough in ties; or two, to prevent further escalation and to reaffirm the sincerity of both sides in finding a solution which is proving to be difficult. After going through the read-out of both sides following the July 25 meeting, it is a fair guess that the second interpretation is more likely than the first. The Chinese side appears to still harp on the need for both sides to properly handle differences and develop mutually beneficial cooperation, and promote the improvement and development of bilateral relations rationally (emphasis mine). Rational from a Chinese perspective may mean that India should not make the resolution of the border issue a condition for improvement in bilateral ties. The Chinese side in its read-out merely confines itself to stating that the two foreign ministers agreed to make concerted efforts necessary to maintain peace and tranquility along the border areas and work for new progress in consultations on border affairs. Note that the emphasis is on maintenance of peace and security and new progress, not complete disengagement of troops.
The above is very different from our read-out which states categorically that both Ministers agreed on the need to work with purpose and urgency to achieve complete disengagement at the earliest. For good measure, our read-out states: Peace and tranquility on the borders and respect for LAC (Line of Actual Control) are essential for normalcy in bilateral relations. We also affirm that both sides must fully abide by relevant bilateral agreements, protocols, and understandings reached between the two Governments in the past. Finally, our EAM, as he is wont to do, stressed the importance of the three mutuals — mutual respect, mutual interest and mutual sensitivity — in Sino-Indian ties.
It is hard to know what is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps there is a compromise in sight, who knows? But the proof of the pudding is in the eating – will there be visible and verifiable disengagement of troops? From a geopolitical perspective, both countries have a fundamental interest in finding a mutually acceptable solution. China, so that it can concentrate fully on issues that are more important for it, namely confrontation with the US, the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea; India, so that it can enhance its strategic space and focus on pressing developmental issues at hand.
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 