The External Affairs Minister of India, Dr S Jaishankar has been repeating incessantly that Sino-Indian ties must be guided by the three “mutuals” as it were: mutual respect, mutual interest and mutual sensitivity. The Chinese side obviously must have taken note of this, but has barely ever acknowledged it in their statements. Now comes the counter from China which has spelt out five “mutuals” which should guide Sino-Indian ties.
The newly minted Chinese Ambassador to India, H.E. Xu Feihong, in an op-ed in “The Hindu” today spells out the five mutuals in some detail. He begins the article by saying that the two leaders i.e. President Xi Jinping and PM Modi apparently arrived at an important consensus at their bilateral meeting in Bali in November 2022. This consensus according to the Chinese Ambassador was: “China and India are not rivals or threats to each other, but are partners in cooperation and development opportunities”. With no full readout available of that famous Bali encounter from either side, this is the first time someone is spelling out the contents of the aforesaid meeting between the two leaders. The statement, on the face of it, appears more aspirational than factual and could well be the basis of a future consensus if all goes well. But with thousands of troops confronting each other in the Himalayas, it is somewhat farcical to claim at present that China does not pose a threat to India. Perhaps, if the two sides were to disengage completely at the disputed border and set about restoring trust, there is a chance to realize the vision reportedly set out by the two leaders in Bali.
The Chinese Ambassador states that his Foreign Minister Wang Yi has proposed five mutuals which can help achieve the above vision reportedly agreed upon by the two leaders in Bali. These five mutuals which presumably replace the three mutuals spelt out by our EAM are: mutual respect (the only similar mutual that Dr S Jaishankar also put forward), mutual understanding, mutual trust, mutual accomodation and mutual accomplishment. It is immediately clear that the two other mutuals put forward by EAM Dr S. Jaishankar, namely, mutual interest and mutual sensitivity do not figure in the list of the five mutuals put forward by the Chinese Ambassador. This is significant since it is precisely in the area of core interests and mutual sensitivity that India has found China wanting.
The Chinese Ambassador sticks to the party line when it comes to handling the intractable border dispute between the two countries by achieving “complete disengagement” along our border. He talks of restoring mutual trust but states rhetorically in the same breath that “not even the Himalayas can stop us from strengthening friendly exchanges”. But that is precisely the rub since India believes that the two countries cannot have a normal relationship if the situation at the border continues to remain abnormal. After all, in the Tokyo presser after the Quad meeting on Monday , the EAM was rather blunt: relations with China were not good and that there was a problem but it was for the two countries to find a way out. For good measure, the EAM added that countries which have signed bilateral agreements must abide by it, hinting that China violated provisions of the border agreement. It is worth noting that this press statement was after his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on the margins of the ASEAN meeting in Vientiane, Laos.
The Chinese Ambassador in the article talks of mutual accomplishment by hinting that China could help contribute to the agenda of Viksit Bharat 2047. The recent statement by our Chief Economic Advisor while presenting the Economic Survey that he would welcome Chinese investments gives a valuable opening to the Chinese side to gauge how serious India is in saying that bilateral ties cannot be normal if the status quo at the border continues. To that extent, all wings of the Government must speak in one voice and be careful of the signals they send.
What then to make of the Chinese Ambassador’s article? Well, one way of looking at it is that he is merely doing his job and carrying out a charm offensive. The Hindu has done him a favour by carrying his piece, something our envoy in Beijing may or may not be able to do in a leading Chinese daily. More important, the Chinese envoy in spelling out the five mutuals glosses over the substantive differences between the two countries even while steadfastly maintaining the party line.
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 