China doesn't want a good relationship,some phases pass out nicely signalling towards a good build up they bring up the Visa issue(Like with an IAF officer from Arunachal recently).They don't seem to be cooperative.
You know, it's funny how some of you guys position Bangladesh's relations with China at the same level as Pakistan's
China and Bangladesh aren't allies on paper, but only hold key strategic interests. It'd be optimal for Bangladesh to maintain amicable and balanced relations with both India and China, and what is best for the country. This should also come with the US being in the picture to act as an arbiter.
Yeah, I've seen the 'Indian Asia' version myself. And trust me, it ain't pretty
New Recruit
i don't think so.
I would say that M.K.Bhadrakumar a diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. Devoted 3-decade long career to the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran desks in the Ministry of External Affairs and in assignments on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Other diplomatic assignments abroad included as Ambassador to Turkey and Uzbekistan and Acting/Deputy High Commissioner in Islamabad, besides postings in the Indian Missions in Bonn, Colombo and Seoul. Briefly held charge as Charge dAffaires in the Indian embassies in Kuwait and Kabul knows more than you arm chair internet warriors this is what he had to say:
Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad
Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such That is, the end point of mankinds ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government. But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.
However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting non-alignment in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumayas own retraction.
Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a Russia option again and Boris Yeltsins Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ally of the west and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?
In sum, India got entrapped in a unipolar predicament. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that Indias main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the USs attention.
Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of Indias foreign policy when I see the huge psywar being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.
In Pakistans case, the psywar substitutes Russia with China. The USs Track II thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistans aid, the two countries all-weather friendship notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing psywar.
One is the lengthy article featured by Americas prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled Chinas Pakistan conundrum. Its argument is: China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabads preferences. It puts forth the invidious argument that Chinas real use for Pakistan is only to box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.
Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly coordinating their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply dont know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to coordinate about coordinating their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.
A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistans existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepons article last week titled Pakistans Patrons, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow Indias foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fools paradise.
The obvious thrust of this psywar strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real China option. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad unlike their Indian counterparts are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a unipolar predicament, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.
Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistans political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.
Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistans internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistans civil and military leaderships are together.
Dai doesnt really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai coordinated his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the USs psywar on Pakistan is at stake.
The big question is whether this would be Dais last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintaos team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dais visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.
.
By M K Bhadrakumar December 23, 2011
Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad - Indian Punchline
---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------
Just read the above article and then weep
---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------
Just read the above article and then weep
