What's new

US okay with Beijing monitoring Indo-Pak ties

pkd

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
0
Obama okay with Beijing monitoring Indo-Pak ties

BEIJING/NEW DELHI: A week before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected as state guest in Washington, US president Barack Obama has given a monitoring role to China in South Asia, particularly between India and Pakistan, a fact that has stuck in New Delhi's throat.

The US and China have agreed to work together to bring about stable and peaceful relations in all of South Asia, Obama said during his joint briefing with Chinese president Hu Jintao in Beijing. Hu, who spoke first in the briefing, did not mention Pakistan or South Asia.

They (US and China) "support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan," the joint statement said.

This is a rare occasion when a US president has acknowledged that Beijing has a role to play in the India-Pakistan relationship. The move, if serious, runs counter to predictions of US foreign policy experts that the US would not acquiesce in a future Chinese hegemony in the region.

While New Delhi maintained a studied silence on the joint statement, it has infuriated officials in the foreign office because it brings back nasty memories of another US-China joint statement by Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin on June 29, 1998. Then too, it was Clinton and Jiang, in what India considered "offensive" language, scolding India and Pakistan for their nuclear tests. India had reacted sharply then, buffetted by general international condemnation after the tests.

But Tuesday's statement cuts at the heart of an Indian effort to build a relationship with the US without China complicating the issue. Former diplomat KC Singh said, "The statement was uncalled for and gratuitous, and serves to poison the chalice before the PM goes to Washington."

The reality is perhaps that the joint statement was drafted by Obama's China officials who don't carry sensitivities of India with them. But that it was allowed to go through signals to many Indian strategists that Obama may be more than pliant to China, giving it a role in a region where it's bound to come into conflict with a country Obama says is a US strategic partner, India.

The question is whether the US was pressured into giving China a bigger role in the region in return for other favours in areas like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues. The Indian government, which has always opposed third party intervention in the India-Pakistan dialogue, is likely to be worried about the new development.

The joint statement also shows that Washington is agreeable to the idea of China playing a bigger role in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is another issue that can rattle New Delhi.

"The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region," the joint statement further said explaining the parameters of US-China cooperation in the region.

A Chinese foreign ministry official later said the two leaders did not discuss specifics of the situation in South Asia because there was not much time available for that. There were a lot of other issues for them to discuss, he said.

But the joint statement is the product of weeks of discussions between two sides and the US administration officials did approve the phrases concerning China's role in South Asia.
 
Last edited:
.
Lets c what the GOI official response would be. Though as of now experts are saying its too early to gauge what actually this particular phrase in the joint statement means.

Its going to be interesting as India's long term stand on Kashmir is that its a bilateral issue and no third party intervention is going to be tolerated...Here is another article from "The Hindu"..The expert that catch my eye is

Strategic analysts have expressed surprise over the summit-level joint statement by U.S. and China mentioning India and Pakistan but cautioned against “over-excitement” on the issue. India has refused to react saying there is “no point in doing so.”

The Hindu : News : Surprise over U.S.-China joint statement
 
. .
India tells US, China third-party monitoring not required


A day after a US-China joint statement said the two sides "support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan", India has officially reacted saying that the statement was unnecessary and that it does not need third-party monitoring on Pakistan.

The Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement on Wednesday: "Government of India is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. A third country role cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary. We also believe that a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan can take place only in an environment free from terror or the threat of terror."

On Wednesday, the US sent out a clarification terming India as a key ally and major partner. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters at his daily news briefing that the US is looking forward to the state visit of the Indian Prime Minister and that the US president would share his thoughts on his China visit with Manmohan Singh.

"I am sure that since the President will have just gotten back from China, and that'll be fresh on his mind that he will share some of his impressions and thoughts about his visit to China as well," Kelly said in response to a question. (Read: Obama, Manmohan to talk China next week)

The Indian prime minister will be the first head of a government to be hosted at the White House after Obama took over in January. He leaves for the US on Saturday, and will meet the US president on November 24. (Read: Agenda for PM's upcoming visit to US)

President Obama will also discuss 26/11 with Manmohan Singh during the Prime Minister's trip, Timothy Roemer, the US Ambassador to India, has confirmed. (Read: Obama-Manmohan to discuss 26/11)

On Wednesday, Roemer also said that America "needs to see action" by Pakistan against the terrorists behind 26/11. He added that Pakistan needs "to concentrate on dismantling terrorist infrastructure".

Meanwhile, the US House of Representative has decided to discuss a resolution commemorating the Indo-US relationship on Wednesday.

The resolution (H res No 890) moved by Congressman Jim McDermott and co-sponsored by 14 other lawmakers has been placed sixth the agenda item of the day according to the floor scheduled released last night by the House Majority Leader Steny H Hoyer.

The resolution welcomes the Prime Minister to the US and commends the maturating of the relationship. It notes that the ties between the US and India have great potential to promote stability, democracy, prosperity, and peace throughout the world and enhance the ability of both countries to work together to provide global leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest.
 
. .
Are we kids fighting over 2 lollipops? I wish the netizens here understand the subtleties behind the message. Pakistan is not a 5 year old irresponsible kid, which requires monitoring. Nor is India. This kind of moral high horse statement is surely a slap in the face of India , which sees itself as a rising power and for Pakistan, who is a committed WOT ally.
I wish the silly posters would atleast abstain from raising the Chinese flags. If they do, only God can save Pakistan. For it surely means a lack of pride in oneself and over dependancy on a "all-weather" friend.

It still galls me, that someone can issue such a flippant statement over the collective pride of 1 billion Indians and 170 million Pakistanis.

Blooody balls...
 
Last edited:
.
As the neighboring country of afganistan, pakistan and india, What is wrong with China's welcome of the positive development of the Pakistan-india relationship and the stability of afganistan?

Let's guess_maybe the stability of Afghanistan and the constructive relationship between india and its neghbours are not accord with india's 'interests' in building its hegemony on the sacrifices of its poor neighboring countries.
 
.
I think Mr. Obama has reasons in doing so.

If the US has the capability, it can monitor whatever and anywhere. The problem is that, obviously, it messes things up here (Afghanistan) and there (Iraq).

Reportedly, Obama administration is planning an exit plan for Afghanistan. If US could shed some burden in SA to China, and if China deems that beneficial, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the cooperation. After all, a stakeholder not only shares the responsibility of the stake, he/she also shares the profit.

The second reason is perhaps that China has a pretty good track record in dealing with SA affairs: it makes friends with all its neighbors including SA countries, unlike India who settles no territorial dispute with any its neighbors and keeps its old foes even older and harder. This is very much fitting Mr. Obama’s humble mentality.

3rdly, geo-political importance of China makes it an indispensible, natural partner of USA, should USA want to accomplish anything meaningful in Asia. Korea War and Viet Nam War are typical examples. The collapse of Soviet is another. On-going cases are N Korea and anti-terrorism, etc.

So, if Mr. Obama’s going to trust a country for SA matters, if not China, who it would be, by considering responsibility, track record, military power, economic power, humbleness in mentality, friend-making with neighbors… Please, voting and democracy do not worth a penny for the subject matter. It only weighs negatively.
 
.
I think Mr. Obama has reasons in doing so.

If the US has the capability, it can monitor whatever and anywhere. The problem is that, obviously, it messes things up here (Afghanistan) and there (Iraq).

Reportedly, Obama administration is planning an exit plan for Afghanistan. If US could shed some burden in SA to China, and if China deems that beneficial, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the cooperation. After all, a stakeholder not only shares the responsibility of the stake, he/she also shares the profit.

I would disagree... US would be the last country to let a communist regime(be it Russia, CHina) increase her influence in Afghanistan..Last time i heard US is improving relations with India to counter china but your post suggests the opposite..Also this is for sure that any such attempt will not go easy with GOI and possible strains in India-US relation... It is in direct conflict with GOI foreign policy i.e. key regional player...

The second reason is perhaps that China has a pretty good track record in dealing with SA affairs: it makes friends with all its neighbors including SA countries, unlike India who settles no territorial dispute with any its neighbors and keeps its old foes even older and harder. This is very much fitting Mr. Obama’s humble mentality.

I was reading your post with lot of interest before you pull this one...care to elaborate what good records are you talking about??? You are saying it is India who is not willing to solve territorial disputes with pakistan and China...Can you please suggest why you think so(just brief reasons..don't want to derail the thread...)??


3rdly, geo-political importance of China makes it an indispensible, natural partner of USA, should USA want to accomplish anything meaningful in Asia. Korea War and Viet Nam War are typical examples. The collapse of Soviet is another. On-going cases are N Korea and anti-terrorism, etc.

What!!! China as natural partner of USA?? Are you serious??? The only country in today's world that can directly challenge US interest in couple of decades from now is CHINA...She is a serious threat to US sole superpower status..How does it make china natural partner of US...


So, if Mr. Obama’s going to trust a country for SA matters, if not China, who it would be, by considering responsibility, track record, military power, economic power, humbleness in mentality, friend-making with neighbors… Please, voting and democracy do not worth a penny for the subject matter. It only weighs negatively.

Such words from a senior member??? I haven't seen your previous posts so wanted to give you benefit of doubt that you actually have reasons to believe this..so please share your reasons for saying all the above..especially the bolded part...
 
.
I would disagree... US would be the last country to let a communist regime(be it Russia, CHina) increase her influence in Afghanistan..Last time i heard US is improving relations with India to counter china but your post suggests the opposite..Also this is for sure that any such attempt will not go easy with GOI and possible strains in India-US relation... It is in direct conflict with GOI foreign policy i.e. key regional player...

If you still think Russia and China belong to traditional communism, you haven’t caught up with the development of our world for about 20 years.

Sorry, US has to play balance and GoI perhaps does need to worry.

I was reading your post with lot of interest before you pull this one...care to elaborate what good records are you talking about??? You are saying it is India who is not willing to solve territorial disputes with pakistan and China...Can you please suggest why you think so(just brief reasons..don't want to derail the thread...)??

The fact is, in the past 60 year PR China has solved land disputes with all its 14 neighboring countries, except India. (Bhutan is in final and small refinery stage).

In the past 62 years, India resolves 0 of its land dispute with any of its neighbors.

Are you surprised? Are you amazed?

I’m not. Not many people outside of India are.

It is simply because your jingoist media won’t let you know those hard facts.

What!!! China as natural partner of USA?? Are you serious??? The only country in today's world that can directly challenge US interest in couple of decades from now is CHINA...She is a serious threat to US sole superpower status..How does it make china natural partner of US...

Nay… China is trying to be a little bit more at par with USA, so they will become truer friends on more equal basis: neither is inferior, or superior, in general. That type of friendship is sustainable. Don’t you think so?

A healthy competition is different from cold war mentality of “challenging”. Don’t you read Mr. Obama’s speech in Shanghai?

Such words from a senior member??? I haven't seen your previous posts so wanted to give you benefit of doubt that you actually have reasons to believe this..so please share your reasons for saying all the above..especially the bolded part...

About voting, does that make Afghanistan government now and the one before any difference? No, not at all.

Please don’t give a sh!t to my seniority. Just refute my above statements.

I’d like to learn a thing or two from any members as long as there is a touch of insight/wisdom.
 
.
If you still think Russia and China belong to traditional communism, you haven’t caught up with the development of our world for about 20 years.

Wait a minute and please don't rush to conclusions about me not able to catch up with world...They are still communist regime's which is as per theory anti-capatalism... Are you saying that US is fins with spread of communism as per the current model that Russia and China have adopted??? The plain answer to that is "NO"

Sorry, US has to play balance and GoI perhaps does need to worry
Though highly skeptical yet for the sake of argument even if US did what you suggest i don't see any reasons for GOI to worry..Just 7-8 years back there was no US at all and still India survived. I would suggest you not to read to much into it...You and I might be surprised at the kind of statements coming out of Mr. Manmohan US Visit...


The fact is, in the past 60 year PR China has solved land disputes with all its 14 neighboring countries, except India. (Bhutan is in final and small refinery stage).

Let me spin your argument...The fact that they had boundary dispute with so many neighbouring coutries make me believe that they are not as humble as you are suggesting.... Anyways ignore this i was just playing with your words...

In the past 62 years, India resolves 0 of its land dispute with any of its neighbors.

0 out of only 2 land disputes that we have with our neighbouring countries...

Are you surprised? Are you amazed?

I’m not. Not many people outside of India are.

Yes i am surprised but not about the information you have shared but about the fact that how you can use this fact as a proof about India's lack of will to solve boundary disputes...

It is simply because your jingoist media won’t let you know those hard facts.

Again stop assuming things...You are not telling me anything that my so called jingoistic media didn't tell me... Here are few questions about all the 14 countries that you mentioned

- Point me any one such land dispute settlement which is of the magnitude of border Issue between India and China???
- How many of these disputes were settled amicably versus by force??

Sir it is not a small piece of land that we are talking about here...so just stop comparing oranges with apples...

Nay… China is trying to be a little bit more at par with USA, so they will become truer friends on more equal basis: neither is inferior, or superior, in general. That type of friendship is sustainable. Don’t you think so?

Are you serious??? With all due respect you seems to have assumed too much...US is in no mood to let her Only Super Power status go away... Iraq invasion happened only few years back so please do a reality check...As far as my personal view is concerned yes such a friendship would be ideal and better for World...

A healthy competition is different from cold war mentality of “challenging”. Don’t you read Mr. Obama’s speech in Shanghai?
I did...Here we are not talking about challenging each other...Here we are talking about how to restrict influence of a country that can challenge you in future.. Rise of India will automatically do that JOB for US... So you get the job done without challenging anyone...


About voting, does that make Afghanistan government now and the one before any difference? No, not at all.Please don’t give a sh!t to my seniority. Just refute my above statements.I’d like to learn a thing or two from any members as long as there is a touch of insight/wisdom.

No sir you being a senior member i will have to give due respect to you...However you often end up talking to people who just blog in sheer hatreed and thats why my comments...Apologies if i was rude...

Now let talk about voting...Do you agree that democracy is a very healthy tool for betterment of a society??? if the answer is no then please share why you think so and in case yes then my following comments might make sense to you...

Afghanistan has a painful history of wars from almost 2 decades... Now before 9/11 she was under taliban rule...in other words rule of sharia...then comes the invasion of US and still war is on...Now if your expectations are that from such a turmoil democracy will change everything for them then you are wrong...India is a democratic country from past 62 years still there are lot of issues that needs to be fixed...having said it the current democratic government is far better than Taliban govt....though by no means it will bring substantial changes to Afghanistan but it has laid foundation of stronger and prosperous Afghanistan..where people for a change will have some rights....
 
.
As suggested please do not read much into this news...Here is one that will sound a little contrasting..

********************************************************************
Ruling out any mediation in the India-Pakistan peace process, the U.S. on Wednesday said it was for the two neighbours to decide on its “scope, content and pace.”

The U.S. supported resolution of outstanding disputes through dialogue, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns said in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — a key Washington-based think tank.

The official said the U.S. welcomed the renewed engagement between the two countries, including the meeting of the leaders of the two countries this summer.

India’s role in Asia, which was already significant, would only grow in days ahead, Mr. Burns said. “A rising India is an essential part of a peaceful and prosperous world.”




The Hindu : News / National : U.S. rules out mediation
 
.
...

0 out of only 2 land disputes that we have with our neighbouring countries...
...
LOL. Do you read?

India-Bangladesh land dispute: 162 minuscule enclaves; dispute over border fencing. India Profile

India-Nepal land dispute: 53 disputed sections of boundary covering an area of 720 sq km. India Profile

India-Pakistan land dispute: need to mention?

India-China land dispute: need to mention?

Thus, out of 6 neighbors, you have unsolved land disputes with 4 of them.

...

- Point me any one such land dispute settlement which is of the magnitude of border Issue between India and China???
- How many of these disputes were settled amicably versus by force??

Sir it is not a small piece of land that we are talking about here...so just stop comparing oranges with apples...

....

I hope you stop showing your incredible ignorance again!

India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh):
China claims approximately 90,000 sq. kms. of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and about 2000 sq. kms. in the Middle Sector of the India-China boundary.

India-China Border Dispute

The Sino-Soviet border was a legacy of various treaties between the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire, the Treaty of Aigun and the Treaty of Beijing, in which Russia gained over 1 million km² (400,000 mi²) of territory in Manchuria at China's expense, and another 500,000 km² in the western regions from several other treaties.

1991 Sino-Russian Border Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me, is 1.5 million bigger or is 92000 bigger? :lol:

Yes, there were armed conflicts. The wisdom of China and Russia, and China's other neighbors, is that they see armed conflicts useless and they look into the future.

The foolish side on India is that it refuses to looks into the future but gets stuck in the history of the past.


...and still India survived....

Yes, India has survived and will survive. But I always thought India was better than for mere survival. Thank you for telling i was wrong.
 
Last edited:
.
LOL. Do you read?

India-Bangladesh land dispute: 162 minuscule enclaves; dispute over border fencing. India Profile

India-Nepal land dispute: 53 disputed sections of boundary covering an area of 720 sq km. India Profile

India-Pakistan land dispute: need to mention?

India-China land dispute: need to mention?

Thus, out of 6 neighbors, you have unsolved land disputes with 4 of them.

Thanks for correcting me there..I very humbly accept i was wrong in mentioning that we have land disputes with only 2 countries and did not mention Nepal and Bangladesh though very timid in nature yet a dispute is a dispute...

I hope you stop showing your incredible ignorance again!

Me showing my incredible ignorance??? OK let me try..I will only use the links sent by you...
India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh):
China claims approximately 90,000 sq. kms. of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and about 2000 sq. kms. in the Middle Sector of the India-China boundary.

India-China Border Dispute

The same link also says...

During Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India in April 2005, the two sides signed an agreement on political settlement of the boundary issue, setting guidelines and principles. In the agreement, China and India affirmed their readiness to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary issue through equal and friendly negotiations.

To me sounds like India is looking into the future...Here is the text of India China agreement...Go through it...Pay special attention to Article VII

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/nic/0041/indiachinatxt.htm

In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.

In other words china claim on Arunachal Pradesh is not in synch with Agreement..and this is the only irritant in reaching a peace deal..However lot of progress has been made with opening of Nathu La pass for trade as a big gesture... So wait and watch...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Read above and then you say

The foolish side on India is that it refuses to looks into the future but gets stuck in the history of the past.

Now may i ask what else you want india to do???? Now lets talk about Sino-Soviet issue..Though its worth mentioning that when it comes to super power(During USSR era) your choices limit...
The Sino-Soviet border was a legacy of various treaties between the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire, the Treaty of Aigun and the Treaty of Beijing, in which Russia gained over 1 million km² (400,000 mi²) of territory in Manchuria at China's expense, and another 500,000 km² in the western regions from several other treaties.

1991 Sino-Russian Border Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is another expert that you missed mentioning

These treaties have long been regarded by Chinese as unequal treaties, and the issue partially arose again with the Sino-Soviet split, with tensions eventually leading to division-scale military clashes along the border in 1969.

Even as tensions lessened and leaders on both sides adopted more conciliatory attitudes, the border issue remained unresolved. Despite the view of the previous border treaties as unequal ones, Chinese leaders were willing to negotiate on the basis of the modern boundaries. That left about 35,000 km² of territory in dispute, with about 28,000 km² in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan, 6,000 km² elsewhere along the western border, and about 1,000 km² along the Argun, Amur, and Ussuri rivers on the eastern border[1]


So long story short the context of this settlement is entirely different.. There were signed treaties that were considered as unequal by chinese which eventually lead to war...Do i need to mention the outcome of that war??? This is the final agreement

The agreement largely finalized the 4,200 km (2,600 mi) border between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, except for a few disputed areas

Also none of these territorial dispute involves settlement of population worth 1,091,117 people (Arunachal Pradesh population) which makes India China border dispute super complex and thus unique...

Yes, there were armed conflicts. The wisdom of China and Russia, and China's other neighbors, is that they see armed conflicts useless and they look into the future.

Thanks for mentioning this because last post you said China is a humble country...Also since 1962 how many conflicts have you seen between China and India??? Stop being hypocritical here...

Yes, India has survived and will survive. But I always thought India was better than for mere survival. Thank you for telling i was wrong.
If you feel good by spinning my words please do that..I have no intention to break your bubble however just to set the record straight i meant that India as a country was doing great even before Honeymoon with US started and has the potential to do well with or without US...

P.S : I hope you have read post # 12...US has already started damage control..."NO MEDIATION IN KASHMIR"
 
Last edited:
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom