Usual but Necessary

[peep]

so let me just recapitulate ..

talks between ind and pak should be based on : India coming down from the heights of Siachen, India demilitarizing Kashmir, India talking about water crisis in pak and thereby stalling all ongoing construction projects on Indus and its tributaries, India talking about Sir Creek as per the wishes of pakistan... Can some one plz tell us what is pakistan bringing to the table ?

I am 10000% sure that stop supporting militant groups on its soil just can't be one ( a demonstrated FACT ). So, WHAT IS PAKISTAN BRINGING TO THE TABLE ?

And, What can we possibly achieve from a trilateral summit which we cannot from a bilateral talks ?

 

[muse]

@muse - don't you think it's Pakistan and as an extension Afghanistan that needs immediate and urgent attention?

Pakistan's current crop of problems don't stem from India, the problems that Pakistan faces are in danger of spilling over into India or to an extent into China.

China's problems don't stem from India neither does India's current problems stem from China directly though there are concerns both ways and are being looked into by both.

This trilateral or any near future discussions should center around how can China and India being Pakistan's neighbors help in solving Pakistan's major issues - that would be quite helpful rather than dragging such discussions into Kashmir, water, two front wars, nuclear issues etc which is not of immediate concern and can be solved later.

Yes, a whole host of issues need attention - what the lead article is suggesting while we have divergent views about important security concepts and while we are inwardly focused, it's vitally important of the three to be on the same page -- getting on the same page so to speak, will take much work and not with out compromises which at present seem distant possibilities.

The important thing is to get the public to understand the possibilities and to win them over to need to get these three on the same page - just keep in mind that with these three you have a tremendous pull, with labor, with capital, with underdeveloped markets and in fact with customs and currency adjustments, actually there is no much to be one because if you can see the vision of what this may mean, BRICS, MIST and 1st world, these will ideas that while worthy, will not even bein to match the potential of getting these three on the same page.

 

[illusion8]

Yes, a whole host of issues need attention - what the lead article is suggesting while we have divergent views about important security concepts and while we are inwardly focused, it's vitally important of the three to be on the same page -- getting on the same page so to speak, will take much work and not with out compromises which at present seem distant possibilities.

The important thing is to get the public to understand the possibilities and to win them over to need to get these three on the same page - just keep in mind that with these three you have a tremendous pull, with labor, with capital, with underdeveloped markets and in fact with customs and currency adjustments, actually there is no much to be one because if you can see the vision of what this may mean, BRICS, MIST and 1st world, these will ideas that while worthy, will not even bein to match the potential of getting these three on the same page.

Terrorism and it's spread is not of divergent view and is of concern for all parties - all three have concerns about it, the other issues are of bilateral nature and we will get nowhere if discussions veer towards them in this trilateral setup. Second concern would be Pakistan's economy which can be addressed by it providing transit routes or contracts / easing of bilateral trade to both countries. We can have varying views if this trilateral is more powerful then BRICS which cannot be substantiated right now.

For something to come out of this a lot of effort and commitment would be required from all parties.

 

[scorpionx]

And, What can we possibly achieve from a trilateral summit which we cannot from a bilateral talks ?

Exactly.Look at India and China,trade between both the countries (despite having border issues unresolved) have increased drastically over the years because leaders of both the countries have understood the importance of trade and economy on bilateral relationship.On the other hand Pakistan has always missed out the point and insisted on kashmir issue to be resolved first before having a peaceful settlement with balanced trade and strategical cooperation.

 

[muse]

Terrorism and it's spread is not of divergent view and is of concern for all parties - all three have concerns about it, the other issues are of bilateral nature and we will get nowhere if discussions veer towards them in this trilateral setup. Second concern would be Pakistan's economy which can be addressed by it providing transit routes or contracts / easing of bilateral trade to both countries. We can have varying views if this trilateral is more powerful then BRICS which cannot be substantiated right now.

For something to come out of this a lot of effort and commitment would be required from all parties.

If Issues become "bilateral" by assertion then they can become "Trilateral" by assertion as well -- Indian friends should examine how well this "bilateral" stuff has served the Israeli --- Anyways certainly if a "trilateral" venue is deemed inappropriate for certain issues, another venue should be just fine - not just terrorism but also Kashmir is a trilateral issue, as is water, as are nuclear weapons, market access and tariffs, rules and regulations for commercial activity by companies based in these three, banks (financial services), there is just so much work

 

[illusion8]

If Issues become "bilateral" by assertion then they can become "Trilateral" by assertion as well -- Indian friends should examine how well this "bilateral" stuff has served the Israeli --- Anyways certainly if a "trilateral" venue is deemed inappropriate for certain issues, another venue should be just fine - not just terrorism but also Kashmir is a trilateral issue, as is water, as are nuclear weapons, market access and tariffs, rules and regulations for commercial activity by companies based in these three, banks (financial services), there is just so much work

If Pakistan brings in Kashmir here everything goes kaput - and how is Kashmir trilateral?, water is not an issue which comes under IWT and there's local bodies who discuss and sort out those issues in both our countries - if water issues are dragged in then India will raise concerns about Brahmaputra too.

By the looks of things and going by the sheer number of bilateral issues and the fact that neither is on the same page nor trust each other - I think this trilateral discussion is rooted in failure and no one will get anywhere.

Exactly.Look at India and China,trade between both the countries (despite having border issues unresolved) have increased drastically over the years because leaders of both the countries have understood the importance of trade and economy on bilateral relationship.On the other hand Pakistan has always missed out the point and insisted on kashmir issue to be resolved first before having a peaceful settlement with balanced trade and strategical cooperation.

India, Russia and China can come up with some kind of joint mechanism which will probably be the strongest alliance presently, and plenty of proposals on those lines are already on the table.

 

[scorpionx]

India, Russia and China can come up with some kind of joint mechanism which will probably be the strongest alliance presently, and plenty of proposals on those lines are already on the table.

That process is already on its way and three countries are working on various fields together.But some points not to be missed out here.

1.Unfortunately,Indian foreign policy needs to act faster in some cases like Bangladesh,Srilanka,Nepal and Bhutan.China is using its economical strength to have a friendlier relationship with these countries.We,the Indians have failed miserably to counter this.Instead of facing the problem with a same kind of approach our politicians and some section of media continues to bash China on a regular basis.This needs to be stopped.

2.We can not change our geographical border.Pakistan has to have come to the equation as Muse said.A stronger India needs a peaceful western border with a stable Pakistan. Its time for Russia,China and India to have a common consensus on Pakistan.All three should talk to their leadership,both political and the military to convince them about the growing strategical importance of this region.

 

[illusion8]

That process is already on its way and three countries are working on various fields together.But some points not to be missed out here.

I agree, process is underway and is being hugely pushed by Russia, I think India will wait till it gets its UNSC seat - it needs the support of the Western bloc for this.

1.Unfortunately,Indian foreign policy needs to act faster in some cases like Bangladesh,Srilanka,Nepal and Bhutan.China is using its economical strength to have a friendlier relationship with these countries.We,the Indians have failed miserably to counter this.Instead of facing the problem with a same kind of approach our politicians and some section of media continues to bash China on a regular basis.This needs to be stopped.

China has a bigger investing power - and as you said India did not concentrate on these neighboring countries in its policies - we are looking at the ASEAN and Africa at the moment and just being reactionary to Chinese moves in the sub continent - over the decade things will surely change in our immediate neighborhood.

2.We can not change our geographical border.Pakistan has to have come to the equation as Muse said.A stronger India needs a peaceful western border with a stable Pakistan. Its time for Russia,China and India to have a common consensus on Pakistan.All three should talk to their leadership,both political and the military to convince them about the growing strategical importance of this region.

The situation that's developing in Pakistan is a huge cause of concern for everyone and dangerous for the region - and for Russia/ China and India (if there is a union) there will be multiple global concerns and the developing situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be one of them. As for strategic importance - of course that region is strategically important - but will be less if India/China and Russia get on the same page. India / China and Russia can have it's own combined transit routes that can completely avoid that region if needed.

 

[Not Sure]

Thank you Muse, for the invitation, even though I disagree with you on Pakistani members' intellectual capacities... I think you are one of the smartest members in here, and you are a Pakistani. I hope we do not get fooled by the crowd blocking the sane voices.

A key conclusion to emerge from the meeting was that discussion on nuclear issues and CBMs in this sphere could not be divorced from the wider context of lack of political trust and unresolved disputes among these nations, which remained the cause of recurring tensions. Unless strategic matters were discussed as part of overall relations they could not be meaningfully addressed, said a Chinese speaker. Indian participants concurred and urged broadening of the trialogue agenda. Others agreed that the underlying causes of tensions had to be addressed to establish the political foundation for nuclear confidence building and strategic stability.

The perceived threat is that of a nuclear standoff (just hoping it's not a war). In Pakistan, with the widening gap between India's and Pakistan's military power, the threshold (nuclear) has come down considerably, and is expected to go down even further if the tensions continue and Pakistan keeps feeling the pressure.

The case of India and China is very similar, but to walk the extra mile, India also frantically reached out to other nations to build a common ground against China. This diplomatic counter by India has assured both the nations of a high nuclear threshold.

Now, all these three countries are nuclear powers. So how is it that, at this juncture (and no before) - despite all the similar efforts in the past, solutions can found to appease all the parties when all of them are aware of the deterrence they practice?

Could you please, in your words elaborate (or even be brief) on the utility of such trialogues and even the CBMs but - strictly with respect to India?

Oh, about others saying how China is the bigger enemy - Given the terrain between the two countries and the tech that China has, it can not be countered with just the army, and that is why Indians went on such a big shopping in the past few years. The major part of the Indian Army will remain deployed on the western borders since the likelihood of an offensive coming from Pakistani side is much greater than that of any attack coming from the Chinese side. And yet, any attack, no matter how unlikely, coming from the China will be much more difficult to counter than the ones coming from Pakistan. Thus the long range missile tests, and the deployment of newer expensive war machines on the eastern side, while a major chunk of the army stays on the western border.

And practically speaking, Pakistan is just as big a threat to India as is China.

After having had cannabis laden snacks on Holi, I am almost falling asleep on the keyboard... so if I failed to make any sense here, please forgive me.

 

[muse]

Now, all these three countries are nuclear powers. So how is it that, at this juncture (and no before) - despite all the similar efforts in the past, solutions can found to appease all the parties when all of them are aware of the deterrence they practice?

Could you please, in your words please, elaborate (or even be brief) on the utility of such trialogues and even the CBMs but - strictly with respect to India?

Solutions may or may not be found, but that conclusion is one we may arrive at only after we exhaust such trialogues - an immediate CBM I can think of is the cut off in using proxies in Indian Kashmir and Afghan/Balouchistan theatre - to be followed by a clear understanding for transit of Indian goods through Pakistan and Afghanistan. ALL of this must be predicated on the understanding that there is not only the will but that where lacking, it will be "created" to conclude an agreements that will remove from the agenda area which include the risk of war and nuclear war at that.

Indian friends think that these are the best times for the Indian economy, and perhaps they are not used to better, but the Indian economy can be much, much much bigger than at present, this that going to be possible with border disputes with it's nuclear armed neighbors? Possibly yes, some will argue that US and USSR managed it, but then they did not have border disputes and were not immediate neighbors - I think the case for the need for such trilateral discussions is obvious, but it has not made it to the public consciousness.

 

[illusion8]

Solutions may or may not be found, but that conclusion is one we may arrive at only after we exhaust such trialogues - an immediate CBM I can think of is the cut off in using proxies in Indian Kashmir and Afghan/Balouchistan theatre - to be followed by a clear understanding for transit of Indian goods through Pakistan and Afghanistan. ALL of this must be predicated on the understanding that there is not only the will but that where lacking, it will be "created" to conclude an agreements that will remove from the agenda area which include the risk of war and nuclear war at that.

That would be an ideal place to start with.

There are too many trilateral and multilateral discussions for collaborations and alliances or in this case a trilateral dialogue as a new initiative or invites for discussions that I would consider Indian think tanks would be rather confused with them. Being sought after is yet to sink in and as is typical of our mandarins - they normally wait - sometimes a bit too long to take into account all permutations and combinations or get a bit overwhelmed with the situation that they look for space to breathe and have a deep rethink about what's on offer and what they possibly will be getting into over the short and long term.

Many opportunities have passed by because of this delay - and letting them go have been both fruitful and loss making in equal measure. Typical of the elephant - our decision making is laggard to the point that most parties lose interest over the waiting period. Some know how our policy works and factor it in to their discussions - I would say Russia and to a point the US know this for a fact and have been patient about it.

Indian friends think that these are the best times for the Indian economy, and perhaps they are not used to better, but the Indian economy can be much, much much bigger than at present, this that going to be possible with border disputes with it's nuclear armed neighbors? Possibly yes, some will argue that US and USSR managed it, but then they did not have border disputes and were not immediate neighbors - I think the case for the need for such trilateral discussions is obvious, but it has not made it to the public consciousness.

Practically speaking, Indians may not view this trilateral or it's outcome as an area that requires immediate attention, and as the OP suggests all three countries have their own internal problems to sort out - India has a whole bunch of problems to look into at the moment - and then there is the slow economy, China making inroads into Indian stronghold, smaller neighbors acting up, our own elections coming up next year, the Italian diplomatic row, the rape issue etc - so yes Indian populace are a bit tied up with these issues. As for the economic boom that might take place if Pakistan grants transit access - there is a lot going on it that region which is not in India's control and putting it's weight behind a camp that's on our opposite side of the playing field and wants to end our influence in Afghanistan will not be on our discussion table for the present period.

 

[curioususer]

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should just reunify. The whole south Asia will prosper, if we are strict with politicians.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should just reunify. The whole south Asia will prosper, if we are strict with politicians.

Dnt know abt BD ... But Pakistan... no way... if it ever happens ... il be the first to raise my gun.

 

[curioususer]

Dnt know abt BD ... But Pakistan... no way... if it ever happens ... il be the first to raise my gun.

I know it has become a reflex for you people to say that, when confronted with the inevitability of it, even you'll accept it.

Please don't quote and reply to me anymore, I don't want to ruin this thread of @muse. I respect him.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I know it has become a reflex for you people to say that, when confronted with the inevitability of it, even you'll accept it.
.

Inevitability? and hows that going to happen? would millions of people forget partition and its horrors? we gave sacrifices,we bleed for this country... u can keep tht akhand bharat crap to urself...