Cementing neighbourly bonds
Yan Wei

Harmonious” seems to have become a hot-button word in the international community. “We pledged to continue our work toward a dynamic and harmonious Asia-Pacific community by building strong societies for the well-being of our peoples,” stated the Hanoi Declaration adopted by the leaders of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum at their recent summit.
This echoed China’s current worldview of a harmonious world developed under President Hu Jintao. Addressing the APEC summit in the Vietnamese capital on November 18, Hu indicated that China would join hands with APEC countries to shape a harmonious, peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific community. The APEC forum was only one of the numerous occasions on which Hu has emphasized the concept. Promoting the idea was at the top of the Chinese president’s agenda as he toured Viet Nam, Laos, India and Pakistan from November 15-26, experts say.
Powered by trade
Ruan Zongze, Vice President of the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), called Hu’s four-nation visit “a tour of good neighborly diplomacy.” He stressed that relations with neighboring countries are of primary importance for China as it seeks to build a harmonious world. China has more neighbors than any other country in the world, he noted, adding that establishing good ties with them is a pressing strategic task.
Sharing Ruan’s views, Hu Shisheng, an expert on South Asian studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), believes the most concrete and notable progress made during the trip was in economic and trade cooperation.
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing recently briefed the media about Hu’s tour. According to Li, 54 documents were signed on cooperation between China and other countries in various fields, in addition to the five joint statements and declarations that were released. Li said economic and trade cooperation is a key component of China’s relationship with the four countries.
He noted that China and Viet Nam signed a number of cooperation documents during Hu’s visit, setting out the framework for bilateral economic cooperation in the next five to 10 years. The two sides agreed to promote cooperation on major projects, expand bilateral trade and work together to push forward negotiations on investment and trade in services related to a free trade agreement between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), he said.
Viet Nam is a member of ASEAN, which has agreed to set up a free trade area with China by 2010. Li said China and Laos pledged to expand bilateral trade and enhance cooperation in the fields of investment, communications, transportation, infrastructure, energy and mining.
China and India signed a pact on investment promotion and protection, agreeing to strengthen cooperation in the areas of information and communication technology, energy, infrastructure, science and technology and agriculture, the foreign minister said. The two sides also set a target of raising the annual volume of bilateral trade to $40 billion by 2010, he added.
Li said China and Pakistan signed a free trade agreement that is projected to triple their current bilateral trade to $15 billion within five years and to promote cooperation in agriculture, transportation, energy, finance and the information industry.
In an interview with Beijing Review, Hu of the CICIR singled out several achievements that he believes are of special significance. Given the fact that political relations between China and Pakistan have been more valued than their economic relations, the free trade agreement and the ambitious trade target are set to upgrade the countries’ economic ties, thus promoting across-the-board cooperation between the two countries, he said.
Hu noted that China made concessionary trade arrangements with countries in a disadvantaged position in international competition such as Viet Nam, Laos and Pakistan. He said with these arrangements, China undertook greater responsibilities commensurate with its a major power status in the region. As it pursues common development through expanding economic and trade links, China is demonstrating its policy of seeking harmonious relations with neighboring countries, the expert argued.
Working toward rapport
At a press conference after their meeting in New Delhi, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hailed bilateral relations.
Hu noted that China and India share broad common interests in bilateral, regional and international dimensions. “Both China and India are confident of our future relationship and are willing to work together to facilitate all-around and in-depth development of a strategic and cooperative partnership,” he said. Singh, for his part, asserted that cooperation between India and China has global significance. He said the nature and range of agreements signed during Hu’s visit pointed to the consolidation and diversification of bilateral ties. The warming up of relations between Beijing and New Delhi has caught the world’s attention in recent years, but not everything is rosy, experts say.
Hu of the CICIR observed that the two countries are still suffering from a lack of trust, as evidenced by the solemn and impersonal atmosphere that prevailed at the leaders’ meetings. Given this, he pointed out that the time is not ripe for resolving the border dispute between the two countries. They must make meaningful concessions before coming up with a mutually acceptable solution, he said. During Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India last year, the two countries vowed to build a strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity. However, shaping a partnership is a gradual process rather than a goal that can be reached in one leap, Hu said.
Frequent and regular high-level visits are an important part of a strategic partnership, he said. The Chinese premier and president paid visits to India in the space of less than two years, a fact that he believes shows the great importance the Chinese leadership attaches to strategic exchanges with India. The expert noted that President Hu’s visit provided a fresh impetus to bilateral trade. He told Beijing Review that India often rejected Chinese investments in the communications sector, ports and airports by citing security concerns. In this context, the pact is expected to strengthen their mutual trust. The $40 billion trade target is also indicative of their resolve to cement trade relations. Moreover, the two countries have started feasibility studies for a regional trade arrangement set to be completed by October next year.
Cooperation between China and India on nuclear energy is being closely monitored by experts. According to the joint declaration issued by the two countries, international civilian nuclear cooperation should be advanced through innovative and forward-looking approaches, while safeguarding the effectiveness of international non-proliferation principles. “Although the declaration did not lay out details, it may open up prospects for cooperation in this hotly contested field and is certainly a positive signal,” CICIR’s Hu said.
A far-reaching theory
According to Ruan of the CIIS, neighboring countries occupy a key place in China’s diplomatic strategy. Apart from high-level visits, China held celebrations marking the fifth anniversary of the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the 15th anniversary of the China-ASEAN dialogue partnership to strengthen the bond with its neighbors this year.
“China has taken concrete actions to expand common interests with neighboring countries in the spirit of seeking converging interests,” Ruan wrote in an article published by china.org.cn, one of China’s major news and information websites. “As the framework for harmonious relations with neighboring countries takes shape, China has been increasingly recognized as the ‘anchor’ and ‘engine’ for the stability and prosperity of these countries.”
Ruan noted that China lost no time in resolving border disputes with some neighboring countries. By October 2004, it had completely demarcated its 4,300-km border with Russia. Since 1999, China and Viet Nam have resolved issues concerning land border demarcation, demarcation of the Beibu Bay and fishing in the bay. Officials from both sides recently agreed to accelerate the installation of border markers under an agreement signed last year on completing the demarcation of the 1,350-km land border by 2008.
China, the Philippines and Viet Nam have started to explore the South China Sea collaboratively, exemplifying the principle of “shelving disputes and conducting joint exploration.”
Ruan also noted that China made every effort to keep peace and stability in the border region through confidence building. For example, it signed an agreement with India on the political parameters and guiding principles for settling their boundary question last year.
During President Hu’s visit to India, the two countries reaffirmed their commitment to resolving the border issue at an early date. “The two are determined to resolve outstanding differences, including the boundary question, through peaceful means and in a fair, reasonable, mutually acceptable and proactive manner, while ensuring that such differences are not allowed to affect the positive development of bilateral relations,” said their joint declaration.
At the same time, Ruan analyzed what a harmonious neighboring environment could mean to China. First of all, it helps China to secure a close and direct regional market. China’s trade with neighboring countries accounts for over 60 percent of its total foreign trade, whereas the investment it receives from these countries takes up over 70 percent of the total foreign investment in China, Ruan noted. Also, he said establishing harmonious relations with neighbors is conducive to political stability and security in the region. Achieving harmony with these countries ensures that China’s modernization program progresses smoothly at home as well.
Ruan underscored the need for China to devise its own vision about the future of the world. Today, China is presented with a good opportunity to introduce its diplomatic concepts to the world and strengthen its “soft power,” as the international community is interested in what it says and does, he said.
The theory of a “harmonious world” helps the country counteract the “China threat” rhetoric and have a bigger say in international affairs, he commented.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)


India striving for Security Council seat
Mamoona Ali Kazmi

Today many countries such as Britain are supporting New Delhi’s claim for a permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and its adequate representation in other International Organizations. But the membership to any responsible seat requires some prerequisites to be fulfilled. To judge whether India is eligible for a permanent seat in Security Council or not it is necessary to peep into its internal conditions and relations with its neighbours.
Firstly, the recent report of Sacher Committee disclosed that Indian is only pretending to be a model of democracy and religious-cultural pluralism. In reality Muslims , largest religious minority of India, faces systematic exclusion and serious discrimination at multiple levels. Muslims face worse discrimination in respect of education, income, social mobility and jobs. Mostly, Muslims live in areas deprived of basic amenities such as electricity, roads and municipal services. Muslims are altogether excluded from sensitive posts like jobs in the intelligence agencies. The fake secularism of India is revealed when in different states Anti-Conversion Law is introduced to stop religious conversions. So what kind of secular state is India where people can not choose the religion of their own choice.
Secondly, a stable and strong economy is necessary for a country to become a permanent member of Security Council. As far as India is concerned its economy is weak and fragile as compared to the permanent members of the Security Council. It is the poorest country of the third world that is dependent upon foreign aid and loan. India has money inflation rate of about 13%. One-third of the total poor people of the world live in India. 30% of the total population of India lives in slums. Due to poverty, 75% of the children of school going age are deprived of primary education. 90 % of the country’s children are malnourished and because of this many children died every year. Child labour is on peak in India. Because of unjust terms of work more than 55 million children in India work as slaves. Most of the Indians are deprived of basic necessities of life such as drinking water, health care etc. The WHO, UNAIDS and Indian Council of Medical Research assert that there are 5.1 million AID victims in India. Due to this deadly disease more than a million Indian children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to Aids.
Un-employment rate is much high in India. The educated youth when unable to get jobs engage in subversive activities. Due to unemployment and poverty many minor girls under the age of 13 are engaged in forced prostitution. The only arena where India ranked among the best in the world is corruption. Corruption prevalent in government agencies is at highest level. Another phenomenon ,which is taking pace in India is the tendency of suicides among the farmers due to sheer frustration. The rising cost of production and the falling prices of farm commodities are the main reasons of suicides. Both these factors are due to the wrong policies of Indian government and the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalization. In the whole state of Maharashtra more than 900 farmers killed themselves in 8 months of 2006. The rate of suicide has increased from two suicides per day to one suicide every eight hours. So, a country with such a shaky economic position and high level of corruption does not deserve to be a permanent member of Security Council. Thirdly, Human Rights condition in India is bleak. Fake encounters, disappearances, torture in police custody are common happening in Kashmir, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya etc. Communal riots and violence is a routine in India. The religious minorities in India specially Muslims, Sikhs and Christians as well as backward classes are victims of Hindu atrocities. So, how can a country where rate of human rights violations is high demand a permanent seat in security Council. Fourthly, India is a country where women are not only discriminated at the lower level but also in highly modernize institutions such as army. The gender bias is lowering the morals ,self esteem and has a demotivating effect on every career oriented girl who wishes to serve the nation.
Fifthly, India has a terrible record of complying with the UN resolutions. India, which itself took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations is not complying with any of the UN resolutions regarding Kashmir issue. On 21st April 1948 Security Council passed a resolution, which called for a fair and free plebiscite in Kashmir. Indian Prime Minister Nehru promised to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, according to the wishes of Kashmiri people, at more than one place. The promise however, was never fulfilled. India thwarted all attempts by the UN to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmir - Legal aspects & need for resilience
Amjed Jaaved

Kashmir is a simmering cauldron. For about three decades, India has denied Kashmiris their right of self-determination. India says that the occupied Kashmir’s constituent assembly has voted for accession to India. As such, it is no longer necessary for her to let the promised plebiscite be held in Kashmir.
India’s arguments about accession of the disputed state to India are untenable. It is the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) which entitled Gulab Singh to rule Jammu and Kashmir State. This treaty stands lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act. The Act was passed by British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to creation of independent states of India and Pakistan. The article 7 provides that with lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferances will lapse. Mountbatten deliberately kept mum about this reality for considerations of political expediency. He was not ‘politically naive, much less a fool’ not to realise this truth. According to his biographer, Ziegler, Mountbatten had a ‘powerful, analytic mind of crystalline clarity’. Yet, he had ‘legendary capacity for self-deception’. He ‘was a man who preferred falsehood to truth’.
Even the ‘Instrument’ of Accession is void for several reasons. The Independence Act required intention of accession to be absolute and crystal-clear. But, a stray glance at the ‘Instrument’ would make it clear that it is equivocal. The ‘Instrument’ expreses ‘intention to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities’ with maharajah’s prime minister. The last sentence in the ‘Instrument’ is ‘In haste and with kind regards’. Handwritten corrections on the text of the ‘Instrument’ speak volubly about the wavering state of the maharajah’s mind. The instrument, extracted under coercion and duress, is invalid under law.
Subsequent accession resolution, passed by the occupied Kashmir’s ‘constituent asssembly’ is also void. This resolution violates the Security Council’s resolutions forbidding India not to go ahead with the accession farce. Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the puppet asssembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions to forestall the foreseeable ‘accession’ by the puppet assembly _ Security Council’s Resolution No 9 of March 30, 1951 and ‘Affirmative Resolution’ No 122 of March 24, 1957 outlaws accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state.
Being violative of the Security Council’s directive, the unilateral ‘accession’, un-authenticated by the United Nations, is, in legal parlance, a nullity. Yet India insists that the accession farce is ‘sacrosanct and final’.
An intractable roadblock to holding the plebiscite is lack of consensus among India’s political parties. Plebiscite or any other solution which varies India’s hardline position is unlikely to be approved by India’s parliament _ Bharatya Janata Party, Jan Singh and Shiv Sena oppose even the slightest modicum of autonomy as treason. Rather, they want abrogation of eye-wash ‘special status’ conferred on the Kashmir state. The fanatic Hindu parties want total integration of the state with Indian Union. The sucessive governments at the centre had to tow the fanatics’ line to keep the coalition governments afloat. Not to speak of holding a plebiscite, India’s central goverrnment has been helpless in even giving real autonomy to the disputed state, as resolved by the Sarkaria Commission and the puppet assembly. The Commission’s Autonomy Report was rejected by India’s Union cabinet on March 24, 1983.