LyrArc Article Gist
Indian foreiign minister S Jaishankar meets with his counterpart Wang Yi in Dushnabe, Uzbekistan, to restore peace in border region of Ladakh after the violent clash in 2020. Jaishankar tells China not to view ties with India through "the lens of a third country." China agrees. Jaishankar was actively involved in setting up cultural and other Sino-Indian contacts in Chinese cities when he was Indian ambassador to China. Jaishankar also tells China that India China relations set the tone for peace in Asia. China says it agrees with this idea. India's strong response to China's border infrastructure building and its moving forces close to the border line of control, has led to China reconsidering its policy following deteriorating relations with Australia, US and UK. China now sees that it has little to gain with worsening India relations and border issues or clashes, when the US and UK, Australia, are moving forces into the Indo-Pacific region and in the seas around Taiwan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who has decades of experience in foreign affairs and relations with China, says in his personal observation the border stand-off with China has "significantly impacted" public sentiment in India. Recalling the tense period after 1962 from memories as a child and a young person, he sees some of these memories coming back. This is a real danger for China says Jaishankar, as it will dissipate the carefully developed goodwill in India. Jaishankar was not only the longest serving Indian ambassador to China but also one who set up cultural contacts in 30 cities for Indian culture in China during the period 2010- 2013. Earlier during 1996-2000 he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Tokyo, Japan, and is married to Kyoko who is from Japan. His relationship with East Asian countries is a rare asset in India's foreign service. In Jaishankar's words- "We are being tested. I have every confidence that we will rise to the occasion and meet the national security challenge." This comes from experience tackling India China border disputes during his period as ambassador. One such situation can be mentioned. In 2013 the PLA encamped in India's Ladakh region in the Depsang Plains. A scheduled trip of premier Li Keqiang to India in 2013 was about to be cancelled before the PLA withdrew.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jaishankar was asked at the 2021 GLOBSEC conference in Bratislava in 2021 why he thinks anyone will help India in case of a problem with China after it did not help others for Ukraine. Chancellor Scholz of Germany cites Indian Foreign Minister Jasihankar's remarks in Bratislava, Slovakia, in 2021. Jaishankar said- "Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems. That is if it is you it's yours, if it is me it is ours. I see reflections of that. There is a linkage today which is being made. A linkage betwen China and India and what's happening in Ukraine. Chia and India happened way before anything happened in Ukraine. The Chinese do not need a precedent somewhere else on how to engage us or not to engage us or be difficult with us or not to be difficult with us." These are Scholz's remarks at the Munich Security Conference. Scholz says Jaishankar has "a point."  "This quote from the Indian Foreign Minister is included in this year's Munich Security Report and he has a point it would't be Europe's problem alone if the law of the strong were to assert itself in international relations." To be credible European or North American in New Delhi or Jakarta, it is not enough to emphasize shared values. "We generally have to address the interests and concerns of these countries as a basic prerequisite for joint action. And that's why it was so important to me to not merely have representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America at the negotiating table during the G-7 Summit last June. I really wanted to work with these regions to find solutions to the main challenges they face growing poverty and hunger, partly as a consequence of Rusia's war, as well as the impact of climate change or COVID-19. There is another side to this -Scholz and Germany's president Frank Walter-Steinmeier are from the social Democrats party which has sought closer cooperation with Russia, and also carry a great deal of ambivalence for the war. America is not fighting this indirect war in its neighborhood, Germany is. And some of the roots of this conflict go back to the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in the 1800's period and the German invasion in the 1940's. Macron is even more ambivalent in his position and he has remained this way from the beginning- not committed to humiliating Russia. In a way it is the position of the Social Democrats from the historical context of Germany's invasion of Russia, and Christian Democrats eagerness to create a German recovery with low cost Russian energy that created the dependence that Russia sought to use. In what it sees as the unfairness of NATO being allowed to expand right next to its borders. Because of a sense of righteousness on both sides- Russia of the Soviet period failing to see the feelings of a Budapest in 1956, East Berlin in 1953, and Prague in 1968, sees little wrong in an invasion of Kviv. And with it all the biography of Brezhnev the last leader of the Soviet Union, describes that very struggle in the Great Patriotic War the soviets fought against Nazi Germany which was fought by Ukrainians including Leonid Brezhnev with great will and purpose against all odds.  Cambridge historian has written the history of Europe that Scholz is cited to be reading in 2021- Europe The Struggle for Supremacy 1453 to the Present.  It shows Europe since 1453 engaging in balance of power of European powers, Sweden Denmark, Russia, Austria, Germany, France, Britain, Turkey, continually for 500 years. Europe simply forgot its own history. Asia including Japan, China, Indonesia and India, simply emerging from the situation of falling behind in science, technology, and the industrial revolution and building their economies with the help of the US since the Meiji Restoration in Japan in 1868. The Balance of Power Simms says was maintained for 500 years is simply based on no country allowed to act with impunity, no country allowed to do whatever it wanted because of its position of strength at that moment or period of time. In that situation all other powers regrouped to keep the balance from being upset. The war in Ukraine is also likely to end in a way that is consistent with that which Brendan Simms writes about because this has not changed now for over 500 years. Biden knows this and it has fallen on America to shoulder the burden for this in the last 150 years, Scholz is aware of this, Modi in India sees this, and Jinping in China realizes this even with its concerns about Taiwan.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Security is at the heart of India's foreign policy. S. Jaishankar points this out at Thiruvanathapuram. He says this was true of the effort at Balakot and even in the midst of Covid at the Line of Actual Control with China when India sent up enormous numbers of troops to defend the border. This is also behind the stand with China that security and LAC comes first in all relations with China. Trade and exchanges all come in the context of LAC, settle the LAC issues first then we can proceed with better bilateral relations, this is what India is telling China.  There are good reasons for this. India has a large border in the most formidable terrain of the Himalayas which is also close to the plains of India in the LAC with China. Any difficulties at the border would weaken India's secuerity and weaken development efforts in the same way that Japan sought to weaken Chinese development through invasion in the 1930's. Tibet looms out of the past. When China invaded Tibet Nehru's couple of pages in Discovery of India on China show that he had no idea of the China that had emerged with Mao and the CCP in its historical struggle against Japanese nationalists and imperialists. He had an idea of China that came from the Buddhist period and India's links from the past. The ruthless Japanese invasion that China confronted on its soil, and British colonial incursions before that, had already transformed the China of the past, which now under Mao in 1948 may have sought more defensible borders by extending them to Tibet as a buffer state. Historically the British had never tolerated Russian or other European or Japanese interference in the border states such as Tibet. There was also the question of capacity. By the time of the invasion of Tibet in the early 1950's China had already fought the Korean War with the US. India's army and defense forces were just coming out of partition and ill equipped for the task of defending the borders in Tibet region. Current governments in a more normal setting cannot change this part of history, yet can take full recognition of the facts that this has created. A strong defense has to be created for defending a border that extends for thousand of miles now that China has unlawfully occupied Tibet. On it also depends a strong and vigorous development effort that helps build the kind of modern defenses as the economy grows and absorbs new technologies rapidly. Both defense and development go together, one cannot have defense without rapid modernization and development, and one cannot have rapid modernization and development without defense. A weak defense would lead to distractions in development leading to the lack of rapid modernization and development as the intruding power interferes in insidious ways in the internal and external links of the country. This is the lesson of colonial interference of western powers in Asia. As Brendan Simms shows in his new book, Europe - Struggle for Supremacy 1500 to the Present, it is also the lesson of a different kind of colonialism inside Europe since 1500, where weaker states inside Europe fell behind with interference in turns by the imperial powers of France, UK, Austria-Hungary, Prussia and Russia. Poland, Finland, Czech Republic in the past and even Ukraine today are just some examples of what can happen when one loses sight of this principle. Poland and the Polish Commonwealth in the 19th century, Hungary right down to 1956, and China in the 1910-1930, India in the 18th and 19th century were weakened internally even after recognizing the problem, so that recognition of the problem is not an adequate condition to prevent countries from facing such foreign interference. ...