http://www.thehindu.com
Atul Aneja
March 3, 2017
This can be triggered by an agreement along the eastern sector that includes Tawang: Dai Bingguo
Indian and Chinese negotiators have moved close to the final settlement of their disputed boundary, which can now be triggered by an agreement along the eastern sector that includes Tawang, says a veteran Chinese diplomat.
Dai Bingguo, a former State Councilor and China’s Special Representative for the boundary talks with India that began in 2003, has asserted in an interview with a Beijing-based publication that a final settlement of the boundary question between China and India is within grasp.
“It is safe to say that after more than 30 years of negotiations, China and India are now standing in front of the gate towards a final settlement of their boundary question. The gate is a framework solution based on meaningful and mutually accepted adjustments. Now, the Indian side holds the key to the gate,” Mr. Dai told the China-India Dialogue magazine.
The former official stressed that the “major reason the boundary question persists is that China’s reasonable requests have not been met.” He signaled that China was likely to reciprocate in the western sector, which includes the disputed Aksai Chin, if India demonstrated flexibility along the eastern boundary.
“If the Indian side takes care of China’s concerns in the eastern sector of their border, the Chinese side will respond accordingly and address India’s concerns elsewhere. In this way, both countries can shake off the nagging chains left by colonialists and better work together to promote common development, achieve respective rejuvenation and herald the arrival of the Asian Century,” Mr. Dai observed. He stressed that China has managed to settle boundary questions and develop friendship with 12 neighbouring countries, including Russia and Vietnam.
Referring specifically to Tawang, Mr. Dai underscored that the “disputed territory in the eastern sector of the China-India boundary, including Tawang, is inalienable from China’s Tibet in terms of cultural background and administrative jurisdiction.” He asserted that China “was not a signatory of the Simla Accord of June 3, 1914,” which established the McMahon line in the eastern sector. “From the perspective of international law, the Simla Accord, as well as the ‘McMahon Line’ which it created, are not only unfair and illegitimate, but also illegal and invalid,” he observed.
Mr. Dai highlighted that an Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, which was signed in 2005 has been “fundamental” in advancing the boundary talks. He said that this agreement pinpointed that the two countries should make “meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the boundary question in order to reach a package settlement”. “To this end, the key is to implement ‘meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments’,” he observed.
‘Biggest dispute’
The former official pointed out that out of the disputes along the eastern, middle and western sectors of the China-India boundary, the “biggest dispute involves the eastern section.”
Mr. Dai praised India for pursuing an “independent foreign policy,” anchored to principle of maintaining its “strategic autonomy.”
“As Indians claim, their country insists on ‘strategic autonomy’ and is clear about what it considers as acceptable foreign policy. I think this strategy is the result of the common wisdom of generations of forward-thinking Indian politicians and a policy that optimally serves India’s fundamental interests for long-term development.”
Mr. Dai was confident that the era of a multi-polar world had materialised, entailing that interaction among the big powers that included China and India would determine “whether the international landscape can evolve in a peaceful manner.””
‘India not our rival’
The former official insisted that China was not opposed to India’s rise, and did not subscribe to the view that Sino-Indian rivalry was unavoidable. “China will neither see India as its rival nor contain India’s development. He added: “Responsible Indian politicians should not treat China as a competitor or target of containment. In the eyes of China, even if there are some competitions between China and India, they are supposed to be healthy competitions that will eventually help both countries develop and progress, instead of political and strategic competitions and zero-sum games.”
Mr. Dai highlighted that the Chinese are “delighted” that see the evolution of India’s “sound relationship”” with other countries, including the United States, Russia, Japan and Europe.
