[Just compare the report at sl. no. I below with the (rather shrill) comment at sl. no. II.]
I/II. [Japan and South Korea, which have military differences with China, are sending representatives. Most other countries engaged in territorial disputes with China over the South China Sea issue, including Vietnam and Indonesia, are also sending official delegations. Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka are also taking part. Twenty-nine countries will be represented by their heads of state.] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-makes-u-turn-to-drive-down-one-belt-one-road-initiative/articleshow/58652294.cms Saibal Dasgupta | TNN | Updated: May 13, 2017, 10.41 AM IST HIGHLIGHTS The US move puts tremendous pressure on India, which remains undecided on whether to send representatives to the event. India maintains that China has not created an environment of trust to carry out the belt and road projects. There may not be any immediate material loss to India if it goes unrepresented because OBOR is not a membership-based organisation. BEIJING/NEW DELHI: The US has made a sudden U-turn and decided to participate in the One Belt, One Road (OBOR)+ initiative being organised by China with much fanfare in Beijing this Sunday and Monday. The US move puts tremendous pressure on India, which remains undecided+ on whether to send representatives to the event. India maintains that China has not created an environment of trust to carry out the belt and road projects. A very good example is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through which China is looking to link Xinjiang with Gwadar port, which it has built in Balochistan. Beijing has shown scant regard for the fact that it impinges on India's sovereignty, passing as it does through the Gilgit-Baltistan region which India claims as its own. There may not be any immediate material loss to India if it goes unrepresented because OBOR is not a membership-based organisation+ . In fact, India might be praised in some quarters for taking a bold principled stand. Sources in Delhi said India at best may be represented by junior embassy officials and ruled out sending any high-level dignitary. A few Indian academics may also be present at the meet which would attract representation from over 50 countries and international organisations like the World Bank. Though taking part in the initiative is a political decision, the US has made it appear like a trade-off that included China's commitment to buy American beef as part of the '100-day plan' agreement. On its part, Washington agreed to allow Chinese banks to expand operations in the US. "India is in a dilemma," Jagannath Panda, a research fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis in New Delhi, told TOI. "India has to take cognizance of the US decision. It is an early signal that the Trump administration is reframing the US-China relationship," he said. The US is sending an inter-agency delegation led by Matthew Pottinger, a top adviser to the Trump administration and National Security Council senior director for East Asia. The decision emanated directly from the meeting between the presidents of the US and China in Florida last month. "We welcome all countries to attend. And we welcome the United States' attendance as the world's largest economy," said Chinese vice-finance minister Zhu Guangyao. China's dominant position in the programme may be somewhat diluted with the US now joining developed countries like Britain and Germany in sending representatives. China may come under pressure to become more transparent about its plans, and whether it would follow internationally-accepted standards on environment and labour in the projects, they said. ***Japan and South Korea, which have military differences with China, are sending representatives. Most other countries engaged in territorial disputes with China over the South China Sea issue, including Vietnam and Indonesia, are also sending official delegations. Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka are also taking part.*** [Emphasis added.] ***Twenty-nine countries will be represented by their heads of state.*** [Emphasis added.] China says it would be a win-win for all countries, but there are serious doubts on whether Beijing would eagerly share the benefits in the face of pressure from Chinese companies. Top Comment US has its beef at stake and so as China had its business and banking, Pakistan has its investment need. What can be India's interest on this initiative? Shamik Roy The programme includes six economic corridors but no reliable map has been made available and it is evolving with time. "What actually gets built will depend on what deals Chinese companies or the government make with other countries," abroad or on the deals that the Chinese government makes with other governments abroad, and no one knows exactly what those are going to be," said Tom Miller, author of a recent book, China's Asian Dream. II. [And finally China’s brazen disregard for concerns of sovereignty cuts to the heart of its bilateral relationship with India, which had long been premised on respect for principles of non-intervention, territorial integrity and peaceful resolution of disputes. If that basis no longer holds, Indian policy makers must seriously revisit the benefits of joining China-led multilateral initiatives. Some would even question the political viability of Brics going forward. CPEC will create domestic pressures on India to incubate sub-conventional support for oppressed peoples in Gilgit, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. It could intervene more directly in highlighting such issues in Balochistan, another CPEC waystation. While India’s $2.5 trillion economy brings limitations to any response, these steps will act as a benchmark for the future. For now, India may resist the race to the bottom, ie confront violations of sovereignty with proportionate counter-violations. But policy planners in Beijing should not test India’s ability to impose Himalayan hurdles on the belt and road.] http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/wahhabism-meet-han-ism-cpec-betokens-chinas-search-for-lebensraum-in-pakistan-and-pakistan-occupied-kashmir/ Wahhabism, meet Han-ism: CPEC betokens China’s search for lebensraum in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir May 12, 2017, 2:00 AM IST Samir Saran in TOI Edit Page With Beijing elevating the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative’s political visibility through a heads of government summit this week, India needs to craft a sharper policy position. Over the past two years, New Delhi waited and watched as China sought political buy-in from Asian powers for OBOR. India subtly communicated to China that a trans-regional project of this magnitude required wider consultation. When Beijing chose to sidestep this request, India articulated concerns – at the highest level, no less – regarding its own sovereign claim on those regions of Jammu & Kashmir that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) would traverse. China’s wanton disregard for Indian sensitivities suggests the debate on OBOR’s economic potential is now academic. There cannot be any serious discussion on India joining or not joining OBOR unless New Delhi feels its political sovereignty – the very basis of governance – is respected by the project. Far from this, CPEC (the life and soul of OBOR) threatens India’s territorial integrity in a manner unseen since 1962. China, through its economic corridor with Pakistan, has proposed a dramatic redrawing of demographic and geographic boundaries. It is undertaking an unabashed, confrontational and neo-colonial smash and grab in south Asia. It is capturing key real estate in the wider region. Beijing is building islands in South China Sea, contesting territorial claims of neighbours in the East China Sea, and even aspires for greater control of the Malacca Straits. It has bankrolled its way to political supremacy in central Asia. It now seeks to build overtly economic but covertly military facilities and bases through the CPEC route – in Gwadar but also Gilgit-Baltistan. Islamabad is willing to offer such stations in return for Beijing’s protection and money. The most obvious attempt is to engineer a political solution to the Kashmir dispute by changing “facts on the ground”. If China managed to do this in the South China Sea by constructing entire islands in disputed waters, CPEC will create permanent or semi-permanent projects that will change the nature of the economy and society in Gilgit-Baltistan. The region will be swamped by Chinese and Punjabis who will exploit its location and pillage its civilisation for common benefit. Not only would CPEC run roughshod over the sacred Panchsheel principle of “mutual respect”, it would also destroy any chance of a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute. In effect, Pakistan and China are suggesting that it is conceivable Jammu & Kashmir (and Gilgit-Baltistan and presumably Ladakh) can be segregated into separate units that merit unique economic, political and military engagement. CPEC also triggers concern that economic concessions by Pakistan will lead to ceding of territory, for which the 1963 Sino-Pakistani agreement is a precedent. Ironically, China’s involvement in economic activities in contested territories goes against the grain of its own policy on FTAs between Taiwan and third parties. By investing in CPEC, the UK and EU are complicit in this design. In effect, European money is being used by China to limit Western political leverage in Asia, and assist Pakistan to continue to sponsor anti-India radicalism. China’s hardline approach in Xinjiang province offers a clue to what CPEC could do to Gilgit-Baltistan. The 2000 census said while the native Uyghur Muslim population in Xinjiang remained the largest ethnic group at 48%, Han Chinese made up 40%. This was an astonishing turnaround from the overwhelming 90% majority Uyghurs enjoyed in the 1950s. Han Chinese are said to dominate the province today, as they are economically better off and awarded the best jobs and highest positions. Uyghur culture and customs have been suppressed. There are restrictions on fasting during Ramzan, Muslim baby names are labelled “extremist” and even the length of beards is regulated. Is Gilgit-Baltistan the next frontier for such demographic re-engineering? In 1974, Pakistan abolished a rule that prevented non-locals from buying land in Gilgit-Baltistan. This Shia-dominated region saw rampant Sunni expansionism and settlement of people from all over Pakistan. “As of January 2001, the old population ratio of 1:4 (non-locals to locals) had been transformed to 3:4,” suggests the South Asia Intelligence Review. CPEC will make Gilgit-Baltistan the meeting ground for a volatile osmosis of two supremacist projects: Wahhabism and Han-ism. Both aim for complete social domination of communities. This would not only alter the region’s demographic composition but also reduce Gilgit-Baltistan to a tinderbox of ethnic, religious and sectarian conflict, with grave security consequences for south and central Asia. ***And finally China’s brazen disregard for concerns of sovereignty cuts to the heart of its bilateral relationship with India, which had long been premised on respect for principles of non-intervention, territorial integrity and peaceful resolution of disputes. If that basis no longer holds, Indian policy makers must seriously revisit the benefits of joining China-led multilateral initiatives. Some would even question the political viability of Brics going forward.*** [Emphasis added.] ***CPEC will create domestic pressures on India to incubate sub-conventional support for oppressed peoples in Gilgit, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. It could intervene more directly in highlighting such issues in Balochistan, another CPEC waystation. While India’s $2.5 trillion economy brings limitations to any response, these steps will act as a benchmark for the future.*** [Emphasis added.] ***For now, India may resist the race to the bottom, ie confront violations of sovereignty with proportionate counter-violations. But policy planners in Beijing should not test India’s ability to impose Himalayan hurdles on the belt and road.*** [Emphasis added.] -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
