[lbo-talk] "Beijing-Moscow-New Delhi trialogue"

[Chris Doss]

The Hindu (India)
22 September 2003
Article by K.K. Katyal: "Beijing-Moscow-New Delhi trialogue"

The significance of the upcoming trialogue is not to be underestimated
because China, India and Russia represent the vast majority of the global
population.

How to appraise the "trialogue" of India, China and Russia now that the
Foreign Ministers of the three countries are due to meet this week in New
York, as part of the process that began two years ago? Some tend to see it
as larger than life, as a precursor to the establishment of a "strategic
triangle". Others may dismiss it as a routine affair. The truth lies in
between--it is an informal consultative exercise, focussing on the
convergences on a wide range of issues, political and economic. Its
significance is not to be underestimated, apart from other factors, because
the three countries represent the vast majority of the global population.
It could be counted upon to strengthen the forces of stability in the
region--and the world.

In any discussion of this subject, the loose talk of a "strategic triangle"
has to be avoided. Those who indulge in it are either unrealistically
wishful or do not understand the implication of a triangular strategic
relationship. To say this is not to ignore the steady improvement in the
bilateral ties among the three countries--between Russia and China, Russia
and India and China and India--but to emphasise the need for an objective
view of their relationship.

There are several positive factors in favour of trilateral cooperation--at
least four, according to a Chinese scholar. One, they are faced with
similar security environment and tasks and have similar or close positions
on many international issues. All of them advocate a multi-polar world and
the establishment of a just and fair new international order. Two, all the
three countries need to develop their economy and rejuvenate themselves.
And their economies are complementary. Three, Russia has a special position
among the three--it is a traditional ally and partner of India and also has
close ties with China. Its special role could help facilitate development
of trilateral cooperation. Four, this cooperation, though just started, has
gained strong momentum. On the negative side are the unresolved boundary
dispute between India and China, and Beijing's special relationship with
Islamabad.

The trilateral meeting last year of Yashwant Sinha, Igor Ivanov (Russia)
and Tang Jiaxuan (China) discussed matters related to the agenda of the
United Nations General Assembly with the three taking "common positions on
principal matters", with stress on "formation of a world order based on the
superiority of the U.N. Charter and international law".

The talk of "strategic triangle" gained currency in 1998 during the visit
here of the then Russian Prime Minister, Yevgeny Primakov. At the very
start of his trip, at the formal reception at the Rashtrapati Bhavan
(President House), he was asked by a correspondent whether Russia favoured
this concept. "If we can succeed in establishing a triangle", he replied
"it will be very good." However the issue did not figure in his discussions
with the Indian hosts. China, too, was cautious in its reaction.
Interestingly, Russia was cool to the idea barely a year ago.

This was evident during the Moscow visit of I.K. Gujral, then External
Affairs Minister. His Chinese counterpart, too, was in Moscow then. Mr.
Primakov, then Foreign Minister, did not approve of Mr. Gujral's idea of a
meeting of the three--even of the two visiting Ministers on the Russian
soil. Obviously there had been a major shift in the Russian stand after a
year, with caution giving place to enthusiasm, which continues till now.
China, too, appears to have given up its earlier lukewarm attitude. In
recent years China has been pro-active in the region, with a bigger role in
ASEAN and the Shanghai six, a grouping including the Central Asian
republics and Moscow. It offered a free trade area with ASEAN, well before
India came out with such a proposition, and is far more active in the
campaign against terrorism and religions fundamentalism. It has taken
greater interest in matters like energy, connectivity and WTO. Some of the
matters of common concern now are obvious, like the situation in
Afghanistan, and the danger of its lapsing into religious fundamentalism,
and Iraq.

All these items are expected to figure in the coming trilateral round which
may also cover steps to counter terrorism, U.N. peace-keeping processes,
reform of the Security Council, human rights and environment concerns,
apart from the General Assembly agenda items. Next year they may move on to
substantive economic matters. India was far from enthusiastic when the
trilateral process started two years ago. It has warmed to the "trialogue"
now, primarily because of the improvement in its ties with China, as
evident from the outcome of the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee's
recent visit there.

Not much is given out officially on what transpires in the Foreign
Ministers' discussions. To get a better idea of the rationale and scope, it
is useful to refer to a parallel track II exercise--the meetings of the
academics from the three countries. This initiative, by now
institutionalised, is not formally connected with the Government but is an
authentic index of the context of the trilateral exercise, especially of
common concerns and parameters of the collective approach.

A detailed account of this process, which too began in 2001, is called for.

Involved in this track II exercise are the scholars from the China
Institute of International Studies, the RAS Institute of Far Eastern
Studies, Moscow, and the Institute of Chinese Studies, New Delhi. Both in
Beijing and Moscow, the consultative process is officially encouraged and
gets considerable official attention. The institutes in these two capitals
have close relation with their respective foreign offices, while their
Indian counterpart is autonomous and independent. The first meeting was
held in September 2001 in Moscow, the second in November 2002, and the
third is scheduled for November this year in New Delhi. According to
published accounts, they made known, at the very beginning of the first
meeting, their continued adherence to the three "no"s--the tripartite
relationship is not an attempt to forge an alliance, nor meant for
confrontation and not targeted against a third country. The press release,
issued after the first meeting made the following points:

"Participants to the conference were in agreement that trilateral
cooperation between China, India and Russia had a rich and positive
potential based on common or similar positions on a broad range of
international issues such as democratisation of international relations,
formation of a multi-polar world, opposing hegemony, construction of a fair
and rational new international order, countering international terrorism,
extremism, separatism, organised crime and illegal circulation of drugs.

"All the three countries are firm supporters of the Five Principles of
Peaceful Coexistence. As noted by the participants, the strengthening of
trilateral cooperation does not imply any diminution of national autonomy
or of the national identity. On the contrary, constructive interaction must
become a guarantee for the full development of the most valuable qualities
and genius of all three peoples.

"Another common position taken by the participants was that trilateral
cooperation does not imply the formation of alliances, blocs, etc."

Now some significant highlights of the discussions in the last two years.
To guard against the perception of an anti-U.S. ganging up, the scholars
went out of the way to emphasise the importance of good relations with
Washington. But while taking the positive stand in relation to the sole
superpower, they felt concerned over the dangers of unilateralism and the
strategy of pre-emption. Hence their emphasis on active cooperation to
promote multipolarity and on steps to democratise international relations.

There was complete unanimity over the need for international cooperation to
combat terrorism but some felt that the approach of the coalition, under
the U.S., needed to be tampered with caution. In some cases, the U.S.
objectives could not be shared and, in other situations, there were strong
reservations to the means used by it. As seen by the scholars, the U.S.
appeared to be motivated by three goals--to eliminate Islamic extremism,
enhance its status as the sole superpower and increase control over energy
sources of West Asia and Central Asia.

Globalisation was seen as having both positive and negative elements.

Among the suggestions to contain the negative factors were 1) joint steps
to build defences against movement of speculative capital 2) sharing of the
experience of the three countries in dealing with multinationals and 3)
establishment of a trilateral study group on WTO.

The track II may be an independent channel but the ideas mooted there do
find their way to the corridors of official policy-makers. That is its
additional utility.

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month.  Limited time offer-- 
sign up now!   http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup