BurmaNet News: July 9 2003

[editor at burmanet.org]

July 9 2003 Issue #2280

INSIDE BURMA

Irrawaddy: Junta tells Wa to keep quiet
Kaladan: Forced labor still continuing in Northern Arakan
Xinhua: Myanmar makes progress in higher education

MONEY

IPS: Hong Kong, Singapore US top ‘economic freedom’ index

REGIONAL

AFP: Thai government struggles with Myanmar policy after Suu Kyi detention
New Straits Times: Razali is president of WWF Malaysia
AFP: Southeast Asian finance ministers set August meeting in the Philippines

INTERNATIONAL

New Light of Myanmar: Burma Macedonia establish diplomatic ties 9 July

EDITORIAL/OTHER

Independent: Ties with Myanmar
RFA: Job Announcement
Daily Star: Has Vajpayee’s visit opened a new chapter in Indo-China
relations?

INSIDE BURMA

Irrawaddy July 9 2003

Junta Tells Wa to Keep Quiet

July 09, 2003—Officials from Burma’s military government visited Wa
leaders in Panghsang, Shan State in mid-June to ask the ceasefire group
not to speak out against the junta’s treatment of opposition leader Aung
San Suu Kyi, sources on the Thai-Burma border say.
Wa and Palaung sources say some Wa leaders are unhappy with the arrest of
Suu Kyi, who was taken into custody after a clash between supporters of
the National League of Democracy (NLD) and a pro-junta mob in Depayin,
Sagaing Division on May 30.
The general secretary of the Palaung State Liberation Front, Mai Aikphone,
said army officers from Rangoon met with top-ranking Wa leaders including
Pao Yuchang, leader of the United Wa State Army (UWSA), two weeks after
the clash.
Government officials warned Wa leaders not to contact opposition political
organizations such as the NLD. Sources say the regime also told Wa leaders
that the junta had no intention of handing over power to the opposition.
Rangoon officials reiterated the junta’s commitment to the development of
the Wa State and said one of the government’s main objectives was joining
with the UWSA and other ceasefire groups in nation-building activities.
This week, seven other ceasefire groups released a statement expressing
grief for those who lost their lives in the May 30 clash. The seven
groups, including the Kachin Independence Organization, the New Mon State
Party and the Karenni Nationalities Peoples’ Liberation Front also
demanded Rangoon resume talks with the opposition.
Sources say the officials went to Panghsang, close to the Chinese border,
to prevent a similar response from the Wa. Mai Aikphone said many leaders
within the UWSA are interested in Burma’s current political crisis and
were watching events closely. But he said many Chinese businessmen active
in the ceasefire group were not interested in politics and were only out
to make money.
"Some Wa leaders generally sympathize with Aung San Suu Kyi, but know they
can’t speak out because of the Chinese leaders," he said.
The UWSA is said to be one of the world’s largest drug producing armies
and many of the current Wa leaders are former members of the Communist
Party of Burma (CPB). The UWSA entered a ceasefire agreement with the
junta in May 1989 and controls Special Region 2 inside Shan State.
__________

Kaladan Press July 9 2003

Forced Labour Still Continuing in Northern Arakan

Buthidaung July, 9: Forced labour is still continuing in Arakan State of
Western Burma. As part of SPDC’s design, the Commander of the Battalion
No.565 of Burma Army in Buthidaung Township ordered the Rohingya villagers
of Nan Ra Gon, San Nyin Way (Lambarbil-East) and Quendaung villages to
construct a bridge on the “Dabruchaung River”, according to our
correspondent.

On 12th June 2003, the said army battalion commander called a meeting with
the villagers, including VPDC Chairmen and Secretaries.  In the meeting,
he asked the participants, who had to affix their signatures and thumb
impressions on blank paper sheets, to provide labour for the construction
of the bridge, said a local VPDC member.

The commander warned the villagers of serious action in case of
non-compliance.  Accordingly, since 20th June 2003, a total of 150
laborers, that is, 50 from each village, have been daily working on the
construction site, he further said.

The bridge is 90 foot long and 12 foot wide. Besides forced labour, the
villagers have to provide a total of 24 pillars, in the size of 13’x 3’,
10’x 3 and 7’x 3’, for the construction of the bridge, a source further
added.

This forced labour is making the poor villagers more hapless and exhausted
while forcing them to live on starvation diet, the source continued.

The poor villagers are engaged in the construction of the bridge, day in
day out. The army is further threatening the villagers either to serve
them or leave the country It is still not known how long the forced labour
will be continuing in future, the source further said.
___________

Xinhua News Agency July 9 2003

Myanmar makes progress in higher education

Myanmar has made progress in the higher education sector, having
established 154 universities and colleges till now, as against 27 in 1988,
according to the latest figures from the Ministry of Education.

The number of students studying at higher institutions has come to 777,174
at present, up from 134,325 in 1988.

The figures also reveal that the government has confered 150 kinds of
university degrees and diplomas on graduates.

Other official statistics indicate that at present there are over 40,000
basic education schools in the country with 7.55 million students. The
basic education schools include 32,746 primary, 3,103 middle and 1,748
high schools.

Meanwhile, the schooling program for school-going-age children has also
been implemented since the 1999-2000 academic year, and in 2002-03, a
school enrollment rate of 93.07 percent was registered.

Myanmar has been implementing a 30-year plan for basic education starting
2001-02 in six phases each lasting for five years, aiming at bringing
about rapid development of qualified human resources to meet the
challenges of the present knowledge age.


MONEY

IPS July 8 2003

Hong Kong, Singapore, U.S. Top "Economic Freedom" Index
By Jim Lobe

Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States rank first, second and third,
respectively, in the latest edition of the 'Economic Freedom of the World'
annual report by the Cato Institute and more than 50 other libertarian
think tanks around the world.

 Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States rank first, second and third,
respectively, in the latest edition of the 'Economic Freedom of the
World' annual report released here Tuesday by the Cato Institute and more
than 50 other libertarian think tanks around the world.

The 160-page report, which ranks a total of 123 nations, concludes that
citizens and businesses in Africa, Latin America and the former Soviet
bloc states comprise among the least economically free countries in the
world, with Burma, also known as Myanmar, claiming the cellar position.

The report, which was released on the same day as the United Nations'
celebrated Human Development Index (HDI), is based on 38 variables in five
major categories designed to measure economic freedom.

The five categories include the size of government, as determined in part
by spending, taxes and state enterprises; the legal structure and security
of property rights; access to sound money that is not weakened by high
inflation rates; the freedom to exchange goods and services with
foreigners unencumbered, for example, by tariffs or quotas or currency
controls; and the degree to which business and credit and labour markets
are regulated by the government.

The basic philosophy guiding the ratings is that of classical economic
liberalism or, as the third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson, famously put
it: "That government is best which governs least", except, perhaps insofar
as it actively protects private property rights.

"Freeing people economically unleashes individual drive and initiative and
puts a nation on the road to economic growth," said Nobel Economics
laureate Milton Friedman, whose basic economic ideas have acted as
guideposts for the report and Cato and the other think tanks, including
the Fraser Institute of Canada, the F. A. Hayek Foundation in the Slovak
Republic, the Fundacion Libertad in Argentina, the Centre for Civil
Society in India, and the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in Israel. "In turn, economic prosperity and independence from
government promote civil and political liberty."

At the same time, the study asserted that economic freedom is highly
correlated with per-capita income, economic growth, and life expectancy
and does not necessarily lead to greater income inequality.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this rosy assessment. For years, civil
society organisations around the world have complained that unchecked
globalisation and the "free trade" model being pushed by multinational
corporations is driving a race to the bottom in environmental and labour
standards. This conflict will doubtless come to the fore in September when
the World Trade Organization meets in Cancún, Mexico, where WTO officials
hope to advance a new round of "reforms" that will help corporations
invest wherever they like while avoiding government regulations.

The just-released Cato report, the seventh in an annual series, should not
be confused with the 'Index of Economic Freedom' published by the 'Wall
Street Journal' and the right-wing Heritage Foundation here, although the
results are fairly similar. Like the Cato report, the Index, the most
recent version of which appeared last fall, rated Hong Kong and Singapore
as the two countries -- out of a total of 156 -- with the greatest
economic freedom.

According to the Cato report, which covers 2001, the year for which the
most comprehensive data is available, economic freedom has gained ground
around the world over the eight-year period since the first ratings were
published for 1995. The average rating for 2001 stood at 6.35, only
slightly higher than the previous year, but substantially more than the
5.96 eight years ago.

The report's authors, economists James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, said
that the turning point over the past 30 years took place in 1980 --
coincidentally, perhaps the same year that the World Bank introduced
structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), which were designed to reduce the
impact of government on the economy -- when ratings averaged 5.36,
according to their calculations. "It has been on the rise since then," the
reporters said.

Out of a 10-point scale, Hong Kong gained the highest rating for economic
freedom at 8.6, closely followed by Singapore at 8.5, the United States at
8..3, and New Zealand and Britain, both at 8.2. The five other nations in
the top 10 were also heavily tilted toward Anglo influence. They included
Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, and the Netherlands.

Although the rankings did not precisely follow those used in the Wall
Street Journal's Index, seven out of the 10 top nations overlapped the two
surveys. In the Journal's survey, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Estonia, also
made into the top 10 at the expense of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and
Canada.

The rankings of other large economies in the Cato survey included Germany,
20; Japan, 26; Italy, 35; France, 44; Mexico, 69, India, 73; Brazil, 82;
China, 100; and Russia, 112. In the Journal poll, Germany ranked 19;
Japan, 35; Italy, 29; France, 40; Mexico, 56; India, 119; Brazil, 72;
China, 127; and Russia, 135.

The Journal poll's major categories included trade policies; the
government's fiscal burden; its intervention in the economy; monetary
policy; foreign investment policies; banking and finance policies;
wage-to-price ratios; property rights; regulations; and the black market.

Among developing countries rated in the Cato poll, the United Arab
Emirates and Oman rated the highest at 16 and 18, respectively, followed
closely by Chile, the Latin American leader, at 20 where it was tied with
Mauritius.

El Salvador and Panama tied for 23, while Bahrain and Botswana, the
African leader, tied with Costa Rica, and six other countries, including
South Korea and Trinidad and Tobago at 26.

Other major African countries included South Africa which tied with Zambia
at 42; Uganda and Namibia at 44; Kenya at 51; and Nigeria, which tied with
Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Madagascar, and Niger, at 91. Zimbabwe and the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) placed last among the Africans at 121
and 122, respectively.

Aside from Chile, El Salvador, and Panama, the highest-ranking Latin
American countries included Costa Rica (26); Peru and Uruguay (44); the
Dominican Republic (51); Argentina and Bolivia (56); and Nicaragua (60).
Lowest ranking were Colombia (101), Venezuela (103), and Ecuador (112).

Aside from the emirates in the Gulf, highest-ranking Middle Eastern states
included Jordan and Kuwait (39); Egypt and Israel (56); Tunisia (60);
Morocco (82); and Iran (89). Lowest ranking included Syria (106) and
Algeria (120).

Besides the overall two winners, Asian countries with high marks included
Japan and South Korea, at 26; Thailand (44); the Philippines (51);
Malaysia (60); and Sri Lanka (64). Aside from Burma, the lowest-ranking
Asian countries included Indonesia (91), China (100), and Pakistan 101).

The results in the U.N.'s HDI, which measures social welfare, educational
enrollment, maternal and infant health, and political freedoms, as well as
per capita income, among many other criteria contrast fairly dramatically
with the libertarian findings.

Northern European and other developed countries monopolise the top 25
rankings, while Hong Kong, Barbados, and Singapore rank 26, 27, and 28.
The top Latin American countries include Argentina (34); Uruguay (40);
Costa Rica (42); Chile (43); Cuba (50); and Mexico (55).

Aside from Cape Verde (103), South Africa tops the African list at 111;
followed by oil-producing states Equatorial Guinea (116), Gabon (118),
followed by Namibia (124) and Botswana (125).

REGIONAL

Agence France Presse July 9 2003

Thai government struggles with Myanmar policy after Suu Kyi detention
By SAMANTHA BROWN

Thailand's government is struggling to adopt a coherent stance on Myanmar
following its military-ruled neighbour's detention of opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi more than a month ago, analysts say.

In a departure from his typical conciliatory tone, Thai Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra joined US President George W. Bush in issuing a strong
call for Yangon to release her during a visit to Washington last month.

But the premier's critics say he has now realised that this facade for
international consumption needs to be balanced with some quick
back-pedalling at home to keep relations with the ruling generals intact.

As a result, he targeted 1,500 political refugees who have fled previous
crackdowns in Myanmar for sanctuary in Thailand: they must now relocate to
camps along the border already holding some 125,000 refugees.

"Thailand doesn't really have an overall policy on Burma... They're quite
pragmatic and reacting to different circumstances with different
policies," said Chulalongkorn University political analyst Panitan
Wattanyagorn.

"They have no clear policy based on clear principles but under these
circumstances this may be the only way the government thinks is
appropriate: a dual-track policy," he told AFP.

Panitan said refugee policy was likely altered in the interests of "trying
to smooth out relations because there has been pressure by the Burmese to
make sure the refugees do not cause problems relating to the embassy and
personnel in Thailand".

Thailand said last month that Myanmar's government warned its authorities
of a possible plan by dissidents to take its diplomats in the Thai capital
hostage to demand the Aung San Suu Kyi be given her freedom.

The democracy campaigner has been held under what the junta calls
"protective custody" since attacks on her supporters by a
government-backed mob on May 30.

Thaksin's administration wants to placate Yangon for several reasons:
constructive engagement is seen as key to Thailand wielding influence with
the regime, while business interests want to protect lucrative
cross-border trade.

Several senior Thai leaders are also known to have close personal and
financial ties to the generals.

"In the short term it may get by. But in the medium to long term it could
present a conflicting stand and the international community may see
Thailand as having no common foreign policy towards Burma," Panitan said.

Sunai Phasuk from regional rights network Forum-Asia linked Thaksin's
sudden policy change to a visit by Myanmar deputy foreign minister Khin
Maung Win to Thailand last week.

"It often happens this way, that every time before a visit from the SPDC
(ruling State Peace and Development Council) the Thai government carries
out this aggressive rhetoric against pro-democracy groups," he said.

"The Thai government has created a climate of fear and uncertainty which
in effect stops democracy groups taking any action to work for freeing
Aung San Suu Kyi," Sunai said.

Aung Zaw, editor of the Chiang Mai-based Irrawaddy magazine which deals
with Myanmar affairs, said the Thai government's new refugee policy was
misguided and unfair on exiles who fled their homeland in fear for their
lives.

"Thailand is trying to contain these people, but they must realise that
there are problems in Burma that have to be solved," he said.

"You can't put the blame on these underdogs... They appreciate that
they're here and it's risky for them to go back home."

The dissident community, for whom Bangkok and Thai border towns have
become a stronghold, have used Thailand to express their anger at Yangon
before.

In October 1999 five armed rebels were involved in a day-long siege at the
Myanmar embassy in Bangkok in which nearly 100 people were taken hostage.
This was followed by another dramatic stand-off at a major hospital.
___________

New Straits Times July 9 2003

Razali is president of WWF Malaysia

Malaysia's former Permanent Representative to the United Nations Tan Sri
Razali Ismail has been appointed president of the World Wide Fund (WWF)
Malaysia.

A statement from WWF today said Razali was succeeding former president
Tan Sri Khir Johari, who is now WWF Malaysia's president emeritus after
serving as president since 1972.

Razali is currently the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Myanmar
and Special Adviser to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Razali has been president of the 51st session of the UN General Assembly,
and has also played a key role in the organisation of the first UN Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

He has also served as chairman of the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development, as chairman of the Group of 77 (developing countries), and as
president of the UN Security Council when Malaysia was a non-permanent
member of the council.
___________

Agence France Presse July 9 2003

Southeast Asian finance ministers set August meeting in the Philippines

Finance ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
are to meet in Manila next month, the finance department announced
Wednesday.

The meeting was to have taken place in April but the Philippine government
postponed it amid worries over the regional outbreak of the Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

Among the major issues expected to be discussed during the August 6-7
meeting is the setting up of an Asian bond market, the finance department
said.

ASEAN finance ministers will also meet with their counterparts from CHina,
Japan and South Korea, the department said.

ASEAN groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

INTERNATIONAL

New Light of Myanmar July 9 2003

BURMA, MACEDONIA ESTABLISH DIPLOMATIC TIES 9 JULY

Yangon (Rangoon), 9 July: The Union of Myanmar (Burma) and the Republic of
Macedonia, guided by the principles enunciated in the Charter of the
United Nations and being desirous to establish relations of friendship and
mutually beneficial cooperation on the basis of the principles of
equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of the other, respect
for independence and territorial integrity, have decided to establish
diplomatic relations between the two countries at ambassadorial level on 9
July 2003.


EDITORIALS/OTHER

Independent July 9 2003

Ties with Myanmar

Bangladesh does not interfere in the internal affairs of a neighbouring
country, or any country. As a poor country overburdened with problems it
cannot afford to do so anyway. But as we are struggling for strengthening
and consolidating democracy in our own country we remain keenly interested
in the democratic movement everywhere, especially in developing countries.

There are reasons why our relations with Myanmar (formerly Burma) should
have been closer than they are. Till 68 years ago Myanmar had been part of
British India. Myanmar was always a resourceful country and is potentially
rich. Time was when Myanmar absorbed immigrant labour from our part of the
subcontinent. It had been a major exporter of rice and timber. In the
early days of its independence the erstwhile Burma also had a democracy.

Something went wrong for some reason and Myanmar overthrew its democracy
and installed a military junta. This was nothing new for a third world
country of those days; what set Myanmar apart from the rest was the fact
that the country became completely isolationist. Consequent upon this
policy Bangladesh and Myanmar became distant, if not estranged, neighbours
as a matter of course, without either country specially bringing this
about. For decades Myanmar had very limited intercourse with the wider
world.

Happily, this is changing. Gradually Myanmar is opening up. It should open
up, as fast as possible. We shall also be happy to see the military junta
loosening its hold and enabling the people to participate in the
government through their elected representatives.

Myanmar's Foreign Minister U Win Aung during his visit to this country as
special envoy apprised the Bangladesh government of recent domestic
developments in his country. His visit came in the context of growing
international criticism of highhandedness of junta rule. The envoy was
reassured that Bangladesh does not interfere in the internal affairs of
other countries and that it will not allow its land to be used against
Myanmar. The envoy on his part reiterated his government's commitment to
restore democracy in his country. We trust the democratic system with
private enterprise will be able to unlock the vast economic potentials of
that country. Democracy is also an important factor in regional peace.
____________

Radio Free Asia: Job Announcement

JOURNALIST
(International Broadcaster)
International radio service seeks journalist(s) with background and
experience in East and South East Asia. Candidates must fluently speak and
write Burmese.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Bachelors degree from an accredited college or university, degree in
journalism or related field preferred. One year experience broadcast
and/or specialized journalism.
All candidates must be eligible to work and provide proof of eligibility.
Working knowledge of English required. Positions available immediately in
Washington, DC. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for
employment without regard to race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
Send cover letter and resume to: P. O. Box 57023, Washington, DC 20036 or
fax to 202-530-7797. Position closes on-or-about 31 July, 2003. RFA is an
equal opportunity employer committed to workforce diversity.
__________

Daily Star July 9 2003

Has Vajpayee's visit opened a new chapter in Indo-China relations?
By Harun ur Rashid

The five- day visit of India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to
China from 23rd to 27th June has been hailed in many quarters as the
beginning of a "new chapter" of their relations. India's Defence Minister
Fernandes called the visit "the-let's-be-friends" trip to China. It seems
that it is too premature to say the visit has heralded a breakthrough in
their bilateral relations because there are many major issues that will
continue to play a "disagreeable" role in their relations.
It is true that Vajpayee was the first Indian Prime Minister on Chinese
soil in 10 years. During the visit nine agreements were signed in areas of
science, technology, commerce and education. Both countries pledged to
ease visa rules and decided to set up joint infrastructure development
projects, focusing on water and energy areas. China allowed border trade
with Sikkim while India accepted Tibet as part of China. These steps are
welcome to ease tension between the two giant nations.
Complex nature of relations
China-India relationships are complex. Since both are large nations with
enormous natural and human resources, they have the capability to
influence, in many ways, events in Asia. On some issues both nations
converge and on others they differ. At an early stage both countries
wanted to live in peaceful co-existence and as friends.
It may be recalled that in the 50s India's first Prime Minister Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru had dreamt of Sino-Indian friendship on the basis of
"five principles" of co-existence between the two countries in the
"Panchasheel Treaty" of 1954 and the slogan "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" was
afloat. At the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung ( Indonesia) in 1955 it
was at the sole initiative of Prime Minister Nehru, China's Prime Minister
Zou-En-lai participated in the conference at a time when the US did not
recognise Communist China.
But reality soon dawned on them in 1959 when the Tibetan leader the Dalai
Lama ( now 67 years of age) was given political asylum in India with his
15,000 followers. Thereafter in the autumn of 1962 a disastrous border war
broke out with China that culminated in a humiliating military defeat for
India. The defeat squarely fell on the shoulders of Nehru and his Defence
Minister V.K. Krishna Menon. The consequences were so devastating for
Nehru that he did not live long and died in May 1964.
During the current visit, both Prime Ministers of China and India said all
"the right words" people want to hear on furthering their bilateral
relations. Both countries face economic challenges from the US, Europe and
Japan that drive the global economy.
Like termites the forces of globalisation may gnaw away their influence in
world economy unless China and India through their co-operative efforts
can face up to the challenge. India and China can learn from each other in
promoting new joint ventures and bilateral trade. However, economic
relations between countries only thrive when political relations are
stable and mutually trustful. For instance Pakistan-India strained
relations have impeded growth of their economic relations.
Issues that divide
Each nation has developed its own national and security interests that
include rivalry in domination of Asian region. The success of the Vajpayee
visit may be assessed in terms of the following core political and
strategic issues that divide the nations and during the visit, it appears,
that none of them has been addressed.
First, although India somehow accepted Tibet as a part of China, China did
not accept Indian sovereignty over former Buddhist Kingdom of Sikkim
annexed by India in 1975 but only allowed border trade between Sikkim and
China. The visit has not been able to resolve territorial disputes that
have soured relations for the past 40 years.
India claims 38,000 square kilometers on the western end of the Tibetan
plateau that is now held by China and says that Pakistan has illegally
ceded 5,180 square kilometers of the part of Kashmir it controls to China.
On the other hand Chinese claim 90,000 square kilometers in the eastern
Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh still marked as an independent country
on Chinese maps. In an interview with Indian journalist, the Chinese Prime
Minister Wen Jiabao reportedly said the border question was a "historical
burden on our two countries left over by the colonialists" and China
wanted a "fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution".
Second, China stays angry about India's harbouring the god-king 14th Dalai
Lama ( real name Tenzin Gyatso) and his Tibetan government-in-exile at
Dharmasala in the Himalayan peaks in northern India. The recognition of
Tibet as a part of China has not changed the status of the Dalai Lama and
his government-in-exile.
The Dalai Lama has been a political thorn to China because he has
campaigned indefatigably for the rights of the Tibetan people. In the past
the Dalai Lama's meeting with India's Prime Minister was seen as
"interference in China's internal affairs". Furthermore the Tibetan Youth
Congress, the largest dissident faction within the 130,000 Tibetan exile
community living in India advocates a violent uprising in Tibet, if
necessary. They oppose any move to renounce Tibetan sovereignty or to
forego guarantees of autonomy. The Dalai Lama has reportedly angered China
when he said in 1998 that "If I die in exile and if the Tibetan people
wish to continue the institution of the Dalai Lama, my reincarnation will
not be born under the Chinese".
Third, in the eyes of India, no other Asian country has ever backed and
armed another Asian country as China backed and armed Pakistan over the
last thirty years in such a consistent manner. India is annoyed about
China's close relationship with Pakistan and in particular their military
cooperation. India suspects that China exported missile technology to
Pakistan. Wedged between nuclear China and Pakistan, India sees its
strategic interests endangered. In the words of an Indian defence analyst
Brahma Chellany in The Hindustan Times: " Clearly, the Chinese want peace
with containment, a win-win posture that permits them to maintain direct
strategic pressure and mount stepped-up surrogate threats".
Fourth, China is the biggest military power in Asia and its power is
growing. It has been reported that China has over 2.2 million soldiers
while India has over 1.2 million
(International Institute of Strategic Studies, London, October 2002).
Although India attempts to achieve parity with China, the gap cannot be
bridged and India perceives that military superiority may impinge on
maintenance of its independent policy and action. Furthermore China's
close relationship with Myanmar (Burma) is perceived as a new strategy of
China's primacy of the Asia-Pacific region including that of the Indian
Ocean.
There are reports about Chinese support to port developments along the
coast of Myanmar including the construction of a two-lane highway from
Hunnan province (China) deep into Myanmar. China has the capability to
project military forces superior to those that could be deployed by India.
China's drive southwards including its claim of sovereignty over Spratly
Islands and other disputed maritime areas in the South China Sea has
caused uneasiness in India about China's strategic ambitions on the Indian
Ocean. On the whole China appears to increase its ability to influence and
even to intervene events in the Indian Ocean ( as India deployed its
carrier Vikrant into the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 war against
Pakistan) and many observers believe that India sees China as the "mother"
of all its security concerns from the Bay of Bengal to the Persian Gulf.
Finally, although both China and India have been alarmed by the US
military action, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, it appears that
China is concerned by the growing military cooperation between India and
the US. The idea that India could act as a "friendly host" for the US in a
future Asian crisis, say between China and Taiwan, does not provide
comfort to China. Furthermore China at its heart seems to be aware that
India is being militarily propped up as a counterweight to China in the
Asia-Pacific region.
Conclusion
During the visit both China and India tread warily in improving economic
relations but their political rivalry remains. Partnership is achievable
when both share same goals and values and that stage does not appear to
come in their relationship. However there is a realisation that seeking to
isolate either of them is unworkable and as a result there seems to be
compulsion on both sides to work out a relationship that is mutually
beneficial.
Many political observers believe that the visit has been rich in symbolism
but lacking in substance. Still, in the world of international diplomacy,
it will probably be considered a success. As Winston Churchill once said "
To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". What is necessary is a good
working relationship between the two giants that do not pretend there are
no differences and seek co-operation where possible. A big falling out
between Beijing and New Delhi could be catastrophic for the region's
security and economy and for smaller countries in South Asia. It is in
that context that the visit becomes significant.
Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva