Published by: World Tibet Network News, Wednesday November 12 1997

(Rakshat Purl) New Delhi (Hindustan Times), November 12,1997

The Clinton administration's appointment of a special coordinator for Tibet, Greg Craig, has been curiously timed. Although the appointment of a coordinator is said to have been under consideration for some months, it was announced during Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit. Was the announcement some kind of a sop for those who have been critical of the Clinton administration's meek and modest attitude before the Chinese President-evidently in deference to American industry and trade interests?

It is notable that, to judge from news reports and analyses, Jiang has got much more out of the visit than have the Americans. He has been provided legitimacy as a world leader and China has received respectful upliftment in global status. The ban on transfer of US nuclear technology to Beijing has been lifted. While China gets the technology, trade and investment that it desires, the US can show in return only a $40 billion trade deficit, inability to get China to improve its human rights record, and mere repetition by China of unkept promises about treaty and other obligations.

To counter consequent criticism, the Clinton administration could of course have thrown a sop at the critics in the form of a US special coordinator for Tibet. But not everybody looks upon it as a sop for Clinton's critics-and of course it may not be a mere sop.

Considerable pressure is apparently being exerted here, on the Gujral Government, to express publicly displeasure at the appointment. Within the UF the CPI-M politburo has called the US decision "gross interference in the internal affairs of China". It has criticised Washington for its "arrogant and motivated stand". The Chinese leaders are doubtless guffawing in Beijing. Outside the UF, there seems concerted pressure through a section of the Press. Arguing against allowing Craig to meet the Dalai Lama in India because it would upset China and strain India China relations, an "Asian Age" editorial warns that the "US is keen to engage China but it feels more secure If it has an issue like Tibet as the necessary handle to exert pressure as and when wanted....ln India's case it is Kashmir where the US has established and slowly legitimised its interest". A "Pioneer" editorial advises that "there is every need to ensure that India does not become a part of American policy of containment of China". "The Indian Ex

press" suggests that although "there should be no subtle attempts to dissuade the Dalai Lama from using American good offices", Delhi's attitude should be "a minimalist stance, neither encouraging nor discouraging American efforts".

A newspaper correspondent has suggested that appointment of a US special coordinator for Tibet "has raised hackles in India with officials and bureaucrats openly speculating about the possible repercussions it can have on India China relations". Such reports and comments seem to emphasise that the US is a common threat to Delhi and Beijing. They do not take into consideration China's manifestly antagonistic attitude to India-which surprisingly even Clinton disregarded while honouring Jiang when he suggested that Beijing take an interest in bringing India and Pakistan together!

Clinton did of course know better. China has worked consistently to keep India tied down in South Asia. For this, it has helped Pakistan with arms, missiles and nuclear technology, obliquely encouraging its hostility towards India.

Chinese leaders seem more aware than the Indian that India has the potential to balance China in Asia and the world. Consider: When Jiang ended his visit to Moscow and Yeltsin included India in his list of global players, Jiang objected to its inclusion. Recently US ambassador-designate Richard Celeste observed while testifying before a Senate committee that " we must engage seriously with India in the coming years in the way that we have done with major nations such as Russia, China and others". Jiang and his colleagues would of course not agree with this either. But would those Indian commentators and politicians agree who seem to acquiesce in India's playing second fiddle to China?

The Gujral Government would be acting unwisely if it allowed itself to be influenced by the kind of advice being proffered by such commentators and politicians. It seems important to keep a few factors in mind about China's "friendliness". First, Delhi is under no treaty obligation to recognise Tibet as part of China. The 1954 treaty whereby India recognised Tibet as part of China lapsed because it was for eight years only (as stipulated in its Article Vl). The situation that culminated in the 1962 border clash hardly provided encouragement for its extension.

Secondly, while Indian leaders shed self-respect and rush shamelessly to assure the Beijing regime gratis that Delhi considers Tibet a part of China, the Chinese leaders have so far not recognised J-K, Sikkim and Arunachal as parts of India. They keep harassing Bhutan because of its treaty with India and continue to put pressure on Nepal. They extend strategic support to the military junta in Myanmar and are reported trying to negotiate a military arrangement with Bangladesh. Thirdly, China is reported to have, in Tibet and elsewhere. missiles aimed Indiawards.

The Gujral Government would do well for the nation to take all these factors into account, and trust the logic of geopolitics.