Border dispute threatens an embryonic alliance
A coherent Sino-Indian response to European and American demands at the Group of Eight summit indicates the possibility of the Asian giants taking joint action to combat poverty globally. They repudiated the developed world's attempt to curtail growth in developing countries, a move that was seen as penalising them for the problem of greenhouse gas emissions that they certainly did not create.
However, this embryonic Sino-Indian partnership is threatened by hawks on either side eager to take advantage of a festering border dispute.
President Hu Jintao agreed at the G8 with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's notion of 'common but differentiated responsibility'. Sino-Indian co-operation does not aim at reproducing consumerist western lifestyles but at raising a billion human beings from desperate poverty.
Mr Hu and Dr Singh both agree the onus for cutting greenhouse emissions lies with those historically responsible for it.
Since 1850, China has contributed less than 8 per cent of the total emissions of carbon dioxide, while the United States is responsible for 29 per cent, and western Europe 27 per cent. Per capita, India's greenhouse gas emissions are only 4 per cent of America's and 12 per cent of the European Union's. If the planet is to be saved, then the developed world must check its unsustainable lifestyles.
The Sino-Indian stance developed out of Dr Singh's call for pragmatism in bilateral relations. Heeding his call, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, in his earlier guise as defence minister, negotiated a crucial deal. It paved the way for the head of the Indian Army to visit Beijing in May, where it was decided to hold the first ever Sino-Indian military exercise this October.
Indians describe Mr Mukherjee's initiative as a 'landmark' event. Indeed it is: two armies that fought a bitter war in 1962 and have been skirmishing ever since then, will now meet in friendly competition. However, the prospect of Asian unity is overshadowed by lingering memories of conflict providing spoilers on both sides. Briefly, China holds a large chunk of territory in Kashmir that India claims. China claims parts of India's Arunachal Pradesh state. The contours of a settlement are simple: there must be a trade-off. But 'pragmatism' is not always the strongest motive in politics.
Mr Hu can marginalise Indian hawks - who accuse China of dragging out negotiations to buy time and develop its military capability - by restraining hawks in his own foreign ministry. His own affability towards India was again demonstrated in Germany when he applauded Dr Singh's 'positive attitude', 'insight' and 'vision'. He must ensure that bilateral hopes are not derailed by his foreign ministry, as nearly happened on the eve of Mr Hu's India visit when the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi provoked Indians by going stridently public on China's Arunachal claim. Surprisingly, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi backed what looked like an attempt to scuttle Mr Hu's historic initiative.
Mr Yang has again thrown a spanner in the works by telling Mr Mukherjee that China will not keep to the mutually established 2005 'Guiding Principles' for border talks. It amounts to a Chinese rejection of the agreed Article VII, which says that 'in reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard populations in border areas'.
Whatever Mr Yang's reasons may be, the rejection is fuel for Indian hawks.
Hawks on both sides must have their wings clipped if Sino-Indian co-operation is to grow. Not only can the two Asian giants help to realise the hopes and aspirations of a large section of the global poor, but they might also be able to force the developed world not to shirk its environmental responsibilities.
This is not the time for politicking.
Deep Kisor Datta-Ray is a London-based historian and commentator on Asian affairs
