What Hu and Obama spoke about South Asia, and a round-up of reactions to that sentence.
Buried in the lengthy joint statement the U.S. and China issued on Tuesday was one sentence on India and Pakistan. Understandably, it was the focus of all the coverage in India on the Obama-Hu meeting (which I thought was a little unfortunate since it over-shadowed subtle but important progress on climate).
If you couldn't locate that sentence in the statement (yes, it was that important), here is the offending paragraph: "[The two sides] support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region."
Read it as you like, but it prompted a range of responses. But first things first. So what exactly did Obama and Hu talk about on South Asia? The two leaders of course didn't take questions after their so-called press conference at the Great Hall on Tuesday. But He Yafei, the vice foreign minister, gave some clues about what went on. He said in context of the whole meeting, they spent hardly a few minutes on this area because they "had no time." The focus was on Afghanistan, Pakistan and terror. They decided to leave it at saying they would co-operate, but "did not discuss any specifics" whatsoever.
An official who was at the talks said the India-Pakistan line was more a general, vague re-articulation of what they both have - often - separately voiced on "supporting" progress in improving relations. He said they neither discussed this, nor specific roles they would play. (Fyi, China has used a similarly-worded statement in the past when asked at regular press briefings on Ind-Pak issues. Most recently on Chinese projects in PoK, the spokesman said the same thing, that China "supported" improving relations.) But of course, it becomes a much more loaded statement in the context of a China-US joint statment, and logically looks like the US opening a door for China to stick its nose in South Asia. It was also, no doubt, an error on the part of U.S. officials for ignoring well-founded Indian sensitivities, especially right before Manmohan Singh's DC visit.
Chidanand Rajghatta has an interesting round-up of reactions from DC. Ashley Tellis says its "counterproductive", while others seemed to concur with the official I spoke to in viewing it as more a general, "ritual" rearticulation of supporting stability in the region, and not a specific change in policy that we should read too much into.
The MEA strongly asserted there was no role for a third-party in a bilateral dispute.
The Pakistani media unsurprisingly welcomed the statement, reading it as U.S. acceptance that China had a "vital" role to play in Indo-Pak relations.
On a related note, take a look at Brzezinski's Op-ed in the FT yesterday, where he calls for an informal "G2" and US-China involvement on a range of issues - many where it would certainly be unwelcome and counterproductive - including "regarding India and Pakistan", where he says it could "perhaps lead to more effective even if informal mediation."
Also take a look at The Acorn's response to it, which I rather liked.
But most importantly, what did you think?
