Needless meddling by US

[indus creed]

The Pioneer > Online Edition : >> Needless meddling by US



Needless meddling by US

The Pioneer Edit Desk

India-Pakistan ties not America’s concern

Indications of a certain chill in Washington, DC towards New Delhi have been there ever since US President Barack Obama began enunciating his foreign policy, especially on American engagement with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That chill has now begun to take form and shape by way of the Obama Administration seeking to turn the clock back and re-hyphenating India and Pakistan while re-strategising the US’s perceived role in South Asian affairs.

It would appear that Mr Obama is unimpressed by his predecessor’s vigorous efforts — which were successful to a great extent — to free US-India relations from Washington’s obsession with Islamabad and, in a sense, make it the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the region.

Mr George W Bush saw merit in India emerging as a power and thus as a countervailing force not only to China but the surge in reckless and destructive Islamism, which is not limited to jihadis blowing up Pakistan bit by bit, in South Asia and beyond.

He saw India’s rise as a stabilising factor, a success story which others would want to emulate. Mr Obama clearly believes otherwise. He neither wishes to see democratic, stable and progressive India rise in the global market nor emerge as a countervailing force in the region.

Like other Democrats who have occupied the White House before him, he takes a rather bleak view of India and sees this country as being worthy of no more than being equated with an imploding Pakistan whose decrepit US-dependent regime has been reduced to a caricature despite billions of dollars in American aid.

It is this perception which propelled Mr Obama to raise and discuss India’s conduct of bilateral relations with Pakistan when he met China’s President Hu Jintao and show cynical indifference towards Indian sensitivities by agreeing to the inclusion of a gratuitous, if not patronising, comment on the issue in the Joint Statement that followed Tuesday’s meeting.

What makes it particularly offensive is that Mr Obama has chosen to do so virtually on the eve of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s state visit to the US.

Mr Obama is free to discuss the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan with anybody he wishes; it is for those countries to deal with America’s proclivity for rude and crude intrusive diplomacy.

But he must not presume that the US has the right to either preach to India on how it should deal with Pakistan or, along with China, play a monitoring role in the “improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan” which is strictly a bilateral issue.

Indeed, if truth be told, “peace, stability and development in South Asia” has long been hampered by flawed American policy and China’s relentless pursuit of strategic clout at any cost.

It is laughable that Mr Obama and Mr Hu should make pious observations on non-proliferation and call for a world free of nuclear weapons — the US is guilty of turning a blind eye to unfettered nuclear proliferation by Pakistan while China’s contribution to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does not merit elaboration.

It can be argued that Mr Obama had no other option but to kowtow to Mr Hu: A broke America kept afloat by China cannot but play second fiddle to Chinese ambition and keep Beijing in good humour. With its economy in free fall and its military floundering miserably in Afghanistan, America is deserving of our sympathy; some would even suggest we should pity the world’s sole superpower for its sorry plight.

But while the US is welcome to express its gratitude to China any which way it wishes, it should resist the temptation of doing so at India’s expense.

[indus creed]

To please China, US slights India

US President Barack Obama’s China visit has put the writing on the wall in bold: China is the next superpower the world must watch out for. Clearly, the US realises there is little it can do to prevent China’s phenomenal rise and growing influence; it has therefore decided to partner that growth.

And, what better way than to use a presidential visit to Beijing to declare America’s most serious geopolitical rival Asia’s Big Boss and cozy up to a major global player in a rapidly multipolarising world.

Admittedly, none can deny that China has been moving in that direction with very sure steps; it was only a matter of time before the US acknowledged that. Following his summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Mr Obama therefore said, “The Sino-US relationship has never been more important in our collective future.”

Except, the declaration comes at a huge cost for India which, following the Indo-US nuclear deal, was being hailed as a strategic partner of the US, a counterbalance to China’s alarming growth in the region and in the world. While the deal clearly mortgaged India’s nuclear freedom, the Manmohan Singh Government drew false comfort from becoming a “strategic” partner of the US.

Mr Obama’s joint statement with Mr Hu now categorically indicates that far from being a possible counter-China presence in Asia India is, in fact, a subject of joint US-China monitoring, a perception Mr Obama has merely offered to “share” with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the latter’s forthcoming visit to the US.

The Obama-Hu statement begs serious and immediate attention. In a highly inexplicable, unprovoked and offensive manner, the joint statement says both “support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan”.

The casualness with which India has once again been hyphenated with Pakistan is alarming, to say the least. It was indeed an arduous diplomatic drill for India during the 1999 Kargil conflict when the world in unison reprimanded two nuclear neighbours for baring their fangs at each other. However, global capitals soon realised that Indian restraint alone had prompted US intervention which forced Pakistan to back off.

In the subsequent years, courtesy some hectic diplomacy by its leadership, India was able to convince the world that it was a mistake to measure the two nuclear armed states with the same yardstick. India’s economic growth and political credibility in the decade that followed finally gave world powers the confidence to de-hyphenate the two South Asian neighbours and deal with India as an emerging global power and with Pakistan as a failed Talibanised state.

As a country that calls India a strategic partner — an unstated tool to contain Chinese hegemony — the US would have surely known what the re-hyphenation of India and Pakistan on Chinese soil meant.

Mr Obama may be new in office but surely an American President cannot be ignorant enough about India’s sensitivities to ask China — long seen as Pakistan’s aide in its conflict with India, its prejudices and ploys no state secret — to monitor an arena in which Beijing itself has geopolitical stakes. Is Mr Obama not aware that had it not been for Chinese help Pakistan, a rogue state, would never have acquired a nuclear weapon?

Is he also unaware that China is engaged in huge infrastructure building in northern Kashmir so that Pakistan maintains a strategic edge over India? This, apart from the infrastructure build-up along China’s own disputed borders with India that have put a huge question mark on India-China relations of late.

Today the creator of a nuclear monster like Pakistan, with its own reasons to keep India down, has been entrusted the task of monitoring “good relations” between a failed state and a responsible democracy like India.

Indeed, India’s stature vis-à-vis Pakistan has been reset to 1998 when a US-China joint statement by Mr Bill Clinton and Mr Jiang Zemin, ordered the two to “resolve peacefully the difficult and long-standing differences between them, including the issue of Kashmir”. Short of saying ‘intervention’ that statement had asserted that the US and China were “ready to assist in the implementation” of the resumption of dialogue between the two countries.

Times — and the language Americans would use with India — were to change in subsequent years, remarkably so after Mr Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000. Notably, after a five-day visit to India, Mr Clinton stopped over in Islamabad only for a few hours.

The de-hyphenation had begun. Then came 9/11. With a terror attack on US soil, American engagement in the Asian arena was to change forever, an engagement that would leave India only as a bystander.

In hindsight, India’s distance from what transpired in Afghanistan and Iraq and with what is now happening in Pakistan helped it stay above the conflict and prove to the world that the problem in South Asia is not an India-Pakistan border/territorial conflict but an alarmingly growing fundamentalist Islamic terror machinery that knows no borders.

Mr Obama’s visit to China comes at a time when India-China relations are at their pre-1962 worst and when US-China relations are at their all-time best. In such a scenario, for an American President to discuss India with China in the context of peace, stability and sustainable development in the region is patently offensive.

Agreed, Mr Obama has to keep China in good humour. After all, the American and Chinese economies have become so interlinked that all other issues, including meeting the Dalai Lama, must be kept on hold. The compulsion is more serious on the American side. Also, it is quite evident that Mr Obama’s AfPak policy is headed nowhere.

He is therefore seeking more partners in this theatre of conflict. By ceding China that strategic space the US can make a dignified exit out of a war it could never really fathom. The possible trade off: China minds Iran and North Korea.

In the process, if India’s strategic stature just got dwarfed in Beijing it has only the Manmohan Singh Government to blame. For, its first tenure saw India sign off crucial political leverage with the US in an inexplicably rushed nuclear deal.

Its second tenure has seen its abject failure to counter growing Chinese belligerence on the border issue. Laughably, instead of outright rejection or outrage India’s feeble response to the China-US statement is that it is “committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue…A third country role cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary.”

Looks like the heat is on. All the left wing Indian morons who were euphoric over Obama's win better get out of sight and hide. :))

[Luke Gu]

Er，indus，do you agree the complaints you have posted？I don't know what you think about it，but my idea is that ：Behavior among the countries is driven by the interests 。So no matter the relationship between China and US is good or bad，what China should do is protect our national interests。So I never thought to rely on other countries to obtain benefits。But what the posts here Complained about the U.S. not so close to India，is it have any meaning？

[axeman]

Looks like the heat is on. All the left wing Indian morons who were euphoric over Obama's win better get out of sight and hide. :))

Bu..bu..but Obama will bring the change that we believe in.

In all seriousness though - this really shouldn't come as a huge surprise. America is not our friend. Most definitely not an "ally", in any way, meaning or form.
The Congress should take a good hard look at their foreign policy which they have been following for the past half-decade.
Let's not blame Obama completely though. What has the American congress been doing giving Pakistan billions in unconditional aid ? Where's the pressure to root out Laskhar-e-Taiba ? Let's take a good hard look at what we want from this relationship.

Er，indus，do you agree the complaints you have posted？I don't know what you think about it，but my idea is that ：Behavior among the countries is driven by the interests 。So no matter the relationship between China and US is good or bad，what China should do is protect our national interests。So I never thought to rely on other countries to obtain benefits。But what the posts here Complained about the U.S. not so close to India，is it have any meaning？

Complaints ? These are articles (whether you agree with them or not).
What has been "complained" here is that the US is messing around with India's policy...again. Where does China come into India-Pakistan relations ? What is also being stated here is that India does not appreciate being clubbed with a country which is racing towards failure, if it hasn't reached it already. No one cares about India's relationship with the US not being as good as it was a year back, what we DO NOT want is this sort of disrespect.

[antonio]

What is also being stated here is that India does not appreciate being clubbed with a country which is racing towards failure, if it hasn't reached it already. No one cares about India's relationship with the US not being as good as it was a year back, what we DO NOT want is this sort of disrespect.

Last I've heard was that the Joint Chiefs described India as "an increasingly important strategic partner"...

As for the India-Pakistan issue, I must agree, it really has been a diplomatic foul up for Obama to make the ignorant mistake but I suppose it is logical to assume the wanker didn't do his research on India since his administration is currently obsessed with their own economy and are just so eager to please their trading partners and markets in China. India-Pakistan ARE definitely a serious concern though for the yanks though...especially with growing tensions between Pakistan and Iran. Even the frail Pakistani government, when backed against the wall by pressures of Iran, India, and poverty, will strike out like a cornered animal, perhaps even vulnerable to a coup. The last thing the yankees want to deal with, is that messy can of worms...

[zraver]

Bu..bu..but Obama will bring the change that we believe in.

India's a democracy, why would you think a Democrat would like your country?

In all seriousness though - this really shouldn't come as a huge surprise. America is not our friend. Most definitely not an "ally", in any way, meaning or form.
The Congress should take a good hard look at their foreign policy which they have been following for the past half-decade.
Let's not blame Obama completely though. What has the American congress been doing giving Pakistan billions in unconditional aid ? Where's the pressure to root out Laskhar-e-Taiba ? Let's take a good hard look at what we want from this relationship.

Paksitan has gotten a few billions in aid and wasn't obliterated after 9-11 but India has beneftited far more from US involvement in the region. The nuclear deal kicked open the door and let India back into world as something between a dejure NWS and its previous defacto status that caused sanctions.

More importantly, good relations with the US including increasing military ties increases India's strategic flexibility and depth. For a Country sandwiched between 2 nuclear powers both hostile to it friends are a very good thing to have. India also needs a p5 patron in the UN. Pakistan has China, and India once had Russia. However increasing Russian-Chinese ties means this is not a secure bet anymore.

Obama won't be in office for long, he is already a lame duck in all but name.The next president will be a Republican and Indian would do well to remember that. The Right in this country treats our allies much better than the left ever has.



Complaints ? These are articles (whether you agree with them or not).
What has been "complained" here is that the US is messing around with India's policy...again. Where does China come into India-Pakistan relations ? What is also being stated here is that India does not appreciate being clubbed with a country which is racing towards failure, if it hasn't reached it already. No one cares about India's relationship with the US not being as good as it was a year back, what we DO NOT want is this sort of disrespect.[/QUOTE]

[axeman]

India's a democracy, why would you think a Democrat would like your country?

I didn't expect much from Obama to begin with. The joke was about some idiots in India celebrating Obama getting elected. There was a party as well if I'm not mistaken. Some actors even spoke in favour of him. Morons.

What does him being a Democrat have to do with India/democracy (I mean ideologically, not historically) ?

Paksitan has gotten a few billions in aid and wasn't obliterated after 9-11 but India has beneftited far more from US involvement in the region. The nuclear deal kicked open the door and let India back into world as something between a dejure NWS and its previous defacto status that caused sanctions.

More importantly, good relations with the US including increasing military ties increases India's strategic flexibility and depth. For a Country sandwiched between 2 nuclear powers <snipped>

I suppose you're right. The nuke deal was worth more than the charity that Pakistan gets. That said, attempting to appoint China as the regional leader, in charge of regional disputes is unacceptable, especially to India. We aren't going to toe a third party's (in this case, China) line when it come to bilateral discussions/affairs between two nations.

Obama won't be in office for long, he is already a lame duck in all but name.The next president will be a Republican and Indian would do well to remember that. The Right in this country treats our allies much better than the left ever has.

I just read an article about his approval rating dropping below 50%. Made me smile.

[HillTribe]

If I were a strategic policy maker for the GOI, I would be really, really concerned...Is this the forerunner for bigger Chinese Involvement in the region and consequently dominant Chinese influence? More importantly, what options does India have?

It is not just a question of conventional military might, but also of economic leverage...currently India's economy stands at $1.22 Trillion, and is nearly four times lesser than that of China's at $4.33 Trillion... and the gap is projected to grow wider. Obviously a nation's economic size translates to increased military spending and if trends are anything to go by, China will far outstrip India in both economic size ad military might.

Now that the US and China have a virtually symbiotic economic relation, and as the Chinese economic juggernaut grows continuously the US is unlikely to want to rub China the wrong way. Even if China pursues its hegemonic agenda in the periphery that India considers its sphere of influence, or even if the PRC resorts to saber rattling, the US will advocate conciliation rather than confrontation to the belligerent parties. Other than that India cannot expect help from any quarter. Couple that with a Pakistan to the west which is always more than willing to jump, if you will, the 'anti-India coalition.' Again what options does India have if there is indeed war with China? India looks isolated and vulnerable as far as things stand right now... Can Indians or experienced India hands clarify India's doctrine vis-a-vis China. I don't see any coherent strategy followed by GOI. It seems more reactive and short sighted unlike the Chinese one which seems to take a long term view of the (yet to come) inevitable progression of history...

I may be a pessimist but as European history has shown, if there are two rising powers in the same vicinity, there is bound be a confrontation....

[andrew]

Bhadrakumar summarized it better.

US's dalliance in Beijing is short-lived
By M K Bhadrakumar

Discourse between India and Pakistan can be deceptive - like when cats hiss. You can never quite tell dalliance from discord. The fact remains that at different levels, despite their occasional shrill rhetoric, contacts have been going on between Delhi and Islamabad, including some unprecedented highly sensitive lines of communication, which neither side publicizes. India has also kick-started parallel efforts aimed at reaching out to Kashmiri opinion, with Pakistan in the loop.

At the responsible level of leadership in both India and Pakistan, there is a realization that extremism and terrorism do not and should not provide scope for zero-sum games, given the acuteness of security threats. There is no attempt on India's part to take advantage of the pressing need for the Pakistani military to redeploy from the eastern border to the Afghan border.

Washington is privy to the alpha and the omega of what is going





on, and yet it got a pithy paragraph inserted into the summit statement by US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao:
The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They 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.
The untimely articulation raised eyebrows in New Delhi, as both Washington and Beijing know only too well that it isn't in India's DNA to accept minders or mentors - Western or Asian. Delhi lost no time brusquely rejecting mediation.

However, the Sino-American affair over South Asia presented Delhi with another puzzle. The fact remains that US and Chinese interests are so patently at odds in the region that the two countries cannot easily mate. Washington is actively undermining the stability of the Mahinda Rajapakse government in Colombo, with which both Beijing and Delhi enjoy close ties. The US has just begun a robust thrust in Myanmar to contest China's influence.

Conceivably, China has a good grasp of the situation in Pakistan and can estimate how deeply unpopular the US has become in that country. Ironically, the day the Obama-Hu statement was released in Beijing, a Gallup poll revealed that Pakistanis see the US as a bigger threat (59%) than India (18%) or the Taliban (11%). Why should Beijing stake its "all-weather friendship" with Pakistan to salvage America's reputation?

Meanwhile, a concerted media campaign has begun in the US to discredit Chinese policies toward Afghanistan - that China is involved in "brazen examples of corruption" to grab Afghanistan's wealth of mineral resources. Quoting US officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that state-run China Metallurgical Group Corp (MCC) paid a bribe of US$30 million to the concerned Afghan authorities for receiving a $2.9 billion project to extract copper from the Aynak deposit in Logar province.

The MCC is reportedly all set to bribe its way into another massive mining deal - an iron-ore deposit west of Kabul known as Haji Gak - and Sinochem, a Chinese state oil company, is similarly bidding for access to oil and gas deposits in northern Afghanistan. It is an unsavory tale.

Yet the London Times picked up the sleaze story on Thursday and embellished it even further. The tale already finds echo in a recent testimony by Milton Bearden, a former Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Islamabad, to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The other regional players [read China] are busily setting the stage for exploitation of Afghanistan's natural resources, while the US remains bogged down with the war. This should change," Bearden said.

Two weeks ago, when the Associated Press broke the story, it quoted leading American think-tanker and author, Robert Kaplan, "The world isn't fair. A worse outcome to staying and helping the Chinese would be withdrawing and losing a great battle in the war against radical Islam."

Therefore, where is it that US-China "communication, dialogue and cooperation" can work in South Asia? In Nepal? Indeed, Washington has already begun backtracking from the Obama-Hu statement.

On Wednesday, addressing the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC, William J Burns, under secretary for political affairs, said, "Of course, we all share an interest in stability and peace between India and Pakistan. We all know the stakes. America has always supported the two countries' peace process and the resolution of outstanding disputes through dialogue. The pace, scope, and content of the peace process is for Indian and Pakistan leaders to decide."

Burns later told Indian newsmen, "The US is interested in pursuing the best and healthiest possible partnership with China. But that doesn't come at the expense of other increasingly important partnerships, particularly our relationship with India." He advised them "not to read too much" into the US-China statement.
Beijing will not be surprised that its South Asia connection with the Americans turned out to be ephemeral. The US similarly fired from the Chinese shoulder 11 years ago when its influence over Pakistan and India was again at low ebb. That was in May-June 1998, when the two South Asian countries went openly nuclear and Bill Clinton thundered in the Oval Office, "We're going to come down on those guys like a ton of bricks."

Clinton dispatched his diplomats to rally the Chinese to his side and Beijing promptly obliged. A few weeks passed and Clinton changed his mind and began reconciliation talks with Delhi - without keeping Beijing (or anyone else) in the loop. History seems to repeat itself.

No sooner had Obama taken off from China, the American side began its explaining. These temper tantrums show up the fault lines in the US's regional policies. The plain truth is that both Pakistan and India have become somewhat "unmanageable".

Washington is acutely conscious that "anti-Americanism" is riding high in Pakistan and it cuts across all sections of society. There is growing volatility in Pakistani politics and any new government can only be less "US-friendly".

The Afghan Taliban continue to flourish as Pakistan's "strategic assets" and they bleed American troops while Pakistani military operations remain restricted to militants who disrupt Pakistan's internal security.

As for Delhi, it hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Monday, just a week before a visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US. India may get back into the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and Manmohan may visit Tehran in February. Most important, Iran invited India to join the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan regional format, and Delhi showed interest.

Delhi takes a dim view of the Anglo-American thinking regarding "moderate Taliban" in Afghanistan. It repeatedly ignored - including a week ago - the proposal by the US AfPak special representative, Richard Holbrooke, to visit Delhi for consultations, pleading "scheduling difficulty".

Again, Manmohan will be visiting Moscow in early December - his second trip to Russia in six months. The traffic from Delhi to Moscow has become heavy - one presidential visit, two prime ministerial visits and visits by the foreign minister and the defense minister.

Indian strategists are finally catching up with the transformative realities in the world order and realizing that Delhi's one-dimensional foreign policy riveted on the idea of working "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Washington as "natural allies" on the global scene is a hopelessly archaic notion.

It becomes embarrassing to look back and survey that India has held over 50 military exercises with the US in recent years. Obama prefers a "demilitarization" of US-India ties, with cooperation mainly focused on American arms manufacturers tapping into the massive Indian arms bazaar.

For the first time in the post-Cold war era, Delhi elites too are not going overboard with excitement over an impending prime ministerial visit to the US and are able to maintain equanimity and poise.

At the same time, US-Indian business ties are set to blossom. On Thursday, the Indian government tabled legislation in parliament under the misleading title "Civil Nuclear Liability Bill", the sole purpose of which is to provide access for the US nuclear industry to the Indian market, which promises to offer over $100 billion in business in the coming five to 10 years.

Washington's quick backtracking from the Obama-Hu statement underscores that any enterprise to mount ill-fated Sino-American ventures in the Indo-Gangetic plains can seriously harm the American business agenda, which is the US's top priority.

This is not the end of the story. Beijing still may have an affair to settle with Delhi - the Dalai Lama's recent visit to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its territory.

Most certainly, it was not in India's interests to have raised the dust. It remains unclear what good purpose was served by the visit and what may have been lost.

In what may be the first Chinese response, the top Kashmiri separatist leader in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has been invited to visit Beijing. He said he accepted the invitation and hoped to give Chinese diplomats and other officials a "perspective" on the situation in J&K. This is the first time ever that Beijing has invited any separatist leader from J&K to visit China.

Obama may have a thing or two to explain to Manmohan when they meet over the first state banquet of his presidency that he is hosting in singular honor of the Indian dignitary next week. While in Beijing, Obama might have unwittingly butted into an area in which angels fear to tread.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

[667medic]

Instead of jumping around like a headless chicken, India must take a pragmatic view. If USA and China want to stabilize Pakistan, then its good. But if they want to help Pakistan at the expense of India, so that Pakistan can have her undivided attention to harm India then India should respond. Why not sponsor another visit of the DL to Twang......

[antonio]

Why not sponsor another visit of the DL to Twang......

Probably not the best idea for keeping relations good with the Chinese...

[Luke Gu]

Why not sponsor another visit of the DL to Twang......

A U.S. President's words =India vs China。Why do you just respond to China？Why do you not list something to hurt US？BTW，both of us have cards to play，but I don't think it's a good idea。You‘re really easy to be encouraged。The President of the United States can give you a lot of promises, but he was not the United States Congress,he can't make promises come true， I do not believe him。

[667medic]

A U.S. President's words =India vs China。Why do you just respond to China？Why do you not list something to hurt US？BTW，both of us have cards to play，but I don't think it's a good idea。You‘re really easy to be encouraged。The President of the United States can give you a lot of promises, but he was not the United States Congress,he can't make promises come true， I do not believe him。

You don't make any sense there, can you please explain in simpler language...

[Luke Gu]

You don't make any sense there, can you please explain in simpler language...

You say if us and China want to hurt India through helping Pakistan，India sould reaction ：sponsor another visit of the DL to Twang。But it just a reaction to China，you lose US。And US put forward that China should work with her for the peace of South Asia ，I don't know what will happen in the future，but your words give me Some inspiration of that：what happened now，Sino-Indian relations are so fragile。I really wonder if Obama is sincere when he did this。China have our interests，I don't believe our diplomacy will change a lot because of Obama’s invition。

[antonio]

You say if us and China want to hurt India through helping Pakistan，India sould reaction ：sponsor another visit of the DL to Twang。But it just a reaction to China，you lose US。And US put forward that China should work with her for the peace of South Asia ，I don't know what will happen in the future，but your words give me Some inspiration of that：what happened now，Sino-Indian relations are so fragile。I really wonder if Obama is sincere when he did this。China have our interests，I don't believe our diplomacy will change a lot because of Obama’s invition。

You say if the Americans and the Chinese are aiding the Pakistani government contrary to Indian interests, the Indian government should retaliate by sponsoring another one of the Dalai Lama's trip to Tawang. But such an act would just strain India-Chinese relations, given that the location in question has disputed territorial sovereignty, and would be near irrelevant to the Yanks. I don't know what to expect but without a doubt, Sino-Indian relations are particularly fragile. It really makes me wonder if Obama and his administration are sincere in their efforts as the Chinese certainly have their own.

- Excuse me... but is that what you mean buddy?