Deepening ties with China

EVEN to old China hands like this writer who has been visiting the Middle Kingdom regularly for more than three decades and has also had the opportunity of working in that country, no trip to this land of ancient culture is without new and rewarding experiences.

Ever since Deng Xiaoping decided to abandon the core principles of Marxism (as they relate to the economy) in his determination to transform China into a major world power, there has been no looking back.

Of course, in the initial stages he faced tremendous opposition from the “long marchers”, who could neither comprehend what Deng proposed nor appreciate what his proposals would do for their country. By the late 1980s, Deng had succeeded in introducing such radical reforms that most Sinologists consider the changes wrought by him as representing a revolution.

In this context, I recall a fascinating exchange between President Ziaul Haq and the then US vice-president, George Bush, during the March 1985 funeral of President Konstantin Chernenko in Moscow.

During the course of their conversation, the future of the two communist powers — the Soviet Union and China — came up for discussion. George Bush asserted that China’s decision to open up the economy while keeping total control over the levers of political power would be disastrous. He was more appreciative of the idea then reported to be under consideration by Chernenko’s successor Mikhail Gorbachev to relax political control while maintaining total state control over all aspects of the economy.

The then Foreign Minister Sahabzada Yaqub Khan said that loosening the political stranglehold of the Communist Party without adequate economic growth and benefits to the people could endanger the whole edifice of the communist system.

The American vice-president remained unconvinced. We all know what the loosening of political contacts, especially as enunciated by Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost and perestroika, did to the Soviet Union.

Last week, I was provided with another opportunity of returning to China for the purpose of participating in the Boao Forum for Asia 2007. Most appropriately, the theme of the conference was “Asia in Today’s Global Economy — Innovation and Sustainable Development”. It brought together not only major companies from the host country, but business houses from other important Asian countries as well. The Philippines president, Pakistan’s prime minister and the Microsoft chairman Bill Gates were the keynote speakers in the opening session.

Since its establishment, the Boao Forum for Asia has become the most important gathering of private and public sector representatives from Asia and this has played an important role in advancing cooperation and understanding in the world’s largest continent.

It may also be noted that the lack of adequate progress in the Doha Development Round has pushed many countries, developed and developing, to negotiate bilateral and regional arrangements to advance their development goals. The result is a proliferation of bilateral and regional free trade agreements.

The Asian Development Bank estimates that there may be as many as 192 such agreements, a situation described by the Chinese as a “noodle bowl” of overlapping rules and regulations that has become an impediment to global trade growth.

Though Asia remains the most dynamic region in the global economy, its growth has been patchy, with some countries doing much better than others. Some idea about Asia’s role in the world economy can be appreciated from the fact that 23 of the 28 Boao Forum core members are now from the top half of the world’s largest economies.

The presence of nearly 1,400 representatives from major business houses at the forum enabled the participants to gain a “much better understanding of the great opportunities and the frightening challenges the Asian countries face in achieving the economic integration on the road to assuming a greater role in the world economy.”

It was a happy coincidence that on the day we landed, the Chinese media reported that the country’s economy had started on a strong note, expanding by 11.1 per cent in the first quarter of the year. The GDP reached $653 billion in the first quarter and, except for fixed asset investment, all major economic indicators showed signs of acceleration. However, while this represented a healthy rate of growth, it did set some alarm bells ringing, especially at fears of the economy being “over-heated”. Nevertheless, most economists present at Boao were of the view that the country’s economy was likely to remain bullish for the rest of the year although Beijing is expected to introduce measures to pursue “good and fast” economic growth.

China’s most impressive development for the past two decades has had inevitable impact. The entire world has been monitoring developments in China with either excitement or worry, depending on how it views its relations with that country. Of course, it is the US that has exhibited the greatest concern and confusion, being unable to decide whether it sees China as a strategic partner or a strategic rival.

There is hardly any day when someone or the other in a position of influence does not make pronouncements on China. One was John Negroponte’s last report as the nation’s intelligence czar, wherein he said, tongue in cheek, that “the US did not worry about any threat from China because Beijing places priority on positive relations with the US” and the Chinese embrace of globalisation is “rapidly bringing the countries of the region closer together.”

Another interesting report was that of the “Princeton Project on National Security”, a three-year bipartisan initiative of leading American thinkers from the government, academia and business. Its recommendations, especially those relating to Asia, were both interesting and revealing.

The Princeton project visualised bringing trans-Pacific, rather than a pan-Asian, regional order, in which the US “plays a full part” and in which “the US-Japan alliance remains the bedrock of American strategy in East Asia.” This influential report also recognises that the US should continue to strengthen its ties with India, describing it as “a major democracy”, and as “Asia’s other emerging power.” The report also believes that “sustained economic growth in Asian countries, other than China, is the key to managing China’s rise.”

Not surprisingly, the Chinese did not take too kindly to these reports. Ruan Zongze, the vice-president of the China Institute of International Studies, writing soon after the report was released, observed that it suggested that Washington is “not yet ready to cease and give up its efforts to graft its own brand of democracy onto the world.”

Ruan Zongze was upset with the project’s recommendation that the US should strive to bring together a “concert of democracies”, questioning US pretensions to promote these objectives particularly at a time when it was in such a mess in the Middle East.

He remarked, with some sarcasm, that US foreign policy was “showing signs of fatigue. The US influence in the Middle East is weakening and the Bush administration has to consider a withdrawal strategy.”

This view demonstrated afresh that in the aftermath of the US debacle in Iraq, there is greater confidence and vigour in other capitals such as Beijing and Moscow. Both these powers, along with others, are of the view that the US must abandon its policy of unilateralism and signal a willingness to go back to genuine multilateralism.

Other Chinese publications, too, have been commenting regularly on the Middle East, as well as on the stand-off between the US and Iran. Nevertheless, I did not get the impression in my exchanges with Chinese scholars that China had any intention of taking advantage of Washington’s difficulties.

On the contrary, Beijing believes that it would be to its long-term advantage to pursue responsible and restrained policies and eschew any desire to take unfair advantage of anti-American sentiments the world over. It believes that it would be more beneficial to work alongside the US than to encourage the establishment of rival camps.

Notwithstanding its robust economy, it appreciates that the strength and dynamism of its economic success has been due primarily to its cooperation with the US and Europe. Unlike Russia, it considers its relationship with the US as too important for China to seek to establish any alliance against it. Nothing could be more reflective of a people’s wisdom than the recognition that national objectives have to be pursued with deliberation and restraint.As regards Pakistan’s relations with China, there has been no divergence between the policies of elected governments and authoritarian regimes. If asked to identify one issue on which there has been near unanimity in Pakistan, it would be on the value and sanctity of ties with China. It was, therefore, good to see the Pakistan prime minister among the keynote speakers at the Boao Forum.

In his two speeches, he spoke with clarity and conviction, though it was sad to see him bring along a huge entourage of totally disinterested and colourless ministers who treated the forum’s deliberations with disdain making no effort to either interact with other delegates or to project Pakistan.

Nevertheless, it was encouraging to see as many as 27 agreements signed, some of which would be particularly important as they envisage massive expansion in our trade with China as well as in getting China’s assistance in sensitive areas like space and satellite cooperation. Our bilateral trade is expected to be tripled in the next five years to the tune of $15 billion and with the FTA in place, 85 per cent of goods traded between the two countries would either be totally free of tariff or under preferential tariffs.

This is the right approach, because there is no other power that is willing to assist us in establishing facilities of a strategic nature. Lest it be forgotten, it is China alone that has not hesitated in meeting our political, diplomatic and even defence needs. It was, therefore, heartening to hear the Pakistan prime minister state that the era of unipolar world order had come to an end with China’s emergence as a global power.

If the prime minister genuinely believes this then he should also recognise that our close identification with the US, especially with the latter’s policies on Iran and in the Middle East, raises questions in the minds of many Chinese. I was also asked what Pakistan’s objectives were in expanding cooperation with Nato. I frankly had no answer to this.

It is, therefore, incumbent on the Pakistani leadership to recognise that the Chinese may not say so, but they do have misgivings about some aspects of our policies. These need to be removed for it is in our natural interest to promote the gradual shift away from unipolarity to multipolarity. Therein lies salvation for small, developing countries such as Pakistan.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Paying for the West’s sins

THIS godforsaken region comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives has found time to discuss everything under the sun, but never the environment, ecology or climate. Yet this is where global-warming affects the most. The disappointing part is not the lack of knowledge. It is the lack of interest. I am not aware of any effort in the region to fight global-warming.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at Brussels has predicted dire consequences: 30 per cent of species will be wiped out, 3.2 billion people will face water shortage and a large-scale melting of the Himalayan glaciers will play havoc with the Gangetic plains.

An increase of a mere foot of sea water can endanger Mumbai and Kolkata as much as it could Karachi, Chittagong and Colombo. Even if the rise is not that much, the countries in the region cannot afford to wait and watch. How to tackle the impending disaster coolly and collectively is the question that stares at us.

India set up a department of environment in 1981. Similar official establishments exist in the other countries. Alas, all of them are lost in trivialities. They have never budgeted anything for steps to fight against the challenge hurled at them. Nor have they planned anything as a region.

The famous Sunderbans in West Bengal has lost 10 per cent of its area as well as some rare species to the rising water. Some experts in the West say that the glaciers are melting, raising the surface of the seas. Because new glaciers are not taking the place of the old ones, many rivers have less water than before.

Environmentalist Sunder Lal Bahuguna who has been living not far from the source of the Ganges, Gangotri, says that during the span of three decades he has seen the river shrinking. It appears that this is the story all over the region.

The worst may happen in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in that order. Change in the climate may turn fertile lands into deserts. It is estimated that 200 million people in the region will be forced to leave their hearth and home and move to new places where the influx may create problems of its own. Either the lessening of rain or too much of it at certain places is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I recall Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asking the agricultural ministry to analyse the cause for the disturbed rainfall cycle. There was no follow-up. The examination never went beyond the collection of press clippings and Mrs Gandhi’s own statement. Studies done in India, however, indicate that economic development has been halved by hazards like climate and the loss of water. This is true of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. Their growth has also been curtailed by unpredictable natural factors.

The situation is serious. One need not believe the World Wildlife Fund report which warns that humans would need to find two other earths in space to survive because the earth’s resources would be exhausted by 2050. Nevertheless, immediate steps should be taken to save resources. Some time ago, a Nobel Laureate economist told me in Delhi that India’s problem would not be population but water. This is true because there is already a running battle among the states over river waters.

India’s Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan has revealed that the largest number of legal disputes pertain to water shortages. Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are in constant litigation over water-sharing. One hears shrill voices over the construction of the Kalabagh dam in Pakistan.

Groundwater sources are depleting in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Lucknow and Hyderabad. This is just as true of cities in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. On top of it, trees are being cut indiscriminately in the region. As many as 30,000 trees are in the process of being uprooted in Lahore alone.

I blame the developed world, particularly the West, which has progressed at the expense of poor nations like ours. We are paying for their sins. Uganda President Museveni has aptly described the emission of gases by developed countries as “an act of aggression” against the poor.

“They have polluted for decades and we pay the price in lost landscapes and lost lives.” Developed countries are also responsible for the concentration of gases in the atmosphere which has been taking place cumulatively over the last 150 years, says Dr R.K. Pachuri, the IPCC chairman. “Even today if you look at the per capita emission, China and India are nowhere near the developed countries.”

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Security Council’s first meeting on global-warming could take place only a few days ago. As expected, the US was opposed to the very idea of the meeting. Russia’s opposition is understandable but definitely not China’s. Maybe, the latter is behaving like a passenger in a third-class compartment shutting out others after he has got in.

Whatever the reservations of America, Russia and China — strange bedfellows — the Security Council’s meeting turned out to be a grand show. As many as 52 nations participated in it, apart from the Council members. A preponderant majority argued that climate change posed a clear threat to international security.

The West, like the haves, does not understand that the have-nots may become desperate if the distance between the two is not spanned. This applies as much to trade as it does to agricultural products and ecology. Why does an individual from poor countries put his life in danger to travel to the West because the risk is worth reaching the destination, a prosperous world? America has already spent around $600 billion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If what President Bush has asked the US Congress is approved, the total may be somewhere around $750 billion. Were he to spend one-third, $250 billion, to help the developing and underdeveloped countries adopt a low carbon economy, he would change the fate of millions of people in poor countries.

It is time the Saarc summit or countries in the region unofficially considered a strategy against global-warming. An emergency meeting is called for and India should take the initiative. But New Delhi is hardly active. Its silence is like the moribund attitude towards population explosion.

The excesses committed during the emergency stalled the birth control programme. Policemen reached bedrooms. Since then political parties have been afraid to even mention “birth control” lest they should lose the vote as Congress did in 1977. Pakistan and Bangladesh avoid even the phrase “family planning” because the fanatics there have linked it with religion. Global-warming is worse than the population explosion waiting to hit the region. Strange, all this does not move the region.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Food for the world

THE United States is, by far, the largest donor of food in the world. But the US Agency for International Development might feed many more people if it didn't have to comply with several troublesome congressional mandates.

USAID must buy only American-grown foodstuffs and cover the cost of transporting them abroad. Even worse, three-quarters of food aid must be transported by American carriers.

This arrangement is great for some domestic agricultural and shipping firms but is grossly inefficient for almost everyone else involved, including the American taxpayer. In a report released this month, the Government Accountability Office calculated that only about 35 per cent of USAID's food-aid expenditures actually go to purchasing food.

It also takes an average of four to six months for the food to travel from American farms to needy foreign communities. The process is far too cumbersome to respond rapidly to large-scale humanitarian emergencies.

To address these deficiencies, President Bush has proposed giving USAID the authority to disburse up to a quarter of its Food for Peace budget to buy staples from foreign producers close to food emergencies. Mr. Bush's proposal would allow USAID to respond more nimbly to famines and other disasters and enhance the programme's efficiency.

The agency has calculated that it could save tens of thousands of lives during crises if the measure passed. If in some instances local purchasing would not result in lives and money saved or might negatively distort certain foreign markets, USAID could simply choose not to exercise its authority to make purchases locally.

If this reform sounds like a no-brainer, it is. It's been embraced not just by the Bush administration but by former president Bill Clinton and liberal Democrats .

—The Washington Post