Translate

Saturday, April 11, 2020

WORLD China's Communist Party Plenum Signals Tougher Line on Hong Kong, Avoids US Trade Wars

The Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee had its fourth plenary session last week between October 28 and 29.
six-line statement put out in Xinhua at the beginning of the meeting said that the General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered a work report to the Politburo on a draft document “to uphold and improve the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and advance the modernisation of China’s system and capacity for governance.”
In the Chinese political system, fourth plenums usually discuss specific subjects and this one has dealt with strengthening the the Communist Party of China’s capacity, organisation and political discipline.
At its conclusion, the plenum issued a communique on Thursday which celebrated the advantages of the PRC’s system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, spoke of the need for the CPC to lead China and of doubling down on the expansion of the Party’s role in the economy.
Besides a strong endorsement of the Party leadership under Xi, the communique also signalled a tougher line on Hong Kong. It spoke of the importance of the “one country, two systems” approach and the need “for a peaceful reunification of the motherland.”
It said that the Hong Kong authorities must “strictly govern Hong Kong special administrative region…and establish a sound legal system and enforcement mechanism for safeguarding national security in the special administrative regions.”
There were expectations that the plenum would take up economic issues such as the trade war with the US or the preparations for the 14th Five Year Plan. But it seems that the CPC is now focused on shoring up internal unity and the need to enhance the capacity to the party to control the country and provide it leadership.
Early last year, an article in New York Times cited a speech of Xi where he said that “from ancient times to the present, whenever great powers have collapsed or decayed, a common cause has been the loss of central authority. “ The lesson for the CPC is obvious, it needs to stay united and strong, else it will collapse, taking China with it.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping. Photo: Reuters
Having centralised power to an unprecedented degree, even by CPC standards, Xi cannot now easily escape the blame for a range of issues from the economic slow down, the mis-handling of Hong Kong and even the price of pork, which is now 50% higher than it was a year ago because of an outbreak of disease that has affected the pig population in the country.
But perhaps the most challenging issue China confronts is the trade war with the United States which has now morphed into a larger Cold War. Earlier in October, the US and China said they had been able to finally reach an interim Phase I deal that allowed President Trump to say that he would stall a tariff increase that would have had the US raise tariffs on some $ 250 billion worth of Chinese goods to 30%.
Now, however, there are doubts about the agreement, which came after 13 rounds of negotiations. Trump has mooted it as a  major relief to US farmers since, according to him, the Chinese would buy anywhere up to $ 40-50 billion of US agricultural products.
But Beijing is resisting any hurried purchase. Its domestic market may not be able to digest a huge ingestion of US farm products in a limited period of time. Further, the decimation of some 40% of China’s pig population because of disease, has reduced the demand for soya beans which constituted 70% of China’s agricultural imports from the US before the trade war.
But the issue is no longer trade, which has been overshadowed by a clutch of other problems, such as forced technology transfer, differential treatment of domestic and foreign firms, restrictions in areas of investment, such as financial services and security. Beyond this are concerns over the illegal acquisition and even theft of technology by China through espionage and its diaspora.
To an extent, the Chinese have been responding to US pressure here. In an October 14 meeting, the State Council (China’s Cabinet) put forward guidelines to create a “fair, transparent and predictable” business environment for foreign enterprises.
According to Wang Shouwen, vice commerce minister who briefed the media after the meeting, China will eliminate all restrictions on foreign investments not there in the negative lists. Further, it will “neither explicitly, nor implicitly” force foreign investors and companies to transfer technologies.
He also said that China would move faster to open up the financial industry by eliminating all restrictions on the scope of business for foreign banks, securities companies and fund managers. The goal is to provide policies that will ensure that domestic and foreign players have a level playing field.
The problem is that the Chinese system – where the Communist Party runs the courts, the regulators and the executive – finds it difficult to give a fair shake to foreign investors.
The American approach was recently summed up by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a major speech at the the Hudson Institute’s Hermann Kahn Award Gala in New York. His October 30 speech, he said, was the first in a series that would focus on “The China Challenge” in the coming months.
After outlining all the bad things the CPC-led China was doing, Pompeo said that the US wanted a prosperous China that is at peace with its own people and neighbours, a China where business is transacted “on a fair set of reciprocal terms that we all know and understand,” a liberal China that respects the basic human rights of its own people.
At the end of the day, it would appear that what the US is demanding is that China transform its economic system to mirror that of the developed world, but that cannot happen unless China also abandons the rule of the Communist Party.
There is nothing to indicate that the CPC is ready to go along with this. Repeated speeches of Xi indicate that it is readying for a “protracted war” with the West. The Fourth Plenum outcome has only confirmed this. US leaders like Pompeo and Vice-President Mike Pence have responded in kind.
To this end, under Xi, CPC has strengthened its hold over the Chinese system. At the same time, from the economic point of view, China would prefer to defer or moderate this war because it needs western  technology and knowhow for a quick technological advancement.
China cannot remain an economy producing low-end products for the simple reason, it needs higher wage earners to power its consumption economy. On the other hand, countries like the US have legitimate concerns over the national security implications of having their technology stolen by China and being bested by them on the technology front.
As the Economist recently put it in the context of the Sino-US chip wars: China is destined to catch up, and America is determined to stay ahead.
The Wire November 4, 2019

Thursday, April 09, 2020

Families dominate the Lankan election scene

Given the dominance of families in South Asian politics, it is not surprising that the coming Sri Lankan presidential elections pit Gotabaya Rajpaksa, brother of two-term President Mahinda Rajapaksa against Sajith Premdasa, son of Ranasinghe Premdasa, who was assassinated by the LTTE in 1993. Gotabaya represents the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and Premdasa, the United National Party (UNP), but is contesting at the head of the Democratic National Front (DNF). 
As of now, the two are evenly poised and the result could go either way. Premdasa, the erstwhile housing minister and a deputy leader of the UNP, is popular with the rural voters and the minorities, while Gotabaya, who was Defence Minister in the last stages of the civil war against the LTTE, is depending on the undoubted charisma of his brother Mahinda and the strong support of the conservative Buddhist clergy. 
In 2015, Maithripala Sirisena, who had served as a cabinet minister in successive governments of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa, walked across with the bulk of the UPFA to the Opposition to become its presidential candidate. He won the election and appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the United National Party (UNP), as Prime Minister.
By 2018, his relations with Ranil were so frayed that he criticised the Prime Minister for not investigating an alleged assassination plot against the President. Sirisena accused Indian intelligence services for their involvement, but since then, the claim has been denied by New Delhi and the Sri Lankans. Then, in October, he suddenly appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa, now leader of the new SLPP, as Prime Minister and prorogued the Parliament. By his action, Sirisena broke up the coalition that had governed the country and propelled him to power
However, the courts stepped in and suspended Rajapakse's power as PM and ruled that it could not function till its legitimacy was established. On December 15, just about two months after he had been appointed, Rajapaksa resigned. Ranil was reappointed PM and Rajapaksa became the leader of the Opposition. 
A great deal of speculation surrounds the events that led to the exit of Sirisena from Mahinda Rajapaksa’s camp to form a coalition with the UNP to take him on in 2015. India, the US and the UK are alleged to have joined hands to unseat Rajapaksa who had taken his country’s policy uncomfortably closer to China. 
Rajapaksa inaugurated a phase of massive Chinese-funded schemes, such as the Hambantota port, the Mattala international airport in his constituency, as well as the Colombo Port City project. China also invested in a network of highways across the country, such as the Katunayke Expressway and the Southern Expressway. 
But what triggered the alarm was the appearance of a Chinese submarine in the Colombo harbour in October 2014 and a pushback by India. According to reports, submarine Changzheng-2 and warship Chang-
Xing Dao arrived at the port on October 31, 2014, seven weeks after another Chinese submarine, a long-range deployment patrol, had come to the same port, ahead of the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
There were expectations that the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government would roll back some of the more controversial Chinese projects in the country. Yet, the opposite happened. Initially, the government suspended the construction work on a $1.4-billion port project off Colombo. But when Sri Lanka defaulted in payments for its $1.12-billion deal for Hambantota, the Chinese did not relax their repayment norms, but took over the port on a 99-year lease. However, Sri Lanka did not permit any more dockings of Chinese submarines. 
Chinese activity has since led to a marked US response. Washington, which has an Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) with Colombo since 2007, has been seeking a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that will protect the rights and privileges of US military personnel if they happen to be in Sri Lanka. The US wants to use Sri Lankan ports and airports as temporary logistics hubs to supply US Navy ships in the Indian Ocean and also mark the political presence of the US.
At the same time, India has stepped up its activities in the island and is working with both Japan and the US to moderate Chinese influence. It has made it clear that while it has no objections to Sri Lanka receiving Chinese assistance, it will not accept any developments that militate against its security. 
In fact, this is protected by the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 which says that the two signatories should not allow their territories to be used for activities prejudicial to the unity, integrity and security of the other.  
After losing the 2015 election, Mahinda had initially attacked India for conspiring with other western countries to displace him. But months later, he conceded that he had no evidence and he later visited New Delhi along with his son and met Prime Minister Modi. 
In his first media interaction after filing his candidacy, Gotabaya said that Sri Lanka would maintain a neutral foreign policy and friendly ties with all nations. 
Interestingly, Sajith Premadasa was the minister-in-waiting to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his 2015 visit to the island, the first in 35 years. 
Whether Gotabaya wins or Sajith, they know they can ignore Indian interests at their own peril. The Nepal experience has shown that geography remains a trump card in South Asian politics.
The Tribune October 30, 2019

Four ‘Cs’ of Chennai summit

Summits and hyperbole are not an unusual combination. And so it was in Chennai, where Modi came up with a Chennai Connect, and Xi went a step further and spoke about the need to ‘hold the rudder and steer the course’ of Sino-Indian relations to ‘a 100-year plan’.
According to a report in Xinhua, this was broken down in six items. First, said Xi, there was need to ‘correctly view each other’s development and enhance strategic mutual trust’. In other words, they should not allow third parties to distort their views of each other and that the two sides needed to work on reinforcing positive views of each other through policies, joint endeavours and cooperation in global forums.
Second, he urged China and India to have ‘timely and effective strategic communication’ which would ‘dispel suspicions and doubts, and properly handle differences and sensitive issues’. Both should ‘prudently deal’ with each other’s core interests and issues that cannot be resolved should be ‘properly managed and controlled’. 
Direct and frequent meetings like the informal summits were the best way of achieving the goals of item one. India should not allow issues connected to the Sino-Pak relationship to derail the positive tenor of its relations, or get too worked up over the periodic Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control, or for that matter use the so-called ‘Tibet card’. 
Third, and this really flows from the Doklam incident, ‘the two countries should effectively improve military and security exchanges and cooperation’. The Chinese are aware that suspicions of their motives run deep in the military hierarchy in India. They are therefore keen to directly develop professional relations at all levels of the Indian military through exchanges and joint training activity.
Fourth, having dealt with the issues that cannot be easily resolved and must be managed to the lowest level of conflict and contention, Xi said, that his country was  keen on developing ‘pragmatic cooperation and tightening ties of interests’. This obviously relates to the economic and trade investment issues. In the one clear outcome of the Chennai summit, India and China have created a new economic and trade development  mechanism headed by Vice-Premier Hu Chunhua and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to align their economic development strategies and ‘build a partnership in manufacturing industry’. Xi asked the Indian pharma and IT companies, in particular, to invest in China.
Fifth, the two sides should buttress their new relationship by greater people-to-people exchanges. China sent abroad 127 million tourists in 2018. A significant number of them being directed towards India could boost many local economies.
Sixth, Xi called for India and China to enhance cooperation in international and regional affairs. Besides the United Nations, there was need to step up cooperation in the WTO to protect the interests and rights of developing countries. Xi also saw a positive benefit of Sino-Indian cooperation in multilateral forums like the SCO, Russia-China-India trilateral and called for a ‘China-India plus’ approach of joint cooperation in South, Southeast Asia and Africa. Without mentioning the Belt and Road Initiative, he said such cooperation should lead to better regional connectivity. In addition, the two should help push for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as early as possible.
The Chinese view of international relations is largely hierarchical, emphasising relations with powerful and large countries over those of the smaller. For the present, Beijing understands that there is a vast difference between the comprehensive national power (CNP) of India and China, with the latter’s GDP now nearly five times that of India and its military spending at $250 billion, while India’s remains at $55 billion.
A country like India has the geographical size, economic potential and the population to match, and even overtake, China in the coming decades. In fact, till 1987, the GDP of both countries was almost equal. Given our common, if disputed border, and India’s salience in the Indian Ocean, Beijing cannot but take India seriously. So, besides managing conflict, it feels compelled to develop ‘pragmatic cooperation’.
Prudence demands that the three ‘Cs’ of the relationship—competition, cooperation and conflict—be managed, so as not to affect China’s growth as an economic and military power. This has become all the more important in view of the intensification of the Sino-US competition.
So far, Beijing has kept India engaged, without compromising on its support to Pakistan or giving any concession on its border claims. Its one recent gesture—agreeing to naming Masood Azhar in the 1267 Committee came at the last minute, when it became clear that Modi was surging in the May general election.
China wants to ensure that the fourth ‘C’—containment—is kept at bay. It does not want India to become a formal part of the US-led system which is now gearing itself to slow down, if not block China’s economic and military growth. It knows well that the US-led system in Asia will only have heft and credibility if India participates in it.
So far, New Delhi has insisted that it will maintain a posture of strategic autonomy. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale’s briefing noted, ‘both President Xi and Prime Minister emphasised the importance of both countries having independent and autonomous foreign policy’. But if the gap between the CNP of India and China increases even more, New Delhi may have no option but to revise its outlook.
October 15, 2019

Terror, Kashmir & Trade: Deconstructing Modi-Xi’s Chennai Summit

Expectations were not too high from the Chennai summit between Chinese Premier Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, that concluded on Saturday, 12 October. The fact that in terms of words and gestures, at least, it appears to have gone swimmingly well, is a tribute to the fine art of diplomacy.
The reality is that both sides will continue to do what they do and have done, and not quite live up to the spirit of the fine words uttered at the summit.

Meaning of Terrorism Differs for India & China

Take the issue of terrorism which came up on the first day itself. According to briefings, the two sides shared the view that they would work together to ensure that “radicalisation and terrorism” do not affect the fabric of “multicultural, multiethnic and multi-religious societies” of their countries.
However, the meaning of “terrorism” differs for both sides.
For Beijing, what the Uighur separatists do is terrorism. While India believes that China’s “all weather friend”, Pakistan, is the fountainhead of terrorism. Both will, therefore, use their national means to deal with the issue rather than depend on each other.

Kashmir Issue Swept Under the Carpet

Take Kashmir. Foreign Secretary Gokhale said on Friday that there had been no discussion on Kashmir.
This is interesting because tensions relating to China’s position in Kashmir are one of the major issues of contention between the two sides. And they have largely arisen between the Wuhan and the Chennai summits.
Essentially, then, what the two sides have done is to sweep the inconvenient issue under the carpet. And will continue to work along the lines they have always worked – India doing what it must and China what it can.

Platitudes on Border Dispute

Or the border. According to the MEA, the Special Representatives will continue to make efforts to arrive at a mutually agreed framework on issues including boundary question for a “fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement.”
This is a routine statement and in no way addresses the potential of the border dispute to derail the ties between the two countries, just as the issue of Doklam had done in 2017.
It is not clear whether NSA Ajit Doval had a formal SR meeting with his counterpart Wang Yi in Chennai.
There were reports earlier that such a meet could take place and that there could be some movement on the issue of upgrading the Confidence Building Measures which have held the peace along the LAC for the past 40 years.

China to Take Steps to Reduce Trade Deficit

If there is an issue where we have seen some concrete movement, it is in that of trade. India’s $ 57 billion trade deficit is the country’s single biggest one with any country. Chinese investment in India is still modest, around $ 8 billion.
The Chinese side is aware of Indian feelings on this issue and the need to provide some corrective.
President Xi told the Indian side that China is ready to take concrete measures to reduce the trade deficit. Besides, Xi assured India that China will discuss India’s concerns over the RCEP.
But this is easier said than done given the economic and trade profile of the two countries.
But the two sides have agreed to set up a new mechanism for matters relating to trade investment and services. The Chinese have nominated Vice Premier Hu Chunhua to deal with the new mechanism and the Indian side has proposed Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.
Hu is an important figure in China, a Politburo member, who was once spoken as a potential successor to Xi.
According to Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale’s briefing, President Xi also raised the issue of engaging more on the defence and security side. Both sides reviewed that ongoing programmes and Xi called for stepping up engagement.
According to Gokhale, there was some discussion on international and regional issues and both sides stressed the importance of countries having independent and autonomous foreign policies.
Xi cannot be unaware of Washington’s pull on New Delhi and therefore, he emphasised the need for more intense discussions to promote a common Sino-Indian perspective on some of these issues.

Informal Summits Important for Both Sides

Informal summits have developed their own logic and vocabulary now. These are going to be a feature of the Sino-Indian relationship in the coming years.
They are an important means of the two countries to overcome the difficult issues in their relationship – the disputed border, the Sino-Pakistan relationship and the pull of the US-China dissonance.
In that sense Modi was right when he said there was considerable value in ensuring such “strategic communication” saying that that the Wuhan summit of 2018 had seen “increased stability and fresh momentum” in the relations between the two countries.
“We had decided we would prudently manage our differences and not let them become disputes, be sensitive to each other’s concerns and be a reason for peace and stability in the world.”
The Quint October 13, 2019

In combat roles: The need for women’s fairer participation in the military, as in the workforce

The Montane Spine Race, coursing 268 miles along the central hilly spine of England tests not just physical fitness, but mental toughness as well. The 126 participants in 2019 were both men and women and the winner of the winter race, Jasmin Paris, beat her male competitor by a full 15 hours, and the course record by 12 hours. Shelli Gordon, the second female, was 17th. Last year, Carol Morgan came 8th, and the year before that she clocked 6th.
In the Moab 240, another well-known endurance event, last year the top woman was 9th and there were 4 women in the top 20 in a field of 111 finishers, mostly males. The year before, in 2017, the winner was a woman, Courtney Dauwalter. Recall, till 1972 women were not even allowed to officially compete in the Boston Marathon.
Science does not yet have clear answers, but there does seem to be something about the inherent ability of women to resist fatigue. Endurance events require both mental fortitude and physical fitness and women have been making a surprise showing in races and distance swimming activity.
You do not have to look at exotic sports to understand the basic point about the inherent toughness of women. Look at any nearby worksite and you will see female workers doing exactly the same work as the males – using the spade and shovel, hoisting bricks and so on. Sometimes they are nursing a child. When you are indigent you tend to worry less about gender roles and more about where your next meal comes from.
In the farm or the factory, women often do the same jobs as men, but without being given either credit, or the salary for it, even as they shoulder the “double burden” of being the caregiver of their family.
Women make up 48% of the Indian population, but only 65% of them are literate as compared to 82% men. Female labour force participation in India is not only among the lowest in the world, at around 27%, but has actually declined in the last two decades even as the country registered impressive economic growth.
Remarkably, some the biggest resistance to female participation in the work force comes in better educated families. A 2018 Icrier study by Surbhi Ghai says that at the bottom of this conundrum is “patriarchy” – a collection of attitudes which insist that women’s roles are secondary to those of men – which the study quantified in an index.
Women, in turn, are battering against those attitudes, sometimes frontally, such as when they insist on not only joining the military, but insisting that they should serve in the combat arms. Participation in such arms is a new metric of the status of women in a society. Across the world, the barriers have fallen and in most developed countries, their role has become crucial to the combat capabilities of their forces.
The status of women in the Indian military is spotty. IAF has begun inducting them as fighter pilots, but the navy does not allow them seagoing roles. As for the army, they are permitted in non-combat arms only. Last year army chief Bipin Rawat made all the classically patriarchal arguments to argue that women cannot be given combat roles, the most obvious and facetious ones being that they would find it difficult to exercise authority over soldiers with a rural background and may claim maternal leave.
Women’s participation in the military, as in the workforce, is not a vanity project to display your progressive credentials. At its heart lies the need for their training and skills, and numbers, in one case to maintain a combat capability and in the other to lubricate a growing economy. It most certainly requires a sharp understanding of what patriarchy is all about and the ways in which society can, and should, remove the social and cultural disabilities that have hobbled women through the ages.
Times of India October 12, 2019

Modi & Xi At Mamallapuram: How India Can Increase Diplomatic Clout

Beijing’s decision to drop references to the role of the United Nations in resolving the Kashmir dispute may have saved the upcoming Mamallapuram informal summit between Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping. This is, perhaps, the best indicator of just how fragile the reset — promised by the first informal summit that was held in Wuhan in April 2018 — has been.
On Tuesday, when observers were getting alarmed over the lack of a formal announcement on the dates of the Mamallapuram summit, which was supposed to be held that very week, the Chinese side probably did the needful, when its spokesperson reverted to China’s position, that Kashmir was an issue best resolved through dialogue between the two sides.
Clearly, a year down the line, the lustre of the Wuhan process  seems to have faded, even before it set in.

Has the ‘Lustre’ of Wuhan Faded?

Following Wuhan, the Indian press release had mooted it as a “positive factor for stability amidst current global uncertainties”. It was driven by the need to promote “strategic communications”— high-level interactions with the view of removing mistrust, and reduce the danger of miscalculation in the wake of the Doklam incident. Before the meeting and after it, we saw a surge in the frequency of high-level ministerial and official visits between India and China, and meetings between ministers and leaders of the two countries.
Among the important achievements was the strategic guidance to the two forces to maintain peace and tranquility on the border. This has broadly ensured peace on the LAC and also given a fillip to military exchanges between the two sides. Though India and China were not able to do a joint project in Afghanistan, they did manage a joint training programme for Afghan diplomats. And in May, China did come forward to lift its hold on the designation of Masood Azhar as a terrorist under the UN’s 1267 Committee.
In the past year, the two sides have held their 6th Strategic Economic Dialogue and the 9th Finance Dialogue, and they have continued to cooperate in multilateral mechanisms like the Russia-India-China trilateral, BRICS, SCO and the G20.
Yet, the climate of relations in which the Mamallapuram meeting takes place, is more complex and difficult than at the time of Wuhan.

New Delhi Will Deal With China By Displaying Resilience

Prime Minister Modi goes into the meeting with an even larger mandate than in 2014. The Indian economy may have weakened, but the global climate against China has turned far more adverse than it was in April 2018.
New Delhi seems to have decided that the best way to deal with China is by displaying its resilience.
Just how this will play out remains to be seen. The first move here was the action in Jammu & Kashmir which China objected to, and took the initiative to organise a UN Security Council meet on the issue, the first since 1971.  Subsequently, in its joint statement following his visit to Islamabad and in his UNGA speech, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi kept up the criticism, and referred to the need to take into account the UN position on the issue.
The result was the cancellation  of Wang Yi’s visit to New Delhi on 9-10 September for another round of Special Representatives talks with his Indian counterpart, NSA Ajit Doval — allegedly because of “scheduling issues” from the Indian side. The Wang-Doval meeting had also been aimed at laying the grounds for the Mamallapuram meet.
Two Indian military exercises, one held on September 17 in eastern Ladakh on the border with China and another which began on October 3 to test mobilization and assault tactics in Arunachal Pradesh were the unmistakable signal of India’s decision to signal its tough posture.

What India & China Are Likely to Focus On At Mamallapuram

Finally, at the sidelines of the UNGA in New York, foreign ministers of India, Australia, US and Japan met under the Qualdrilateral Dialogue framework. This upgradation of the Quad, which formerly consisted of officials at the level of Joint Secretary could be consequential. Three of the four members of the Quad are military allies of the United States, and the grouping is seen as a means to work out a military containment of China.
Whether or not Modi and Xi can reverse this slide is something that will be keenly watched.
Both countries are likely to focus on trade and economic issues in Mamallapuram, but the overhang of the growing political dissonance in their relationship cannot and should not be discounted.
Both are likely to arrive at the meeting with a wish list, with issues big and small to discuss. As in Wuhan, some of the fairly trivial ones relating to trade barriers can be dealt with. There is a lot of pressure on India to go ahead with the RCEP, while New Delhi is seeking to redress the issue of the USD 60 billion trade deficit in China’s favour.

Cooperation with China Will Enhance India’s Diplomatic Clout in Washington

However, the political issues are more tricky. What we may see is an effort to push the issue of joint projects in third-world countries in a bigger way. In the past year, China and Japan agreed to cooperate in 50 infrastructure projects, without their coming under the rubric of the Belt and Road Initiative. A similar formulation could be used for cooperation between India and China in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Nepal and even Sri Lanka.
Notwithstanding the run-up to the summit, both India and China still have a lot to gain and a much more to lose in allowing their relations to deteriorate. 
Cooperation with China, whether at the BRICS or SCO level, enhances India’s diplomatic clout in Washington DC. Likewise, bonhomie between the US and India ensures that Beijing behaves well. But if you push either envelope too far, you run the risk of the other partner feeling that it’s simply not worth the effort — and letting go. In that case, India is the loser. In many ways, both need each other and stand to gain a great deal through cooperation.
The Quint October 10, 2019