& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

China and the Indo-US Entente

JABIN JACOB
India, to remind it not to use its burgeoning ties with theUSto target China.
Overall, however, China has stressed the positives in the Sino-Indian relationship, noting Wen Jiabao'ssuccessful visit to India, and the two countries' desire for a "strategic cooperative partnership". When Hu Jintao met Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh In Kazakhstan, before the SCO summit in early July, the CPC mouthpiece said, relations between China and India had a "historic opportunity for development". China also appeared to believe that India was as wary of American intentions as the Chinese saying, "India has no intention to confront with (sic) China". On 18 July, the People's Daily, reporting Condoleezza Rice's enthusiasm for "building the closest possible relationship between the US and India", stated that "[t)he Indians, traditionally wary of a US bear hug. have not been overtly enthusiastic."
While observing that Dr Singh's address to a joint meeting of Congress was "an honour reserved for the United States' closest allies", and quoting Bush that the relationship between India and the US had "never been stronger", Chinese media was also noted Singh's reassurance. "I don't think either Pakistan or China has to worry".
The Chinese also used subtler tacks to get its message across to India. China, for example, had a different take from Indian commentators on American support for India's candidature for a permanent seat on the UNSC. referring to "US disquiet on the issue" before Dr Singh's visit, and later reported that Bush had turned down support for India. In another ploy, the Chinese press, noting that Dr Singh's coalition government depended on the Left parties for support. suggested that he had "to be careful not to upset them too much". General secretaries of the major Indian communist parties -had, incidentally, concluded visits to China onlyrecently.
The US offer, in March this year, to "help India become a major world power,; notwithstanding. India must remember that die stakes are far higher for the US in the Sino-US relationxhlp. than in Indo-US relations.' Nevertheless the China-India-US triangle, despite other triangles, still matters th* mod Talk of being the "swing state" is heady stuff, but as the weakest link. Indian intcresu are all the «We difficult to articulate or defend. It is a challenge for India that calls for smarter alignments, not non-alignment, nor an alliance.
US media Coverage of Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee's and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent visits to the US paled in comparison to the attention devoted to the forays of Chinese companies, Haier and CNOCC into the United States. Alongside the minor currency revaluation effected by China in late July, these visits have become a distant memory in Washington. Both, before and after Singh's visit, the Chinese government reminded the Bush administration where itsprioritiesought to lie.
The first reminder, in the context oflhiwnn, was a warning by a Chinese general that the US was a nuclear target Soon after Dr Singh's visit a series of hard-hitting articles appeared in the Chinese press, reacting to a Pentagon report that "wantonly playfed] up'Chinesemilitary threats'".
The Chinese messages for India ranged from warning to hopes that India would not allow the US to scuttle the improvingSino-Indian relationship. Following Mukherjee's visit, an opinion piece in the People's Daily, titled, "Washington draws India in against China", pointedly asked if the defence agreement was directed against China, callingit -ofspeciqlsignificancc....that the United States on the one hand presses the EU to keep arms embargo on China and urges Israel to cancel arms sales to China while on the other hand signs a wide-ranging defence agreement with India." The editorial described the pact as "partly intended to diminish China's influence in this region" and quoted an unnamed former Indian ambassador to the US saying that while Cliina was not mentioned, the China factor was "only too obvious". Dr Singh's oblique reference to Cliina in his interview to The Washington Post saying, “we have seen in our neighbourhood reckless proliferation in disregard of all international obligations", could not have endeared him to the Chinese.
Again, on 20 July, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, summoned the American chargc-de-affaires to register his government's displeasure over die Pentagon Report, calling it, "a move to grossly interfere in China's internal affairs and foment dissension between China and its neighbouring countries". The next day. a People's Daily opinion piece stated that the US had since the beginning of the year, "made frequent adjustments to its strategic disposition in the Asia-Pacific region" and was trying "to restrain, encircle and block up China". In all these cases, while apportioning major blame to the US, China afro sought, through direct and indirect reference to
WthpenriSBcno/ IFCS.NewtWN.