Beijing: The Special Representatives of India and China on border issues will meet here on Wednesday to discuss the restoration of the bilateral ties following the October 21 agreement to disengage troops in eastern Ladakh.
As agreed, Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Wang Yi and India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval will hold the 23rd meeting of Special Representatives for the China-India Boundary Question in Beijing on December 18, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian announced here on Monday.
According to informed sources, Doval will arrive on Tuesday to attend the crucial talks, which were expected to provide a way forward for the two countries to normalise the relations.
Constituted in 2003 to comprehensively address the vexed dispute of the India-China border spanning to 3488 kms, the SRs mechanism over the years met 22 times. (PTI)
Earlier in the day, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said it is in interest of both India and China to “reach an equilibrium”, but the problem is “we are still grappling with short-term” and right now, short-term will focus on de-escalation.
An agreement was recently firmed up between India and China on patrolling and disengagement of troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh, a breakthrough to end the over four-year standoff.
The move marked a significant development in the pursuit of reduced tension along the LAC in eastern Ladakh since the fierce clash in the Galwan Valley in June 2020 that marked the most serious military conflict between the two sides in decades.
The ties between the two Asian giants had nosedived following the clash.
“It is in interest of both countries to reach an equilibrium. And, conceptually it’s difficult to do, because both are changing in an absolute terms, and vis-a-vis the world, so it’s very complex equation. The world is changing, we are changing, their relationship with world is changing and the relationship with each other is also changing,” Jaishankar said.
He said this in a one-on-one discussion with foreign policy expert C Raja Mohan after the launch of ‘India’s World’ magazine at an event at IIC here.
“So, in all these changes, how do you find an equilibrium.. That would be the preferred alternative, but the problem is right now, we are still grappling with short-term, and right now the short term will focus on de-escalation because while the disengagement has been worked out, there are others issues,” he added.
Earlier on December 3, Jaishankar had made a statement in the Lok Sabha on the India-China ties and border issues.
In his statement, he had mentioned that the defence ministers of both countries had met in Vientiane on November 20.
“The two ministers discussed progress on the recent agreement on disengagement, the need to address de-escalation and the requirement of strengthening confidence building measures. They agreed on the importance of continuing meetings and consultations at various levels,” the EAM had said.
During the interaction at the event on Sunday, Jaishankar said while many people talk of transparency on these issues, he argued in the last four years, he has seen more debates about China than in 40 years before.
“Many of you today are conversant with the term PP, patrolling point, which one of you had heard before 2020. Even the words, the lexicon, was not there,” he said.
In 1990s, there was a disengagement agreement which still has the “highest level of classification” in the government of India, he said.
“So, when people talk of transparency, let us remember the history,” the minister said.
Jaishankar also recalled that in 2005, “we actually agreed with China that we were strategic partners”. Now was there a debate in this country, there wasn’t, he said.
“I remember, when the strategic partnership was decided, I had Army people come to me and they were scratching their heads, saying explain this to us. Similarly, in 2006, it was agreed that we would start looking at preferential trade, was there a consultation with industry,” the minister asked.
On a question from the audience on whether a national security strategy is needed, he replied, “If you ask me, should we have a national security strategy, the answer is yes.. in a way, I would say, there is one.”
