MEA refutes China’s ‘6-point consensus’ claim

Two days after China issued a statement giving its version on the outcome of the 23rd round of Special Representative talks in Beijing, the Ministry of External Affairs today said “we stand by our statement’. The statement by China’s Foreign Ministry was at divergence from India’s statement describing the outcome of the talks conducted on December 18.

The MEA spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, today, while answering questions on the differences in the two statements said “We stand by our statement. Our release gives a perspective on what happened in SR-level talks”.

Talks held between NSA DOval, Minister Wang Yi

• The statement by China’s Foreign Ministry was at divergence from India’s statement on the outcome of the December 18 talks
• The Chinese ministry had said both sides reached a ‘six-point consensus’
• It mentioned about putting the border issue in an ‘appropriate position’ and harked back to an agreement the two sides reached in 2005
• India had not mentioned any of these aspects in its statement
• The Chinese statement further added, “Both sides agreed to further refine the management rules for the border areas and strengthen confidence-building measures”
• The Indian statement did not mention anything to ‘refine’ border management rules

The Chinese Foreign Ministry had said both sides reached a ‘six-point consensus’. It mentioned about putting the border issue in an ‘appropriate position’ in bilateral relations and harked back to an agreement the two sides had made in 2005. India had not mentioned any of these aspects in its statement issued late on Dec 18.

Answering a question on ‘six-point consensus’, Jaiswal said “our statement gives a perspective on what was discussed. We can speak for our press release only”.

Meanwhile, sources on the Indian side said the phrase ‘six-point consensus’ is misplaced. These were points of ‘discussions’ between the two Special Representatives (SRs) — National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

For China, the ‘appropriate position’ of the border issue is to treat the matter as, one among, the many issues, sources said and added for India, a resolution of the pending boundary issue is a prime security concern and top-most priority. The Indian statement reflected it in as many words saying “reiterated the importance of maintaining a political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship while seeking a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable framework for settlement of the boundary question and resolved to inject more vitality into this process”.

The Chinese statement had a different take. It said “both sides reaffirmed their commitment to continuing to seek a fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable package solution to the border issue in accordance with the political guiding principles agreed upon by the two countries’ special representatives in 2005”.

The Chinese statement further added, “Both sides agreed to further refine the management rules for the border areas, strengthen confidence-building measures”. The Indian statement did not mention anything to ‘refine’ border management rules. It said “Drawing on the learnings from the events of 2020, they discussed various measures to maintain peace and tranquillity on the border and advance effective border management”. On expected lines, the two statements had a rather expected divergence. The Chinese side mentioned “promoting the resumption of pilgrimages by Indian pilgrims to Xizang”. Xizang is the name China uses to refer to Tibet.

The Indian side just mentioned the resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra in its statement. Also, China mentioned resumption of trade via the Nathu La Pass in Sikkim. India remained silent on the issue.