INDIA, RUSSIA, AND CHINA TRILATERAL MEETING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 000816

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2012
TAGS: PREL PGOV RS CH IN
SUBJECT: INDIA, RUSSIA, AND CHINA TRILATERAL MEETING
PERCEIVED AS COUNTERWEIGHT TO UNI-POLAR WORLD

NEW DELHI 00000816 001.2 OF 003


Classified By: Classified by Political Counselor Ted Osius for Reasons
1.4 (B, D)


1. (C) Summary. In their seventh trilateral meeting, the
foreign ministers of India, Russia, and China discussed
substantive issues including cooperation on terrorism, crime,
trade, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and UN reform. Deliverables
were few; however, the meetings have served to
institutionalize trilateral dialogue between the three Asian
giants. In both the official joint statement and in myriad
press briefings, the ministers repeatedly claimed that &the
trilateral cooperation was not directed against the interests
of any other country,8 a thinly veiled and largely
unsuccessful attempt to assuage concerns that the meeting
could be seen as anti-American. Despite the group's
assurances that their regular dialogue isn't directed at us,
the symbolic message reaching the Indian public is, indeed,
that they are challenging the perception of American
dominance. Ironically, this meeting provides the U.S. with
greater political cover to engage India in a broader,
strategic relationship, partnering when appropriate with
other countries that have the ability and desire to promote
our shared democratic values. End Summary.

Trilateral dialogue a regular event
--------------


2. (C) A trilateral meeting between Pranab Mukherjee, Sergei
Lavrov, and Li Zhaoxing, the Foreign Ministers of India,
Russia, and China, respectively, was held in New Delhi on
February 14, 2007. While this was the third stand-alone
meeting -- the others being a June 2, 2005 meeting in
Vladivostok and the July 17, 2006, summit in St. Petersburg
-- other trilats between these countries have taken place on
the sidelines of the UNGA in New York in September 2002,
September 2003, and September 2005. The three ministers also
met on the sidelines of the Almaty Conference in October

2004. This latest iteration falls in the wake of President
Hu's visit to India in November 2006, and President Putin's
trip here for Republic Day on January 26.

A tour d'horizon on regional, global issues
--------------


3. (C) The February 14 meeting was strategic and addressed
relevant issues, according to Chinese Embassy PolCouns Sun
Wei Dong, only slightly embellishing local media reporting.
Essentially repeating the joint statement, Sun described the
broad range of issues discussed, including coordination on
combating international crime and terrorism, regional
security cooperation, and mutually beneficial economic
interaction in fields including energy, transport
infrastructure, health, IT and biotech. The ministers also
discussed regional and global issues, such as the situation
in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea and the Middle East.
Another matter tabled was UN reform; reiterating support

NEW DELHI 00000816 002.2 OF 003


declared by their leaders during recent visits, Russia and
China declared they &understand and support India,s
aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations.8
(Note: The joint statement is available in full at
http://www.meindia.nic.in/pressbriefing/2007/ 02/13pb01.htm.
End Note.)


4. (C) Indian Ambassador to China, Nirupama Rao, stated
China was able to forestall criticism of its recent
anti-satellite missile test by providing a briefing to its
partners in which China claimed the test was purely
technological and scientific. Following the meeting, the
ministers announced a common commitment to keeping outer
space free from weapons.

Deliverables
--------------


5. (U) In terms of tangible results of the meeting,
participants agreed to support an early entry into force of
the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of
Nuclear Terrorism and the earliest possible adoption in the
UN of the India-sponsored draft Comprehensive Convention on
International Terrorism. The countries also agreed to create
a trilateral business forum which would meet later this year,
to consider initiatives in areas such as energy, civil
aviation, biotechnology, information technology,
pharmaceuticals and financial services. The three discussed
formalities for expert-level discussions on energy,
bio-technology and public health. China has offered to host
the next trilateral Foreign Ministers meeting.

Empty assurances that meeting not directed against U.S.
--------------


6. (C) In both their official joint statement and in press
briefings, the ministers repeatedly claimed that &the
trilateral cooperation was not directed against the interests
of any other country.8 Indian media quickly and rightly
assumed "any other country" to be the United States. The
Telegraph reported on February 15 that despite the U.S. never
being mentioned by any of the ministers, "Each had AMERICA on
his mind." In what it called "a veiled criticism of the U.S.
attack on Iraq, and a possible one on Iran," the paper quoted
the joint communique as saying the "key to building an
increasingly multipolar world order would be on the principle
of equality of nations, big or small, respect for sovereignty
and territorial integrity." It also noted how the three
leaders "stressed the importance of dialogue rather than
confrontation, strengthening the UN to make it more effective
and multilateral diplomacy rather than a unipolar world." AP
reporter Bharat Bhushan wrote the meeting "would help correct
the perception about the pro-U.S. tilt in India's perspective
of the world," adding "the trilateral meeting would send an
important contrary message .... India would be seen to be
associating with the two powers that are most vociferous

NEW DELHI 00000816 003 OF 003


today in their criticism of U.S. unilateralism.8 Bharat
also explained India's interest in balancing the strong
China-Pakistan relationship, as well as extending its
influence in Central Asia, where, he asserted, "Russia and
China are the two most important players."

Comment
--------------


7. (U) Former NSC Director Mike Green's February 13 article
on American power in Asia described America's greatest source
of soft power as the Asian embrace of democracy. Green
concluded, "The United States has a winning hand in Asia and
needs to play it." He called for more engagement at senior
levels, to include with China, but particularly with
like-minded leaders in places such as India and Japan, as a
commitment to the promotion of democracy.


8. (C) As India, China and Russia institutionalize and build
on their trilateral framework, the answer to "what does this
mean for America?" becomes more evident: American dominance,
or even the perception of it, is being challenged. While the
triumvirate's "not directed against any other country"
statement may attempt to absolve the ministers of such an
ulterior motive, it does not fool anyone. In fact, this
meeting was interpreted by the Indian media to be a direct
affront to America, so that The Telegraph concluded, "The
message was clear: China is the new power on the block."
Hyperbole aside, this meeting was a reminder that an
ascending India -- with its non-aligned-but-pro-Russia past,
and its grudging acceptance of the need for healthy relations
with neighbor/competitor China -- is playing the field,
welcoming all suitors who have awakened (or perhaps
re-awakened) to the value of influence with India. India
will continue to assert its independence, but shares with us
a commitment to democracy that seems forgotten by observers
whenthese India-Russia-China dialogues take place.


9. (C) Ironically, this trilateral meeting could facilitate
our interest, as outlined in the Joint Statement between
President Bush and PM Singh of July 18, 2005, to create an
international environment conducive to promotion of
democratic values. As we seek ways to deepen the global
partnership with India, as the 2005 Joint Statement called
for, engaging India more with countries who share our
commitment to the values of human freedom, democracy and the
rule of law is increasingly important.
MULFORD