China says it is ready to talk border trade with India in Kashmir

Beijing already cooperates with Islamabad in the development of Northern Areas in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir but has been reluctant to engage with the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir.

Questioned on the absence of boundary trade between Kashmir and Tibet, Wu said, “Kashmir region is quite sensitive” referring to the historic tensions between India and Pakistan over J&K.

In the first signals of flexibility on trade with the Indian side of J&K, Wu went on to say “so long as India and Pakistan address the Kashmir issue properly, China will increase its cooperation with the Kashmir region.”

The message from Wu is simple. As the Indo-Pak peace process deepens and Kashmir becomes less of a hotspot between New Delhi and Islamabad, Beijing will find it easier to expand commerce and contact between China and Indian Kashmir.

India shares unresolved territorial disputes with both Pakistan and China in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Just as the recent opening across the Line of Control between India and Pakistan has created new opportunities for J&K as a whole, allowing trade across the Line of Actual Control between India and China in Ladakh could help transform the region from the other direction.

Declaring that borders should be “open for all kinds of friendly exchanges”, Wu said China is ready to open more points on the long border between the two countries for trade that will “benefit both the peoples”.

‘‘Borders should be life lines and not dead lines”, Wu said.

While optimistic about the ability of the two nations to resolve their boundary dispute, Wu called for “prudence” since territorial questions affect the “sentiments of the people on both sides”.

Wu underlined that “clarification of the Line of Actual Control” is the “next step” in the boundary talks between the two countries.

During Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India in April, the two sides signed an agreement on guiding principles and political parameters to resolve the boundary dispute.

Wu hoped that “the clairification of the LAC will help resolve the boundary dispute, instead of the other way around”.

Even as they negotiate the boundary dispute, India and China are struggling to define the current alignment of their respective control on the 3500-km border.

In many areas along the border, the gap between the respective claims of India and China on where they stand at the moment is rather large. As a result they have not been able to exchange maps on their perceptions of the LAC in the Western sector.

Underlining the importance of LAC clarification, Wu cautioned that “if one side expands the LAC to the other side without limit”, it will not be helpful in resolving the issue.

Wu pointed out that while the clarification of the LAC and the boundary dispute are two different issues, they are interlinked.

An agreement on clarifying the LAC itself would involve significant concessions by both sides and feed into negotiations on the territorial give and take on the boundary question.

In clarifying the LAC, Wu said the two sides must “seek the truth from facts”. The reciprocal concessions on the LAC, according to Wu, have to be based on “mutual adjustment” and also be “mutually acceptable”.