China optimistic on diplomatic relations with India
Chinese Ambassador to India, Xu Feihong has expressed optimism for strong diplomatic relations between the two nations. Speaking to reporters on Sunday in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata, Xu noted that the millennia of shared history between the two nations brings them beyond simple neighbourly relations.
'China and India have been civilisations for so long. We have such close cultural and historical interactions. So, why shouldn't we have good relations in the coming years,' Xu said.
Though tensions and mistrust remain, he emphasized that genuine progress necessitates more than high-level diplomacy. 'It's not only up to the governments,' he was quoted by the Times of India as saying.
Ambassador Xu's statements come against the backdrop of Beijing's recent overtures to New Delhi, to open up economic and people-to-people relations. The Asian giants have made efforts to reset ties Oover the last year, after the 2020 Galwan Valley clash along their disputed Himalayan border, in which soldiers from both sides were killed.
After extended military and diplomatic discussions, New Delhi and Beijing announced in October last year that they had reached an agreement on disengagement from areas of tension and would work towards normalizing their relations. The announcement was made on the eve of the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, where Chinese President Xi Jingping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a comprehensive bilateral meeting, marking their first such engagement in almost five years.
In Kolkata on Sunday, Xu emphasized the importance of various groups, including think-tanks, universities, and students, as well as ordinary citizens from both sides, in fostering a positive relationship. He also highlighted the crucial understanding between Xi and Modi, which focuses on strengthening ties and keeping lines of communication open.
VIDEO | Xu Feihong (@China_Amb_India), Chinese Ambassador to India, says, "China and India have been so long civilisations. We have so close cultural and historical interactions. So, why shouldn't we have good relations in the coming years? Of course, a lot of work needs to be… pic.twitter.com/YNKDsXsdyE
In April, Xi pointed out that China and India are both ancient civilizations, major developing countries, and key members of the Global South, with both currently at a crucial stage in their modernization efforts. As a step towards the normalization of relations, Indian pilgrims will be allowed to visit a pilgrimage sites of religious significance to Hindus, Jains and Buddhists at Mount Kailash and Lake Mansarovar in Tibet, after a gap of five years.
Beijing has also called on New Delhi to restart direct flights between mainland India and China, as well as to ease visa procedures for Chinese nationals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Redefining history: Why the fate of the Russia-Ukraine war is being decided in Türkiye
Before the latest round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan paid a visit to both Moscow and Kiev. These emerged as a potentially pivotal moment in the context of efforts to resolve the conflict. While the Moscow visit was officially framed as a step toward deepening bilateral Russian-Turkish relations, the true priorities of the visit became evident from the first day: The agenda extended far beyond routine diplomacy and touched upon far more delicate and consequential matters. Behind the formal protocol lay an informal mission. Beyond the public statements, it became clear that Fidan's trip was aimed at probing Moscow's position ahead of a possible new round of peace talks with Kiev. This interpretation is supported by the choice of interlocutors – notably his meeting with Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to the Russian president and head of the Russian delegation in the talks with Ukraine – as well as his audience with President Vladimir Putin himself. The symbolism was heightened by the fact that Fidan would proceed to Kiev following his visit to Moscow, a move that clearly underscored Ankara's mediating role. The informational vacuum initially surrounding the visit was telling in itself. Neither the Kremlin nor the Turkish side disclosed substantive details of the discussions, instead issuing only brief summaries referring to 'important high-level contacts.' This silence typically signals the presence of sensitive topics related to security, conflict resolution, or potential diplomatic breakthroughs. Shortly thereafter, RIA Novosti, citing an informed source, reported that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine were indeed discussed with Medinsky. However, the specific aspects – be it content, format, guarantees, or international participation – remained undisclosed. Following his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Fidan confirmed that 'important and sensitive' issues for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan were discussed, including the situation in Ukraine. He explicitly stated that he had conveyed to Moscow Türkiye's proposal to host potential future rounds of negotiations. Fidan emphasized that Türkiye sees its mediating role not merely as a diplomatic option, but as a 'responsibility to the region and to the world.' This rhetoric is no accident: Ankara seeks to solidify its status as a regional power and global mediator capable of maintaining dialogue with both Moscow and Kiev. Lavrov expressed gratitude for Türkiye's previous efforts in providing a platform for negotiations, indicating that Russia would not be opposed to utilizing it again. His remark that 'things went very well in Istanbul' served as diplomatic acknowledgment of Russia's willingness to return to this format. Nevertheless, Lavrov made it clear that for Moscow, the fundamental issue remains the elimination of the root causes of the conflict. On this point, he noted, the positions of the two sides remain far apart. He also pointed out that, unlike Russia, Ukraine has not shown a willingness to uphold previous agreements – including those reached in 2022 but never implemented. The three years since the escalation of the war in Ukraine in 2022 have profoundly reshaped the landscape of international politics. What was once perceived as a short-term crisis – one the West hoped to strangle through sanctions and military aid – has morphed into a prolonged confrontation, draining not only the front lines but also the diplomatic reserves of the actors involved. Today, the conflict has transcended the bounds of a regional war; it has become a symptom of a systemic shift in the global order – a backdrop against which once-unshakable pillars are crumbling, including the West's monopoly over rule-setting, mediation, and legitimacy. The West, which sought Ukraine's victory and Russia's diplomatic isolation, now finds itself fractured and strategically adrift. Europe increasingly reveals its dependence on the US – not only militarily, but politically as well. Yet, with US President Donald Trump's return to the White House, a tectonic shift has occurred. The new administration has adopted a restrained, almost isolationist approach to the issue of Ukraine. Despite earlier bold claims that he could end the war 'within 24 hours,' Trump has quickly encountered the harsh realities of geopolitics. In the first hundred days of his new presidency, there has been no diplomatic breakthrough – no direct pressure on Moscow, and no effective push to compel Kiev toward compromise. Recognizing the impossibility of achieving its stated goals – and facing the risk of a domestic political crisis – the Trump administration has begun to gradually retreat from direct involvement in resolving the conflict, delegating initiative to regional actors. This is not merely a tactical maneuver, but a strategic reorientation: Trump is determined to not let the Ukraine conflict become his war, as Syria became Obama's or Afghanistan Biden's. To avoid reputational collapse, the White House is now consciously shifting responsibility to Ankara – a capital which, unlike Brussels or Washington, still retains a degree of trust in the Kremlin. Against this backdrop, Türkiye – under the leadership of Erdogan – stands as the only platform where substantive talks could realistically be resumed. Türkiye has already demonstrated its capacity as an effective mediator. In 2022, the most promising negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian delegations took place in Istanbul. Despite intense Western pressure, both parties had at the time reached the threshold of a possible compromise. That experience has not been forgotten – neither in Moscow nor in Kiev. Russia, for its part, is increasingly signaling readiness for peace – but not on the basis of unilateral concessions. Moscow insists on firm, guaranteed agreements. For decades, Russia has warned of the fragility of the existing global security architecture – one built on Western hegemony, unilateral interventions, and double standards. Since the 1990s, it has consistently pointed to the threats posed by NATO expansion, the abandonment of equal dialogue, and the West's failure to consider the legitimate interests of other powers. These warnings went unheeded. Today, the Kremlin no longer views Western capitals as reliable partners – which is why, during recent talks with Fidan, Lavrov made it unequivocally clear: If there was to be a second round of negotiations, it must again take place in Türkiye. Moscow is sending a clear message – peace is possible, but only under conditions that address the root causes of the conflict. These include firm guarantees against Ukraine's NATO accession, as well as neutral status for Ukraine and recognition of Russia's core security concerns. The West, by contrast, has lost its moral authority in the eyes of Moscow. The policy of sanctions, rejection of compromise, exploitation of the Ukraine conflict, and overt interference in peace efforts have all but destroyed any remaining trust. The US and EU are no longer seen as impartial mediators. Even rhetorically, Western leaders continue to insist on a Ukrainian victory, effectively ruling out the possibility of genuine dialogue. The EU and UK, left without the American umbrella, are increasingly confronted with their own vulnerability. Military, financial, and political support for Kiev is unsustainable without Washington. And as the US begins to distance itself, European unity begins to fracture: Eastern European nations call for continued confrontation, while major Western European economies show signs of fatigue and are beginning to openly discuss the need to find a way out of the impasse. In this context, Türkiye finds itself presented with a unique window of opportunity. Its interests are multifaceted and long-term. First, peace in the Black Sea region is crucial for Türkiye's economic stability – encompassing maritime trade, grain shipments, energy transit, and control over migration flows. Second, the role of mediator allows Ankara to bolster its ambitions as a regional – and even global – actor, positioned as an alternative to both Western and Eastern diplomacy. Third, peacebuilding in Ukraine provides a means for Türkiye to balance its relations with both Russia and the West, maintaining strategic autonomy without severing ties with either Moscow or Washington. Ankara is operating according to a logic of historical revisionism. Erdogan seeks to restore Türkiye's stature as a power whose influence stretches from the Balkans to the Caucasus, from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. The resolution of the Ukraine conflict is key not just to Türkiye's participation in global diplomacy – but to its ability to shape the rules of that diplomacy. What now draws Moscow and Ankara together goes far beyond tactical cooperation or pragmatic exchanges in regional conflicts. Increasingly, the two are united by a shared worldview and a desire to redefine the global order that, for decades, has been shaped by Western dominance. Both Russia and Türkiye are growing ever more critical of the unipolar system – one in which the US and its closest allies not only impose 'universal rules', but apply them selectively to serve their own interests. For Moscow, this is a continuation of its historical struggle for sovereignty and security along its borders. For Ankara, it is a path toward reclaiming geopolitical weight in line with its historical and civilizational legacy. Both countries find common cause in their desire to move beyond the destabilizing politics of Western hegemony – a system that undermines global stability, particularly across the Global South, and obstructs the emergence of a more just international order. Türkiye is increasingly vocal in its solidarity with Moscow and Beijing on key issues: From reforming international institutions to reducing reliance on the US dollar as a global payment instrument. Today, Ankara speaks in the same language as the BRICS countries – advocating for the de-Westernization of the global economy, the end of sanctions-based coercion, and the right of regions to pursue their own paths of development. While Türkiye is not yet a member of BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), its interest in these blocs is unmistakable. Ankara regularly takes part in SCO summits as a dialogue partner, and the Turkish leadership's remarks on potential BRICS membership have sparked debate in diplomatic circles. For Türkiye, closer alignment with Russia – and with the broader Global South, including China, Iran, and Arab nations – is not merely an alternative to the EU or NATO, but a strategic choice. The Turkish political elite understands that the West no longer sees Ankara as an equal partner, but at best as a tool to contain Russia and Iran. In this light, cooperation with Moscow offers Türkiye a chance not only to enhance its standing in the post-Soviet space and the Black Sea region, but also to help shape a new world order – multipolar, equitable, and free from Washington's dictates. This is why Russian-Turkish efforts toward resolving the Ukraine conflict should not be viewed as an isolated diplomatic episode, but rather as part of a broader attempt to redirect the arc of global history. Thus, a new diplomatic reality is emerging from the ruins of the old one. The US has lost its initiative and credibility; the EU is weak and dependent; and Moscow has made it clear it will no longer play by the old rules. Against this backdrop, only Türkiye possesses the necessary qualities – geopolitical positioning, the trust of both parties, independent agency, and strategic interest – to serve as an effective, perhaps decisive, platform for negotiations to end the Ukraine conflict. And if peace is to be made, it will not be brokered in Geneva or Washington – but in Istanbul.
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump claims deal with China ‘is done'
Washington has finalized a long-sought trade deal with Beijing, US President Donald Trump announced on social media on Wednesday. The agreement is still awaiting his final approval and that of Chinese President Xi Jinping, he added. Tensions between the world's two largest economies escalated in April, when Trump imposed broad new tariffs targeting over 90 countries, including China, citing trade imbalances. Beijing retaliated, triggering a standoff that pushed tariffs up to 145% by the US and 125% by China. Following breakthrough negotiations in Geneva last month, both sides agreed to temporarily suspend most new tariffs, pending further talks. However, each side has since accused the other of violating the Geneva terms and stalling talks on key issues, such as export controls. 'Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday. The full details remain unclear, although the US leader outlined some key points. 'We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%. Relationship is excellent!' Trump wrote. 'Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities.' Neither the White House nor Chinese authorities have commented on Trump's announcement. Commenting on Wednesday after two days of talks in London, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters a framework deal had been reached, calling it 'meat on the bones' of the Geneva agreement. He cited China agreeing to lift restrictions on rare earth exports and Washington easing certain export bans 'in a balanced way,' but offered no further details. China's vice commerce minister, Li Chenggang, also confirmed a trade framework had been reached 'in principle' pending approval from both leaders. The new round of talks followed a phone call between Trump and Xi last week, which the US president described as 'very good.' Chinese exports of rare earth minerals and magnets, critical for modern technology, were high on the London talks agenda. The US had previously criticized Beijing for delaying the removal of export controls on the resources, essential for manufacturing products such as smartphones and electric vehicles. Meanwhile, Washington limited China's access to US semiconductors and other technologies linked to artificial intelligence. It remains unclear if the restrictions will be lifted under the new deal. The two sides face an August 10 deadline to finalize a broader trade deal or possibly see tariffs return to the triple-digit levels imposed in April.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
India accuses West of double standards on Ukraine and Pakistan
Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has said Western countries are hypocritical to expect India to take a strong stance against Russia, while shying away from condemning what New Delhi sees as Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir. In an interview with Euractiv on Tuesday, Jaishankar reiterated that India refuses to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 'We don't believe that differences can be resolved through war – we don't believe a solution will come from the battlefield,' he said. 'It's not for us to prescribe what that solution should be. My point is, we're not being prescriptive or judgmental – but we are also not uninvolved.' Jaishankar added that India is justified in questioning the West's moral authority regarding international matters, given their past actions. 'India has the longest-standing grievance – our borders were violated just months after independence, when Pakistan sent in invaders to Kashmir. And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries,' he said. 'If those same countries – who were evasive or reticent then – now say 'let's have a great conversation about international principles,' I think I'm justified in asking them to reflect on their own past.' Jaishankar went on to say that India has a strong relationship with both Russia and Ukraine, adding that every country has its own history and interests. The foreign minister is on a one-week visit to Europe. This comes as India is involved in negotiations with the EU on a free trade agreement with the South Asian nation, according to media reports. The trip comes close on the heels of a visit to India by a delegation led by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to hammer out a trade deal. The EU has been critical of New Delhi's lack of support for Western sanctions against Moscow. India remains one of the largest buyers of Russian oil, despite the sweeping sanctions imposed by Western governments on Russia's energy and financial sectors.
