China in Nepal: India and China need to work closely on the issues of security

Nirupama Rao, the Foreign Secretary of India during her Nepal visit between January 18 and 20 accessed the halted peace process and discussed bilateral and other issues of common concern with the caretaker Nepalese Prime Minister and other senior government officials including the leader of opposition Maoist Party, Prachanda. She also attempted to pull out the jittery relations from the quagmire, which nose dived in October 2010 in the aftermath of Unified Maoists' Party cadres hurling shoes at the Indian ambassador to Nepal. China is considered as the main weight behind the Maoists, and has been increasing its footprints in Nepal with a feverish pace that has made India increasingly apprehensive of its moves.

Historically, Tibet factor has determined the direction of Nepal-China relationship. Nepal’s expansion in Tibet in 1788 resulted in the 1791-92 war with China, by virtue of which Nepal was reduced to a vassal of China. The 1854-56 war with Tibet resulted in Tibet being forced to pay tribute to Nepal; Nepal also acquired extraterritorial and trading rights in Lhasa. However, Nepal’s southern expansion and subsequent Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-1816 reduced Nepal into a British protectorate. During the mid 19^th century, after capturing power, the Ranas forged good ties with the British, and in the early 20^th Century, in recognition of the contribution of Nepal during the World War I, the “Treaty of perpetual peace and friendship,’ was signed in December, 1923 between the two. The treaty was replaced with the ‘India and Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship’ on July 31, 1950. Even though the treaty allows the free movement of people and goods between India and Nepal, it continued to interlock Nepalese economic and security interests with those of India owing to the China factor.

India-Nepal relations throughout the monarchy, except Tribhuvan’s time, have been full of discord and distrust. After Tribhuvan’s death in 1955, the relations further deteriorated and China seized the opportunity to develop ‘special relations’ with Nepal. China accused India of ‘expansionism’ and ‘hegemonism’ and signed peace and friendship treaty with Nepal in 1960, also concluded the border agreement, and commenced the construction of Kathmandu-Tibet highway a year later. China’s another interest in Nepal during this time was to flush out the Tibetan guerrillas who were operating from Mustang Area of Nepal. However, with the resumption of diplomatic ties between India and China during mid 1970s, China probably realised the futility of excessive courting and salvaging Nepal by ferrying goods over Himalayas in the wake of 1989 Indian sanctions on Nepal.

It was perhaps for its international image that China denounced Maoists insurgency in Nepal during the monarchy. However, when Maoists formed the government and Prachanda was sworn in as Prime Minister, the first country he visited was China during Olympics 2008. This was also the time when China’s assertiveness in the region and beyond had started to take shape. The sheer political capital of the Maoists, and the anti-China Tibetan protests in March 2008 in various parts of Tibet including Sichuan, once again underscored the importance of Nepal to China. In September 2008, China invited Nepalese Defence Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa as an observer to the military exercise ‘Warrior 2008’; during his meeting with Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie, China announced a military aid package of USD 1.3 million to Nepal. In December 2008, Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotan of the PLA visited Nepal and pledged USD 2.6 million in non-lethal military aid to Nepal. Conversely, in 2007 when India sent non-lethal military assistance to Nepal, it created a furore with the Maoists lodging vigorous protests and accusing New Delhi of trying to sabotage the peace process. Even as Prachanda called for the revision of 1950 Treaty, Nepal accepted the draft of a ‘Peace and Friendship Treaty’ with China in April 2009. Nepal also showed its reluctance to sign the Extradition Treaty proposed by India in 2008, thus ignoring India’s concerns over terrorists having links in Nepal. Besides deepening politico-military ties, dozens of China Study Centres across Nepal has also made India apprehensive of Chinese motives. The reconstruction of the Nepal-China highway by China has also not gone well in our security establishments. General perception in China is that since India denies her a free access into the region, therefore, China sees the construction of these projects in India’s vicinity extremely important channels for trade and communication in South Asia. It is believed that China has invested millions of dollars in Nepal’s hydroelectricity projects.

It is obvious that there is a flurry of diplomatic as well as economic activities between China and Nepal. In 2009 alone, an unprecedented 38 Chinese delegations visited Nepal. With China’s increasing economic muscle, its political, economic and diplomatic assertiveness is also increasing. The general perception in India is that China’s engagement with Nepal and other countries surrounding us has been multi-dimensional and designed to diminish the Indian influence in South Asia. Why China has been able to change the perceptions of the people in the subcontinent favourable to China calls for introspection, and requires corrective and immediate measures, for India cannot afford to take our historical and cultural ties with Nepal and other countries for granted.

China is aware of the fact that it would be impossible to shift the cultural influence of India in Nepal to its favour. Therefore, New Delhi’s approach should be if Nepal wishes to renegotiate the 1950 treaty and delink our national security interests with it, so be it. If it wants close the present open border with India, we should be happy, as we have increasingly declared the border as a ‘hotbed of ISI intrigue.’ Meanwhile, India needs to proactively engage and integrate these nations into our economic development, show magnanimity in various disputes and increase our footprints in various domains. This is the policy India not only needs to initiate with its immediate neighbours but also within the fringes of our own borders.

Given China’s military and other quasi-military projects in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan, it is amply clear that China has consistently followed the strategy of pinning India to the subcontinent, and has used our differences with our neighbours’ to their own advantage with a lethal statecraft. However, the question we must ask ourselves is that do we have the capabilities to undertake the projects the Chinese companies are taking in our vicinity, or is it because of the sloppiness of our government as well as private sector to avail such opportunities in our neighbourhood? As far as China’s infrastructural development projects in our neighbourhood are concerned, these may generate multiplier effects and pave way for trade and commerce for Indian companies as well. However, China also must be careful in inciting anti-India rhetoric in these countries, for this may prove the ‘string of pearls’ thesis of containing India true, and force India to move closer to the United States as well as other countries and regions that are antagonistic to China. Therefore, China needs to work closely with India in the shared neighbourhood on the issues of security, including the maritime security.

South Africa in the BRICs: Shifting global economic power away from the developed countries?

Recently Chinese President Hu Jintao formally invited South African President Jacob Zuma to attend the third BRIC leaders’ summit to be held in China in the first quarter of 2011, thus taking the number of BRIC nation to five (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). South Africa had applied and lobbied to join the BRIC at the G20 meeting of the world's leading economies in Seoul in November this year. The acronym, BRIC was coined by Jim O’Neill an economist with the Goldman Sachs in a paper entitled "The World Needs Better Economic BRICs" published in 2001. The notion signals a shift in the global economic power away from the G7 economies toward the emerging economies. The BRIC thesis holds that China and India will become the hub of world’s manufactured goods and services, while Brazil and Russia will become leading suppliers of raw materials.

At present, the BRIC account for more than 25% the world’s land mass; more than 40% of world population; over 50% of world economic growth; and around 15% of the world economy. The economic indicators are bound to further shift the balance in favor of emerging economies given the astounding growth rate of over 9% in India and China. Now, with South Africa, the world’s 31st-largest economy joining the ranks, the BRIC will wield even more influence in the world economy. Even though, South Africa’s 286 billion $ economy and population of 49 million pales if compared to other BRIC members, especially China and India, however, it is the most advanced economy in Africa; the largest trade partner of China in Africa; and more importantly will provide a gateway to the BRICS into Africa.

South Africa’s entry has definitely given the BRIC a voice in African Continent, and is bound to strengthen the economic base of a multi-polar world on the one hand, and create conditions for the strengthening of global peace and security on the other. The BRIC nations call for the reforms of the world organizations, including the financial institutions and the United Nations, and demand greater role for the emerging economies in these bodies. This is obvious from the BRIC foreign ministerial meeting on May 16, 2008 in Yekaterinburg prior to the first BRIC summit at the same place in 2009. During the meeting, the BRIC nations called for the emerging economies to play more assertive role in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A week prior to the Yekaterinburg summit, Brazil and Russia offered $10 billion each to the IMF and China announced plans to invest a total of $50.1 billion. India on its part has committed to contribute $ 3 billion. This was also approved by the G20 summit held in South Korea in November 2010. The reforms of the world financial institutions are considered as an important step towards a more legitimate, credible and effective bodies that will ensure greater quotas and representation reflecting the new global economic realities.

There are various agreements and frameworks concluded among the BRIC countries such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), where India is included in the capacity of an associate member and could become a full member in future as Russia has supported its candidature; the IBSA, which unites Brazil, India, and South Africa in annual dialogues; and more importantly, all BRIC nations including the new entrant are the members of G20. South Africa, India and Brazil will also take up a two-year seat on the United Nations’ Security Council from next year, resulting in all BRIC nations being represented on the council.

Impressive growth trajectory of the BRIC nations, and the currency appreciation especially in India and China has provided a huge opportunity for the investors in BRIC assets; meanwhile, the BRIC countries are also contemplating to buy each other’s bonds and swap currencies so as to reduce the dependence on dollar; and why not when the combined reserves of these countries are around $ 3 trillion and are the biggest holders of the US treasuries.

Regardless of the potentials and opportunities, and the reach through every continent, the BRIC countries will face enormous challenges as they do not have a common agenda. Added to this, they are not an economic block like the European Union or a political alliance like the NATO, albeit capable of converting their economic prowess into a greater geopolitical clout; all have diverging interests, and at times conflicting.

First of all, the mammoth economic growth of the BRIC counties is dependent on the manufacturing based on raw materials such as iron ore, copper, aluminum, fossil fuel and natural gas; technological breakthrough in renewable energy could shift the balance again in favor of G 7, and could result in slower economic growth than anticipated. Secondly, the so-called currency manipulation by some BRIC countries has ‘harmed’ the manufacturing in some countries, as admitted by the Brazilian finance minister Guido Mantega recently. Thirdly, there is an asymmetric relationship between the polities and economies of the BRIC nations. For example, the economy of China is bigger than the rest 4 and holds over $2.45 trillion of reserves, over 30% of the world reserves; its political clout is also bigger, as it holds the veto power in the UNSC besides being talked as G2 partner with the US. Fourthly, the political equations between India, China and Russia are impregnated with ‘mutual mistrust’ and huge ‘security deficit’, especially between India and China on the issue of border, and China’s entente with its ‘all weather friend’ Pakistan. Fourthly, some other regional flashpoints weather in the South China Sea or in the subcontinent could make the cooperation between major BRIC countries irrelevant. And, finally the domestic issues, especially the increasing social imbalance in the BRIC nations could also pose serious challenges to the internal security and economic development in these countries.

Nevertheless, the South African entry into the folds of BRIC is a welcome move, and could open this ‘alliance’ to other emerging economies. Some of the aspirants in Asia could be Vietnam, and China may be keen to put Saudi Arabia on board. We can hope that the BRIC becomes an example for all emerging economies, promote economic cooperation, ease tensions by settling bilateral disputes, and guarantee prosperity, peace and security not only in the region but also in the world at large.

How China emerged as the second largest economy of the world?

In 1991 when I visited China for the first time, I could witness a total but gradual transformation of Mao era planned economy of China to Deng's socialist market economy. Deng Xiaoping, the man who personally experienced the excesses and mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s foresaw that only reform and opening to the outside world could save the country and help it recover the immense ground it had lost. This notion was conceptualized during the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China by way of adopting the policy of “reform and open door” in 1978. Since then China has undergone a profound transformation never seen before. In a short span of 32 years, China’s GDP increased from 147.3 billion US dollars in 1978 to about 5 trillion US dollars in the year 2010, becoming the second largest economy in the world after the United States. The number of rural poor has dwindled from some 250 million to 15 million. The overall national strength of China has increased remarkably and the texture of life of its people improved steadily.

How did it happen? China initiated reforms in three stages. During the first stage (between 1978 and early 1980s), rural reforms were initiated that involved the decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and allowing the entrepreneurs to establish private business. During the second stage (between mid 1980s and 1990s) China initiated privatization of the state owned enterprises and liberalization of the prices, and the decentralization of state control. During the third stage (between early 1990s and mid 2000) large scale privatization got intensifies, most of the state enterprises, except a few large monopolies, such as banking, oil and telecom sectors were liquidated and their assets sold to private investors. During the early years of this decade, China further reduced various tariff barriers and regulations, initiated reforms in banking sector, social welfare, joined the World Trade Organization, and in 2006 abolished altogether the agricultural tax and levies, which to a large extent stabilized the countryside and enhanced peasants’ income.

How did China manage to experiment the model of socialist market economy countrywide? Though the pace of economic reforms as well as economic growth rate was feverish, however, China initially experimented with the model in a few Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and then gradually replicated them to the other parts of the country. During first phase of the economic reforms, when China carried out agricultural reforms, it simultaneously established four SEZs in the form of Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Xiamen, and Shantou for foreign investment that were relatively free of the bureaucratic regulations and government intervention. Once these regions became engines of growth, China created Pudong in Shanghai and Hainan province as two more SEZs in 1990.

Between 1980 and 2009, the average annual growth rate of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Shenzhen was around 25%. In 2009, Shenzhen's per capita GDP ranked first in the country at more than $8,619 compared to the national average of about $3900. It would not be wrong to assert that China’s industrial structure is in fact the reflection of Shenzhen’s industrial structure, which has transformed from traditional industry to hi-tech industry, from small-scale to large-scale, and from assembling and processing to independent manufacturing. Certain sectors such as telecommunications, computer hardware, and electronics account for over two third of the total industrial output in Shenzhen. Huawei and ZTE, the telecom giants of China could be regarded as the two of the most successful brand names the Shenzhen SEZ could have said produced. Even after three decades, Shenzhen remains one of the most attractive destinations for foreign investment. Over hundred companies from the fortune 500 have invested in Shenzhen.

Various factors have contributed to the success of reforms in China and especially Shenzhen, for being the first SEZ it was seen as experimentation for nationwide comprehensive reforms. First and foremost, its geographical proximity with Hong Kong and logistical advantages weighed heavily in favor of Shenzhen. Secondly, in order to enhance its competitiveness, Shenzhen enjoyed exceedingly liberal economic policies, for example by way of initiating a differential corporate tax system, the foreign enterprises paid much less tax than the domestic enterprises. This was one of the reasons why Shenzhen was able to attract unprecedented foreign direct investment (FDI) in such a short time. It was only after a span of 27 years that the Chinese government eliminated the system of differential corporate tax. Thirdly, the competitiveness of the industry was further enhanced by an easy access to finances by enterprises, even today if the figures are to be believed, Shenzhen has maximum numbers of venture capitalists in China. Finally, the administrative efficiency and efficacy for comprehensive nationwide reforms was also tested in this SEZ. The government ensured single window clearance for all the foreign funded as well as domestic enterprises as regards registration and other business procedures. This not only simplified the business processes but also made the system transparent and weeded out corruption at various levels. Furthermore, the concentration of various industries such as semi-conductor, pharmaceuticals, construction materials, chemicals production and processing, computer software, electronics assembly and manufacturing, instruments and industrial equipment production, medical equipment and supplies, telecommunications equipment etc. has been successful owing to the economies of scale. Initially, Shenzhen SEZ consisted only of Luohu, Futian, Nanshan and Yantian, however, in July 2010 Bao’an, Guangming and Longgang districts were also incorporated into the SEZ. Of these, Luohu is the financial and trading centre, Futian, the seat of the municipal government, Nanshan, the centre for high-tech industries, and Yantian the logistics hub of Shenzhen.

There are diverging viewpoints as regards the success of China's economic reforms amongst scholars. However, everyone subscribe to the viewpoint that China is the largest country to have sustained the fastest ever economic growth from the liberalization or globalization in the shortest of time. It would have been impossible for China to realize the desired goals of opening and reforms, had it not decentralized the state authority, and allowed provinces to experiment with various ways to privatize the state owned enterprises and ameliorate and invigorate the economy. Although we may not attribute all the reforms and opening up to Deng Xiaoping, however, he is the person who put a stamp of approval on it. Other viewpoint which is in vogue is that after the success of the SEZs, the provincial leaders competed for FDI and high economic growth, for the economic success story of their provinces catapulted them to higher political positions.

Yet the economic reforms in China have their flipside too, for despite the elimination of extreme poverty, the Chinese growth story has increased rural-urban economic disparity. The challenge thrown by the increasing social imbalance has rendered millions of rural folks disgruntled and disappointed, and have bred various social problems. The divide is also reflected by the Gini’s Coefficient that has continued to rise at an alarming rate and is about to touch 5. During my own field investigation in An Hui and other provinces in 2007 while being a fellow at the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, it was evident that the agricultural foundation in China is fragile, farmers’ income low, and the de­velopment of the countryside lag far behind that of the cities, espe­cially in terms of education, public health, living standards, culture, infrastructure development and so forth. Owing to these reasons the reforms has come under a scathing criticism from the neo-socialists. Some scholars including the neo-lefts in China and beyond feel that in order to alleviate inequality, it is necessary for China to revive the pre 1985 welfare policies and institute a redistributive income tax regime. In my opinion it would be increasingly difficult to undo the economic processes initiated in the wake of the reforms, the best China could do to eliminate the rural-urban imbalance is to expand secondary and tertiary industrial base in rural areas, particularly the processing industry for agricultural products.

Finally, three decades of economic reforms have changed the entire socio-economic landscape of China. Now, China is one of the most important engines for economic growth in the world. It is world’s fourth largest exporter, trading extensively with the European Union, the United States and Japan. It is due to the robust economic growth that even during the times of financial meltdown world over, China managed to pump in billions of dollars to augment domestic demand. Even though the growth has created some imbalances, but these are unlikely to hinder the overall growth in China. Nevertheless, an asymmetry between the economic reforms and political reforms may lead to conflict, and become a hurdle in further deepening of the economic reforms.

India-China Relations: A Civilizational perspective

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has been emphasizing on India-China civilizational interactions throughout his three day state visit to India. In Delhi’s Tagore International, he told students that the friendship between these two ancient civilizations have a time honoured history, which can be dated back 2000 years back. During his speech at the Indian Council of World Affair and an interaction with a select group of the Indian and Chinese academicians, artists and journalists, including the author, Wen reiterated the endless flow of cross cultural currents between India and China. The Chinese scholars equally emphasized the material and cultural linkages between these two nations since time immemorial. In order to understand it better lets revisit and reconstruct the civilizational dialogue between our two countries.

The great Chinese historian Si Maqian (BC 145 - BC 90?) records in his masterpiece Records of a Historian that when he was in Bactria (around 123BC), he came to know from the local merchants that they were procuring Chinese products such as Sichuan silk and bamboo walking sticks from Indian markets, thus establishing the fact that India and China were already having trade relations in the second century BC. Later Ban Gu (32 AD - 92 AD), another Chinese historian writes in his book Early Han Annals about the state of affairs in Jibin (Kashmir) state of India and its products like pearls, corals and lapis lazuli etc. The same book mentions about sea route connecting southern India and China. Trade relations further developed during Tang (618-907), Song (960-1279) and Yuan (1279-1368) dynasties. By this time maritime activities were intense and it is reported in various sources that in Canton there were ships of Indians, Persians and Sri Lankan merchants. During Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Calicut and Cochin in India rose to prominence as new ports. References of other sea ports such as Mahabalipuram, Goa, Nagapattam, Quilon, Nicobar, Mumbai, Malabar, Calcutta and many more could be found in various Chinese literary sources.

It was perhaps the spiritual linkage that transformed this relationship completely and took it to a new high. The earliest wave of scholar monks going from India to China perhaps started with Kashyapa Matanga and Dharamraksha reaching Luoyang in the first century AD, and continued till the end of the 3^rd century. A monastery called White Horse Monastery was built to accommodate them in Luoyang. In May 2010 during her visit to China, the Indian President Pratibha Patil inaugurated a Buddhist complex built with an Indian investment of 4 million US dollars next to this monastery. The second wave stretched between 4^th and the 5^th century, and the third between 6^th and 7^th centuries.

Of all the Indian scholar monks in China, Kumarajiva, undoubtedly was the brightest of all, who apart from being reduced as a war booty for his brilliance and impeccable memory by the Chinese was also accorded the highest honor of Rajyaguru by emperor Yao Xing of Later Qin dynasty. Between 2^nd century and 13^th century some 6000-7000 fascicles of the sutras were disseminated to China and translated into Chinese; Kumarajiva alone translated 74 scriptures in 384 fascicles.

On the other hand, Faxian (342-424), Xuanzang (600-664) and Yijing (635-713) shine bright among the Chinese cultural ambassadors to India. Faxian was the first Chinese to travel to India in search of Buddhist sutras according to the records. His monumental work Accounts of a Buddhist Country narrates his experiences in India. Xuanzang and Yijing had certain advantages over Faxian, as both were patronized by Tang Emperor Taizong (626-649) and Empress Wu Zetian (690-704) respectively. Xuanzang and Yi Jing both studied at Nalanda and became proficient in Sanskrit. It is indeed heartening that the University where the Chinese monks once studies is being rebuilt jointly by India, China, Japan and Singapore, and will offer courses in Buddhist studies besides other disciplines.

Owing to the material and spiritual linkages, India and China benefited immensely in the field of literature as also science and technology. Indian stories, fables, art, drama and medicine reached China. During Tang Dynasty, Chinese literary forms like Chuanqiwen and bianwen were greatly influenced by Indian literary style manifested in Panchtantra and Jataka stories. The cultural ambassadors enhanced and strengthened mutual understanding, which acted as a catalyst in modern history of India and China for rendering mutual support and sympathy by the Indians and Chinese during their national liberation struggle.

From Yuan and Ming dynasties onward until India and China launched their freedom struggles, the cross cultural currents between them virtually went unnoticed. The interactions were interrupted by the drastic domestic changes and more importantly by the gradual eastward expansion of western colonialism. It is unfortunate that very few people are aware of the mutual support and sympathy of the Indian and Chinese people during colonial era. In this regard, I requested the Chinese Premier in person that in order to enhance mutual understanding between our two people, the civilizational interactions along with our glorious anti-imperialist struggle must be included in the text school text books of either country.

The anti-imperialist efflorescence of the Indian and Chinese people manifested in a major way as a challenge to the colonial order for the first time during the First War of Indian Independence (1857-59) in India and the Taiping Uprising (1850-1864) in China, as for the first time Indian soldiers stationed in China switched over to the Taipings and fought shoulder to shoulder against the imperialists and the Qing government.

It was due to the synergy between the cultures and the plight of India and China that the nationalists and revolutionaries of India and China developed deep mutual contacts and friendship amidst their anti-imperialist struggle. Indian nationalists such as Surendermohan Bose, Rash Behari Bose, M.N. Roy, Barakatullah, Lala Lajpat Rai had forged very close association with Chinese nationalists such as Sun Yat-Sen and Zhang Taiyan, and had their active support whether in Japan or China. In China, the activities were mostly carried out by the members of Ghadr Party. Much of the activities centered around Hankou, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Their post Siam-Burma Plan activities find a link with the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC). Ghadar support to the Chinese nationalist government and in turn enlisting latter's support was the direct outcome of the formation of First United Front in China between the KMT and CPC.

During the War of Resistance and the Second World War, so long as China suffered at the hands of the Japanese, the reverberations were felt in India too. India dispatched a medical mission to China in 1938 to help them in their War of Resistance. Dr. Kotnis, one of the doctors of this mission died in China while serving the wounded soldiers of Eighth Route Army and other Chinese people. Nehru made the bonds of friendship even stronger when he visited China in 1939. President Chiang Kai-Shek visited India in 1940 specially to break the deadlock between the British and the Congress, and met Gandhi.

In retrospect, the civilizational cross cultural currents between India and China went unhindered for many millennia. Especially the colonial period was the period when both the people of India and China rendered support and sympathy to each other in their common struggle. It was Nehru's vision that in future India and China would necessarily come nearer to each other for the vast and tremendous potentials of economic cooperation in a New World after the War. India was the first country in non-communist block to recognize China and establish diplomatic relations. It is unfortunate that both India and China did not handle their relations well in the 1950s due to various misconceptions and misunderstandings. The need of the hour is to build mutual trust, resurrect our centuries old sentiments with a new zeal, exploit our potentials and usher in a New World of economic cooperation and friendly relations. Today when we talk of ‘strategic partnership’ between India and China and its future, the same must be viewed in the larger perspective of India China historical bonds vis-à-vis their interests and future outlook.