Decoding and befriending the Dragon
Chinese President Xi Jinping upon arrival in Ufa, Russia. In the last one year, China has hogged the headlines in international media notwithstanding the slowing down of its economy, increasing number of knife attacks and visibly uneasy relations with her neighbours. (Photo: AP)
In the last one year, at the Apec, East Asia and G-20 summits as well as the recent Brics summit in Ufa, China has hogged the headlines in international media notwithstanding the slowing down of its economy, increasing number of knife attacks in Xinjiang province with alleged links with terrorist outfits in Pakistan, the poisonous pollution of Beijing, unprecedented pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong for weeks and visibly uneasy relations with her neighbours who dispute her territorial claims in the South China Sea. And why not? If you are a $13-trillion economy which has grown annually over 10 per cent for 30 years and are sitting pretty over foreign exchange reserves of $4 trillion, aggressively modernising the three-million-strong People’s Liberation Army and single-mindedly pursuing your goal to be number one in the world, how can the media ignore you? Apparently China is perceived as the heir-apparent to the US.
While the US-backed ambitious new economic groupings TPP and TTIP are still to take off, China has already unfolded her bold and imaginative vision of creating a new Silk Route, a maritime Silk Route and a one-belt-one-road project to connect China with Central Asia, South Asia, West Asia, and eventually Europe. China puts her money where her mouth is — she has set aside $40 billion for the maritime Silk Route alone. Those who embrace the Big Chinese Idea will get infrastructure and jobs for their peoples, while Chinese companies will get huge contracts and markets; her idle foreign exchange reserves will be put to productive and profitable use. The Chinese dragon seems all set to shake her tail. India isn’t blind to this phenomenon; the US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region was unmistakably directed at China.
Superpowers betray similar traits. In the 19th century, the US pronounced its Monroe Doctrine. It acted as the self-appointed policeman of the world for a century. What the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya needs no elaboration. The Soviet Union didn’t act drastically differently; their intervention in Afghanistan, Hungary and Poland has left telling epitaphs of their policies.
The journalist and author Nayan Chanda feels that the AIIB launch “marks the culmination of steady Western decline and the seemingly inexorable ascendance of China”. According to him, “the haste with which Western European leaders brushed aside US concerns to curry favour with China underlines for many the profound shift in the world’s centre of economic gravity”.
This is the China we are dealing with today. The former NSA Shivshankar Menon maintains: “China is both an opportunity and a challenge.” The thought of billions of Chinese dollars transforming India’s creaking infrastructure, bullet trains whistling out of Delhi and hundreds of Chinese manufacturing plants mushrooming in response to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make in India campaign is quite enticing. Similarly, cooperation with China in international fora, particularly on climate change, WTO negotiations and regional connectivity, is desirable and mutually beneficial.
The challenges are obvious. While the unresolved border dispute remains crucial for genuine warmth, the trade imbalance, stapled visas for people from Kashmir, denial of permission to people from Arunachal Pradesh to visit China, support to Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programmes, announcement of investment worth $46 billion in the economic corridor in Pakistan passing through PoK and connecting Xijiang to Gwadar port, and increasing competition with China in Central Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Strategic analysts have been advocating two different approaches. Some feel exaggerating every small incident on the undemarcated border as a major crisis about to erupt serves no purpose; after all no shot has been fired on the border since 1975. While Salman Khurshid’s description of Chinese incursions in Depsang valley in May 2013 as minor acne on the beautiful face drew ridicule, Shivshankar Menon’s argument that four men with a dog pitching a tent at 18,000 feet for two weeks didn’t pose any grave security threat was also pooh-poohed. The incursion in Chumar in September 2014, when Xi Jinping was still in India, remains a mystery. Others favour a more robust response to China, citing the examples of the Philippines and Vietnam, both smaller and weaker to China but openly critical of China’s aggressive posture. But when queried what India’s robust response to China should be, they seem clueless.
The huge asymmetry between China and India (the Chinese economy is four times bigger than India’s and her defence budget is thrice ours) makes it impossible for the latter to punch above her weight; it is fraught with unforeseen consequences. Memories of the disastrous result of Nehru’s forward policy against China in 1962 remain etched in the national psyche.
Menon claimed at Peking University in December 2014 that all the technical work on the border issue has been done and “this boundary can be settled”, especially as both India and China “have governments with strong mandates and very clear strategic ideas where they want to take their countries”. However, Mr Modi might have realised during his recent visit to China that you can’t force the pace of the Chinese dragon. In his speech at Tsinghua University, he stressed the need to resolve the border dispute and in the interim clarify the Line of Actual Control. Earlier he had urged China to reconsider its approach on some of the issues that hold the two countries back from realising a full partnership and take a strategic and long-term view of the bilateral relationship. Two weeks later, a deputy director-general of the Chinese foreign ministry poured cold water over the plain-speak of the Indian PM.
While the visuals of the Indian PM and the Chinese President on a swing on the Sabarmati front and yoga and Tai Chi instructors doing a jugalbandi in China look fascinating on TV screens and references to the visit of Hiuen Tsang and the impact of Buddhism in China are legitimate, these count very little in the eyes of the practitioners of hard power. Prof. Alka Acharya of JNU favours discovering and highlighting points of convergence and civilisational linkages to “foster stronger relations and overcome distrust”, but former foreign secretary Shyam Saran feels, “Any amount of historical commonalities or civilisational ties cannot trump the power factor. The course of India’s foreign policy vis-à-vis China depends on India’s response to the challenges of security and economic dominance posed by China.” He even dismisses a possible positive fallout of growing Sino-Indian economic relations: “We should not make the mistake of expecting a political payoff from our economic relations. China’s position on Pakistan and the boundary issue will not alter as we move towards deeper economic integration.”
Amidst such bilateral, regional and strategic complexities in our relations with China there is no alternative for us but to remain engaged with her, and cooperate, collaborate and compete with her as the situation demands. If our economy grows at nine to 10 per cent for 10 years, huge FDI flows in, including from China, if we upgrade our defence forces and build necessary infrastructure along the border with China, strengthen relations with the US ,UK, France and Germany and deepen our relations with the Central Asian republics, Iran, Asean and Australia, and warm up to our neighbour with economic linkages, India and China can live in peace in spite of the border dispute. The world respects economic and military might. As China grows greyer and her economy slows, and the Indian economy picks up and aspirational youth comes to the fore, Sino-Indian relations might witness a more evenly balanced and productive phase.
The writer is a former ambassador
The writer is a former ambassador
No comments:
Post a Comment