China constitutes by far our most difficult diplomatic challenge as
its rise impacts us directly in view of its territorial claims on us,
the unsettled Tibetan situation, the potential impact of China’s
upstream river projects, its “more precious than gold” relationship with
“iron brother” Pakistan, its strategic penetration in other
neighbouring countries as well as in the Indian Ocean. The imbalance in
our bilateral trade ties is also becoming unsustainable.
Chinese power is challenging us in Central Asia, the Gulf and Africa,
aided by its much larger financial reservoir which it uses for gaining
access to energy and mineral resources for its future growth under State
direction that India cannot equal. The India-China equation is getting
progressively tilted in China’s favour globally. Politically, this draws
countries of interest to us into the Chinese orbit; economically, it
affects the direction of international trade and investment flows in
Asia to our disadvantage.
Yet, we reach out to China as if it is a partner-in-waiting and
project congruence of interests bilaterally and multilaterally even
where they are in conflict. There is a palpable disconnect between how
we see China in private and how we treat it in public.
We justified our nuclear tests in 1998 because of the China threat.
Subsequently, we gave China satisfaction by declaring that we did not
view it either as a threat or an adversary. We have established a
strategic partnership with China even when it has long countered us
strategically. We say glibly that China is not a competitor and that the
world is big enough to accommodate the rise of both countries. On the
heels of the Ladakh incident, we have affirmed that our relationship is a
model of co-existence between big neighbouring countries. We say we
support our respective friendships with common neighbours, contrary to
reality. We are open to maritime cooperation with China in the Indian
Ocean when its increasing presence there causes us concern. Even on the
nuclear issue, where China has been the source of our biggest strategic
challenge, we talk about civilian nuclear cooperation with it. We are
consciously letting China off the hook on every issue of concern to us
and attributing a benign air to its policies.
Perhaps we judge that any perception of mounting India-China
differences reduces our capacity to bargain with other power centres. We
probably want to give less room to those who would prefer China and
India to be pitted against each other as such a conflict in Asia’s heart
would suit their interests. We might be reasoning that those seeking to
incorporate us into their anti- China strategy cannot themselves ignore
the reality of China, and that with the already achieved integration of
its huge economy with the global one, any scope for confrontation is
limited. Moreover, our role in the Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN) and the East Asia Summit, our participation in the
emerging Asian security architecture, our BRICS dialogue and
collaboration with China on the World Trade Organization and climate
change issues, would be strained by India-China wrangles.
Such thinking has merit up to a point, but between exaggerating
levels of understanding with China to ward off external exploitation of
our underlying differences and constantly ceding ground politically to
it bilaterally on contentious issues and helping it to present an
accommodative face to an anxious international community by being
receptive to its tactical grandstanding in India during Li Keqiang’s
visit, we have room to craft a more balanced policy.
Just when wariness of China is growing, we make a show of bonhomie
with it. When Myanmar wants to dilute its dependence on China and the
United States of America and Japan courts it, we advocate an economic
corridor between China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and India that would promote
Chinese influence in this region. We are ready to allow our North East
to move economically into China’s orbit, as if that would help us to
better integrate it with the rest of India and Arunachal Pradesh can be
insulated from Chinese inroads there. If China was visibly moderating
its policies in our periphery and on our territorial differences, our
postures would make better sense. But then, The Global Times has just
reminded us that “India must accept and adapt to the enviable friendship
between China and Pakistan. China cannot scale down this partnership
merely because of India’s feelings!”
Under its Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, Japan is reaching out to India
as never before with the shared threat from a muscle-flexing China in
mind. China has tried to queer this pitch with the prime minister, Li
Keqiang, landing in India before our Prime Minister travelled to Japan
in late May and wooing us with rhetoric and smiles, an exercise in which
we willingly participated. This contrived show of friendship and
harmony lacked diplomatic finesse, as signalling to the Japanese that
our relations with them and China followed matching tracks weakens our
playing hand with both. Buoyed by the success of Li Keqiang’s visit,
Chinese commentators have lectured Japanese politicians — described as
“petty burglars” — on the manner in which India and China managed to
“properly” solve their border stand-off quickly. Such contemptuous
rhetoric towards Japan should caution us not to take China’s engaging
tone towards us too seriously.
If China wants full freedom to calibrate the level of its relations
with our neighbours, it cannot question India’s freedom to boost its
ties with Japan. It is significant that the Sri Lankan President’s visit
to China (May 27-30) overlapped with that of Manmohan Singh’s to Japan
(May 27-29), with the Chinese Prime Minister announcing during the visit
that China-Sri Lanka ties had reached the stage of “strategic
cooperation”. Given its own policies to balance us strategically in our
own region, China cannot object to the stated intention of India and
Japan to strengthen their strategic partnership, including defence ties,
with more frequent bilateral naval exercises.
Nothing in our Prime Minister’s visit to Japan was prejudicial to
China’s legitimate interests. The formulation in the joint statement on
South and East China Seas — a subject of acute sensitivity for China —
was a standard one supporting freedom of navigation and unimpeded
commerce in accordance with international law. The reaffirmation of the
importance of the East Asia Summit forum for building an open, inclusive
and transparent architecture of regional cooperation in the
Asia-Pacific was standard fare too.
The Prime Minister’s reference to India and Japan as natural and
indispensable partners for mutual prosperity and a peaceful and stable
future for the Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean regions was
unexceptionable. The Global Times nevertheless warned in an article
titled, “India gets close to Japan at its own peril” that “overheated
strategic cooperation with the Abe administration can only bring trouble
to India and threaten its relationships with the relevant East Asian
countries”— implying China too. Such finger-wagging predictably ignored
the India-China joint statement that unrealistically mentioned that “the
two sides are committed to taking a positive view of and support each
other’s friendship with other countries”. Such bullying attitudes
encouraged by our appeasement of China need to be decried as we forge a
durable strategic and global relationship with Japan and others, to
circumscribe China’s challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.