Foreign Policy of India

2010-01-20T03:09:00.000-08:00

Deciphering Chinese Diplomatic Might

Much have been talked about the economic miracle of china, with little focus on the power that china is displaying in international politics. Reducing Chinese emergence to mere economic rise would tantamount to the repudiation of certain variables that altered the course of modern world history. Diplomacy, finely speaking, is also about demonstrating and convincing others your power and argument, without them being aware that your power is being displayed. And China does it astonishingly, wielding immense clout around the politics of south-Asia, south-east Asia, central Asia and beyond.

De-bundling Chinese economic success from political-might can bringout certain factors that played pivotal role in its political rise, resulting in a non-democratic China holding immense sway over the politics ofthe region ,than a democratic India. No wonder European leaders eloquently pay lip-service to democracy, but visit the biggies at Beijingfirst , before coming to New Delhi. British prime minister Gordon Brown was doing nothing exceptional, during his first Asian visit in his prime-ministerial capacity, when he visited the powerful acquaintance at Beijing first, before coming to the natural ally in New Delhi.

“End of history”, remarked the American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama on the fall of Soviet Union, and prophesized that Liberal democracy would be the ideology that will guide the international relations of the future. The soviet melt-down convinced the world that authoritarian systems are bound to be failure and cannot provide sustainable hegemony to pattern the politics of the world. But a decade and a half after the fall of soviet system, the world is witnessing a power transition. The emergence of China, made the predictors wary and contrary to what liberals and conservatives thought, Chinese power found increasing acceptability in the west, notwithstanding their declared stands. Fukuyama is failing, as china rises.

A question naturally emerges, Why India with her Democratic credentials could not wield the influence that china demonstrates? Chinese economic success is admirable, but is it the sole factor that catapults her to the status of super power-in -waiting? While the world focused on Chinese economic miracle ,it missed the bear for the bush. Chinese diplomacy adapted itself to a changing world much before India understood that the world is changing, resulting in Indian foreign policy establishment lagging long behind china, even failing to understand the reason behind the lag.

The hallmark of current Chinese foreign policy is its stark realism, jettisoning any higher ideological interests beyond the borders. Unlikethe former Soviet Union and the United States, China is not engaged in propagating world communism or democracy, but maintaining an iron hand over developments within and advancing its national interest without. It is no more limited by third-worldism, and identifies its friends and enemies according to its national interest. Surprisingly, the border dispute between India and China made an acrobatic re-entry to the fore front, weeks after the signing of indo-us nuclear deal, notwithstanding the previous Chinese stand that border issue can no more be an impediment to their good neighbourly relations. Similarly, after the nuclear deal was signed, China asked India to dismantle its nuclear weapons and sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) , a genuine concern of a peace loving nation. But when voting came against Iran at International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA)with regard to its controversial nuclear programme, China abstained, making clear that its grave concern with regard to India’s nuclear agreement was only diplomatically genuine.

Indian foreign policy cannot be accused of lacking realistic motives, but their realism lack the foresight that Chinese possess. For instance, India’s increasing proximity to the united states led to the emotional alienation of Russia, China, Iran, and middle eastern countries. As they visualise the anchoring of an Anglo-American alliance in South Asia through Indian soil, India did not do anything to allay their fears. Rather the failure to take an even handed approach, led to the increasing insecurity in India’s borders. And needless to say, even terrorist organisations and non-state actors openly started accusing India of being part of American project, and terrorist activities increased in Indian soil and the last targets i.e. Taj and Trident are not incidentally chosen.

In spite of China having a Muslim majority province, Xinjiang, where separatist movement is extremely active, no global terrorist leader openly exhorted violence against china. To be viewed in this context has been the brutal crackdown of suspected separatists in Xinjiang, since 1996.In August2008, on the eve of Beijing Olympics, the separatists killed 16 Chinese police officers and a large number of people were injured. But the unfazed Chinese government executed the two convicted terrorists responsible for the attack on April 9,2009.Curiously,China is not in the hit list of Al Quaeda. While sternly suppressing any dissident activity in its soil, china combined realism with foresight and stayed away from Anglo-American axis in its global crusade against jihadi elements. India was realistic enough to alignwith the united states, but unrealistic enough to gauge its implications to its internal security.

A nation’s capacity to project its power annotates to the world its aspirations. And China efficiently projects its power, with out resorting to any unacceptable claims. The goal of Chinese foreign policy is to maintain a strong, independent , powerful and united China that is one of several great powers in the world. Not long ago, a group of shanghai academicians came up with the notion ofzhonggguo heiping jueki, when translated, meant, China’s peacefulrise to power. This phrase has later been used by the scholars and officials in People’s Republic of China to describe the country’s foreignpolicy approach to the new millennium. Thus an academic theory is transmuted to a gospel, and China very much dreams of the bygone centuries of imperial pax sinica, the time of peace in East Asia, maintained by Chinese hegemony during the period of rule by the dynasties like Han, Tang, Yuan and Ming. As history shows, kingdoms were forerunners of empires, and modern China is rising.

On the other hand, Indian foreign policy establishment is still beaming under the Ideas like Panchsheel and non-alignment, the mighty contributions of Nehruvian genius, but certainly not the best pick forthe day. Unable to articulate a new world view that is strikingly original, but staking India’s claim, our policy makers wonder what went wrong in projecting India’s power. At best, India remains a regional giant. When theory lends more credibility to claim, it gains acceptance in strategic circles. China is also having a unique corpusof Chinese strategic thought and theory of international relations, which are distinct from the occidental ones.

Similar is the case with foreign policy formulation processes, where China maintains a unique advantage over India. Unlike most other nations, Chinese foreign policy is formulated in think tanks(zhiku orsixiang ku),which are formally outside the government. They are sponsored and supervised by government, but contribute immense research in relevant foreign policy areas, with analysis and prescription. Even though Chinese think tanks owe its nurturance to the foresightfulness of Zhao Ziyang, it lost its clout after the infamous Tiananmen massacre. But once Hu Jintao became the secretaryGeneral of Chinese Communist Party, he has since regularly invited think tank members to give lectures to the politburo study sessions and brief relevant ministries. Thus the course of Chinese foreignpolicy is a central research matter for vast number of think tanks, andinstitutes like Shanghai Institute for International Studies earn coveted place in foreign policy formulation of China.

On the other hand, Government of India did not yet understand the role of think tanks in enriching strategic thinking. Indeed, we have only few think tanks worth naming, even they are not funded by ministry of external affairs. The only active government fundedautonomous think tank in strategic studies is Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses(IDSA), surprisingly even that is funded not by External Affairs Ministry, but by ministry of Defence. Even though IDSA made remarkable strides in research during the tenures of Commodore Udayabhaskar and N.S.Sisodia, occasional instances of plagiarism creep in its main journal, Strategic Analysis, thereby questioning the credibility of the Institution. To top it all, most of its recent books are authored by a small group of senior officials in the organisation, bringing to the open the prevailing scarcity of intellect and ideas.

While United States boast of largest number of think tanks in strategic and security affairs, its new south Asian lieutenant is blissfully unaware of the importance of research batteries in providing inputs to foreign policy formulation. Irony at its peak, Foreign Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of India often deliver lectures at Shanghai Institute for International Studies whenever they visit China, and never failed to understand the importance of such institutes for Chinese foreign policy. Not to talk about china, India does not have research institutions of the calibre and repute, which South Africa and Pakistan are in possession of. Centre for Conflict Resolution, South African Institute for International Affairs, Institute for Security studies are among the prestigious institutions which enrich South Africa’s policy formulation. No wonder, South Africa earn respectability in global strategic space, from its lean patch on the underbelly of the giant continent called Africa. Like wise, Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad is funded by Pakistan’s foreign office and is devoted to providing an in depth understanding and objective analysis of regional and global issues. Equally renowned are Islamabad policy Research Institute and Institute for Regional Studies, Islamabad which earned respect among strategic fraternity.

While External Affairs Ministry failed to emulate the U.S and China, certain private initiatives like Mumbai based Strategic Foresight Group(SFG) made substantial contribution in research activity and programme co-ordination. This is high time Indian foreign policy honchos rectified their mistake, by proposing huge investments in launching think tanks of the potential and reach, in the lines of International Institute for Strategic Studies, Brooking Institution, Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House,the bigwigs of the discipline.

leadership matters

Another distinctive aspect of Chinese foreign policy is its activeleadership. In recent years Chinese leaders have become regular travellers to all parts of the globe. For instance, South America is considered as the strategic backyard of the United States, but Chinese are increasingly engaging Latin America, in a bid to counter American activities in South Asia. In the months of March and April alone , Chinese President or Premier met with head of the states of three South American countries, out of the total twelve countries of the continent. This shows the intensity of the engagement and the day China can question the claim of the U.S. as the patriarch of Latin America is not very far.

This diplomatic activism is not related to Latin America alone, but true with all continents. For instance China’s engagement of Africa saw its fruition, when China hosted a Forum on China-Africa Co-operation Summit in 2006,where leaders of 48 African countries participated. Indian leaders are also active in the region, because they also organised an Indo-African Summit in 2008.Surprisingly, while Chinese summit saw the participation from from 48 African countries, India-Africa summit had the participation of leaders from just 14 African countries, in spite of all fanfare. While Indian leaders understood the importance of summit level meeting with Africa only in 2008,Chinese leaders initiated ministerial meetings with Africa way back in 2000. No doubt, leadership matters.

Active leadership also enabled China to resolve many of its sensitive boundary disputes with many of its neighbours so as to take a bigger role in global affairs. For instance, it has solved many of its maritime and boundary disputes with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin and Japan. Pertinently, it resolved its last outstanding border dispute with Russia in 2008,setting the stage for a historical alliance for the future.

tethering the adversary

Foreign policy actions of China are the most carefully planned and cautiously executed in the world. Remember the claims by Sun Yuxi in 2006, the then Chinese ambassador to India, that Arunachal Pradesh belongs to China. This public outburst came at a time when there were sufficient diplomatic channels to raise the issue, as the discussions were proceeding at the level of political representatives. The course of events afterwards made clear that the ambassador’s vitriolic was no accident, but only the beginning of an orchestrated attempt to tether India to South Asia, as India is already infested with many other issues, one more straw on the camel’s back. This cynical ploy is to be viewed in the context of deepening Indo-U.S engagement.

Former U.S. Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice, once pointed outthat the aim the U.S. is to tether China to South Asia to prevent its global rise. China deceitfully pursues the same policy with regard to its contenders, be it Taiwan, Japan or India. Such actions of real politick are alien to Indian ethos, but are unavoidable in a nation’srise to power. Chinese naval build up around the regions of Indianocean and its helping hand to Sri Lanka to build Hambantota port in southern Sri Lanka are only parts of the planned attempt to curtailIndia’s clout in the region.

Hat off to External Affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, for sending Indian Navy’s warship to protect its interest in the Somalian straits. But the day India took stern action against sea-pirates, Chinese too jumped into the fray and asserted themselves, leading to the reported stand-off between Indian submarine and Chinese warships, resolving only to the disadvantage of India. The brief is that China did not allow the power vacuum to be exploited to the advantage toIndia, rather asserted their presence. Chinese maritime ambitions, indeed, go beyond India. Sending a shock to Pentagon in November 2007 and springing a surprise to the world, Chinese Song class sub marine surfaced within sight of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawkduring exercises in the pacific ocean, asserting its capacity to spy, whomsoever it may be.

If India adopted positive unilateralism in theory in the name of Gujral Doctrine, it was china which deployed it in practice. This is enmeshed with its policy of extending its spheres of influence. For example, South Asian region has been identified as a sphere of influence and China goes out of the way to generate friends by doling out sops, developmental or otherwise. This will not only facilitate Chinese preponderance over the region, but also help to tether India to South Asia, if It goes against Chinese interest. China’s decision to bat for Sri Lanka in United Nations Security Council, with respect to the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, reflects not its abiding concern for the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, but the zest to contain Indian influence in its backyard and provide a reliable alternative for Sri Lanka to look at, in times of crises.

China has successfully fostered a South Asian sphere of influence by placating Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and even Sri Lanka, with Bhutan as the only South Asian minor keeping China at a distance. Similarly, China also remarkably turned South East Asia as its sphere of influence, since the end of cold war, and its policy became extremely successful, when China was able to keep out the United States from the latest grouping, known as South Asia Summit, which had its first summit meeting in 2005.

In contrast, India is painfully trying to maintain warm bilateral relations with individual countries in South Asia, not to speak of“spheres of influence”, an extremely ambitious notion at present. Apart from Bhutan and Afghanistan, India does not have non-conflictual co-operation with any other South Asian country. On the South East Asian side, India was able to accomplish good traderelations with most ASEAN countries, but that do not qualify to be called sphere of influence, with the sole notable exception being , Singapore.

India’s foreign policy establishment cannot be blamed for its inability to acquire diplomatic preponderance over South Asia, as conflicts in South Asia burst out from the curious cocktail of various retrogressive factors like poverty, illiteracy, ethnicity and communalism. To top it all, shared history and vagaries of geography made reconciliation difficult. Nevertheless, it is difficult to condone many of the strategic blunders of the past, which marred the opportunities.

Of Soft power

As cheap Chinese consumer products swarm the world, Chinese culture is being exported through its commodities, and China becomes a part of common man’s life world over. Many of these Chinese products, bear the distinct stamp of its cultural genius and a deliberate attempt is made to incorporate its cultural characters and icons in products and entertainment articles. Chinese way of life no doubt gained more acceptability in the west, notwithstanding its “subject political culture”, to borrow an idea from Almond and Verba(1963).Cultural acceptability prepare the ground for increased political acceptability and thumps up to China’s cultural diplomacy.

In contrast, India diversity and cultural legacy offer greater scope forits soft power. But the initiatives remain essentially private with no official strategy to popularise and cater it to the masses of the world.

Chinese foreign policy attained remarkable strides in the last two decades. It has traversed from confrontation to conciliation, and vice versa as per the demands of their national interest, and ultimately emerging as the greatest power to be reckoned with, in the decades to come. Attempt has been made not to belittle India’s diplomatic achievements, but to highlight those working strategies which catapulted China to the status of a world power. India must pause and ponder.

In an age of democracy, it is a big wonder, an authoritarian state prospers to the envy of all, and turn adversaries into admirers. Western critics find solace in forecasting a break up of Chinese system from within, in the lines of Soviet Union. Preposterous theories are cooked up, to bolster the morale of the west and academically vaccinate it to ward off the yellow peril. Some one even went to the extent of predicting an impending civil war between the prosperous coastal areas and under developed central regions ,leading to the inevitable break up of China. Fancy knows no limits and Modern China is rising.

THE INDIAN WINTER

2010-01-20T02:39:00.000-08:00

THE INDIAN WINTER

losing warmth in Indo-Russian relations

(This post is a reproduction of an article by the author, published in a national magazine in 2009.Though foreign policy doesn’t remain static and some changes happened since then, people interested in some pertinent issues which cancer Indian foreign policy and make its vision myopic and mortal, may find it useful.)

Siberia is famed for its chill, but Indo-Russian relations have been characterized by the warmth of Leningrad. The fabled bilateral bonhomie took a turn in December 2007, when Indian naval chief admiral Suresh Mehta burst out before the press, excoriating the Russian establishment for the cost overrun and time overrun associated with the overhauling and refurbishment of the aircraft-carrier Admiral Gorshkov, thereby bringing out deep differences to the public. Unprecedented in the history of indian diplomacy,a defence chief dared to chart out the policy contours for the future,giving suggestion that India should go for better partners in defence deals.Russia was dignified in its response, but the event marked a turn in the phase of Indo-Russian relations since 2000,a period characterised by new synergy and strategic partnership. Viewed in the context of increasing Indo-U.S engagement ,the events tell more than what it meet the eyes. The policy of Indian government since the signing of nuclear agreement with the U.S in 2005 is perceived as a reflection of crass realism which is gaining hold over Indian diplomatic establishment ,with the potential to set a long lasting winter over Indo-Russian relations.

The history of Indo-Russian relations, it is said, is the story of India’s foreign policy. The landmark in the bilateral amity was the Treaty of Peace Friendship and co operation,signed in 1971, in the context of the war for the liberation of Bangladesh. The kernel of the arrangement was the mutual consultation clause for taking further action in the context of any external threat. Dramatic to the core was the timing of the treaty,which was struck at a time when the U.S.A, annoyed by the prospect of an Indian victory in Bangladesh war,ordered U.S.S Enterprise to reach Bay of Bengal.The intent to intimidate was not only thwarted,but the bond of friendship was scripted in golden letters,a friend in need is a friend in deed.

Afterwards, the relation between India and the U.S.S.R never looked back, in spite of some Indian resentment at the Russian intervention in Afghanistan.The U.S.S.R even rose to the level of replacing the U.S.A to become India’s largest trading partner.but all these were not to last long.The dissolution of the soviet union left India friendless and the successor of the red empire,Russia,was not in a position to maintain the strong relation.both India and the Russia looked back to the west due to circumstantial compulsions.but the chill was not to last long.By the late 90s the honeymoon of Russia-west friendship began to wear off. Further,Russia was to know the power of leadership, after a long and hopeless array of leaders from Andropov to Gorbachev and Boris Yeltzin. The emergent leadership under Vladimir Putin found truth in the old Russian adage, an old friend is better than two new friends. The rapprochement was inevitable and Putin visited India in 2000, and it marked a new era in Indo-Russian friendship by striking a strategic partnership.

The strong leadership under Putin harked back to the heydays of Indo-soviet relation and both the countries regained their old fondness within no time. They found shared meaning in newly emerged challenges like global terrorism and Russia strongly supported India’s entry into United Nations Security Council.The bilateral meetings were institutionalised through the introduction of annual summits, which,in a way reflected their zest for continuous engagement.

In international politics, it is said, there are no permanent friends or enemies but only permanent interests.True to the realist dictum, Indian foreign policy establishment found a natural ally in the united states, after the signing of the nuclear agreement with it. Enchanted by the Empire, India began to bath in the prospect of becoming its south Asian vassal. Russia became a second priority, and, to the surprise of Russia, it voted against Iran at IAEA.

True is it that,the U.S offered us nuclear collaboration.but it was Russia which offered India nuclear reactors at kundankulam,and it even showed willingness to come out of N.S.G so as to facilitate India’s nuclear power plan.All these moves were unconditional, while the natural ally sought to make the deal contingent up on India’s pro U.S stand on many issues, including Iran.Not to say,a few months prior to the signing of indo-U.S nuclear deal,it was Russia who supplied Uranium to Tarapur atomic plant,when its operations were about to be halted due to the shortage of fuel.

Opportunism is the mother of all politics and international politics is no exception.india began to cold shoulder any enthusiastic initiative by Russia due to the fear of antagonising the U.S. For instance, at the behest of Russia and China,India was accorded observer status in Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, which has metamorphosed into a security organisation in recent times. But India was circumspect and subtly conveyed its commercial motive by sending petroleum minister Murli Deora to the crucial summit held in 2005.The message was loud and clear, India want the co-operation of SCO for its rising energy needs and nothing else.And it was natural that India couldn’t participate fully in the negotiations, as India’s petroleum minister was no equal to the heads of other states.

Similar was the manner in which India gave its luke warm response to the proposal of the Arc of peace and stability by Russia. Fearing to annoy the U.S, India expressed its willingness to co-operate only in the economic aspect of this grouping.but surprisingly, India did not hesitate in participating the Malabar Exercise with United States held last year ,which was expanded to include Japan,Singapore and Australia,all invariably the U.S.allies.Annoyed at the military exercise at its backyard,China send a demarche to India,and India was not bothered.

Similar was India’s response to the idea of Quadrilateral forum of Asia Pacific Democracies,originally proposed by Taro ASo, the previous Japanese foreign minister.Envisioned to include India,Japan,Australia and United states,India was not hesitant.The plan was consigned to backburner by Japan itself when the new foreign minister Masahiko Koumara took over.

Russian discontent

From all these cited instances,what becomes evident is India’s blatant double standard in pursuing uneven policy towards two friends ,one old and other new;one reliable and unconditional while the other unreliable and conditional.

Moreover,the bedrock of Indo-Russian relations is the defence relations,where India was accorded more than the status of a customer.Russia,in the past gave state of the art equipments to india along with critical technologies.Sadly the U.S is getting hold over the major military aviation contracts,an exclusive Russian preserve so far.For instance,theU.S company Lockheed Martin captured the order for six all weather,all terrain C-130 J military transport planes. All military transport planes in Indian armed forces inventory were of Russian origin.

Likewise,another was a deal of $2.2 billion for maritime surveillance planesfrom the U.S company Boeing led consortium.All our long range surveillance planes were from Russia and the Boeing P-8i maritime reconnaissance planes would be breaching that suzerainty. What makes such deals disadvantageous are the terms associated with such purchases,known as conditionalities. While Russian machines were given to us without any strings attached, American ones come with the necessity to take their consent prior to the deployment of such weapon systems, thereby compromising the very basics of war logistics. Moreover, the supply of spares would be dictated not by commercial criteria, but would be subservient to American national interest.To top it all,there would be few technological transfers,which were the hallmark of Indo-Russian defence deals.Technological transfers,indeed,signified Russia’s abiding interest in india’s strategic independence.

Apart from the loss of major contracts,Russia is also hurt by indias decision to contract Israel for the supply of spares for the Russian made Mig-21. Also the planned maketing attempts of the world’s first supersonic cruise missile,Brahmos jointly made by the two countries have not gone down well with our northern brothers.

Such turn of events is making Russia introspect its policy prerogatives vis-à-vis India.A point at hand,is Russian response to the Mumbai attacks,which displayed the absence of activist concern,a Russian feature vis-à-vis India.When the U.S dominated the stage launching its shuttle diplomacy,Russia was sidelined and its response lacked the sheen.

A major concern for Russia is the proposed inter-operability of forces between India and the U.S.The American intention behind such a plan is to get access to sophisticated Russian flying machines,like Sukhoi, so as to neutralise Russian technology,and update its own defence preparedness.Russia is well aware of such possibilities and would be cautious in sharing futuristic technologies, particularly in the case of the combined development of fifth generation fighter plane, which is on the anvil.

Why India should rethink?

If the current Indian dispensation cannot think Indo-Russian relations in terms of old emotionality implicit in bilateral ties, the national interest dictates it to factor in,the transformation of Russia into a world power,on the basis of its recently found economic might.Russia became assertive in staking its global claim,in recent times, particularly after the Georgean and Ukrain crises.Russia was able to evacuate American military bases in Central Asia,working in tandem with other friends,under the ageis of Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.After successfully resolving its boundary disputes with China,Russia is getting ready for a phase of intense bargaining,with powerful friends on its side.

Russian hold over central Asia is there to stay,and worthwhile is to remember that it is Russia which helped India to realise its long cherished dream of setting its first foreign military base in Tajikistan.

Unless India realises the geo-political and geo-economic might of Russia,India wouldn’t be a shareholder in its future rise.As rouble strengthens vis-à-vis a weakening dollar,India cannot afford to neglect its northern neighbour anymore.

More pertinently,the course of action of sino-indian relations, nosedived to unforeseen depths after the signing of Indo-U.S nuclear Deal.The events at NSG and renewed Chinese claims over Indian territory of Arunachal Pradesh,is an indicator of the future,china can create more insecurity and nuisance value on India’s borders.It would be a pipe dream to address it by allying with the U.S.At best the U.S can prevent an open war between India and China,which otherwise also willnot happen.More disturbing is the boundary skirmishes and tacit hostility which Chinese are adept at displaying.India could address this challenge only by roping in Russia and forming strong bonds with its polar neighbour.Stronger Indo-Russian bonds will allay Chinese threat perception and is a sure road to safer future.

Indo-Russian relations so far did not enter a phase of open disenchantment.But unless acted soon,the opportunity would be missed.One most challenging task is to infuse life into the declining bilateral trade,which is abysmally low at $3.5billion per annum.Annual bilateral summits are institutionalised between them,but in the absence of strong day to day political engagement ,it may turn morbid.2008 was celebrated as THE YEAR OF RUSSIA IN INDIA,and we could not even bring any substantial change in our thinking.2009 is now being celebrated as THE YEAR OF INDIA IN RUSSIA.Now this is time to act,to bring a fundamental change in our diplomatic thinking.It would be in Indian interest to see that an Indian winter would not be thrust upon the warmth of Leningrad.

Abhilash M.R

2009-10-17T02:33:00.000-07:00

Deciphering Chinese Diplomatic Might

India, Pause and Ponder.

De-bundling Chinese economic success from political-might can bring out certain factors that played pivotal role in its political rise, resulting in a non-democratic China holding immense sway over the politics of the region ,than a democratic India. No wonder European leaders eloquently pay lip-service to democracy, but visit the biggies at Beijing first , before coming to New Delhi. British prime minister Gordon Brown was doing nothing exceptional, during his first Asian visit in his prime-ministerial capacity, when he visited the powerful acquaintance at Beijing first, before coming to the natural ally in New Delhi.

A question naturally emerges, Why India with her Democratic credentials could not wield the influence that china demonstrates? Chinese economic success is admirable, but is it the sole factor that catapults her to the status of super power-in -waiting? While the world focused on Chinese economic miracle ,it missed the beer for the bush. Chinese diplomacy adapted itself to a changing world much before India understood that the world is changing, resulting in Indian foreign policy establishment lagging long behind china, even failing to understand the reason behind the lag.

The hallmark of current Chinese foreign policy is its stark realism, jettisoning any higher ideological interests beyond the borders. Unlike the former Soviet Union and the United States, China is not engaged in propagating world communism or democracy, but maintaining an iron hand over developments within and advancing its national interest without. It is no more limited by third-worldism, and identifies its friends and enemies according to its national interest. Surprisingly, the border dispute between India and China made an acrobatic re-entry to the fore front, weeks after the signing of indo-us nuclear deal, notwithstanding the previous Chinese stand that border issue can no more be an impediment to their good neighbourly relations. Similarly, after the nuclear deal was signed, China asked India to dismantle its nuclear weapons and sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) , a genuine concern of a peace loving nation. But when voting came against Iran at International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) with regard to its controversial nuclear programme, China abstained, making clear that its grave concern with regard to India’s nuclear agreement was only diplomatically genuine.

In spite of China having a Muslim majority province, Xinjiang, where separatist movement is extremely active, no global terrorist leader openly exhorted violence against china. To be viewed in this context has been the brutal crackdown of suspected separatists in Xinjiang, since 1996.In August2008, on the eve of Beijing Olympics, the separatists killed 16 Chinese police officers and a large number of people were injured. But the unfazed Chinese government executed the two convicted terrorists responsible for the attack on April 9,2009.Curiously,China is not in the hit list of Al Quaeda. While sternly suppressing any dissident activity in its soil, china combined realism with foresight and stayed away from Anglo-American axis in its global crusade against jihadi elements. India was realistic enough to align with the united states, but unrealistic enough to gauge its implications to its internal security.

A nation’s capacity to project its power annotates to the world its aspirations. And China efficiently projects its power, with out resorting to any unacceptable claims. The goal of Chinese foreign policy is to maintain a strong, independent , powerful and united China that is one of several great powers in the world. Not long ago, a group of shanghai academicians came up with the notion of zhonggguo heiping jueki, when translated, meant, China’s peaceful rise to power. This phrase has later been used by the scholars and officials in People’s Republic of China to describe the country’s foreign policy approach to the new millennium. Thus an academic theory is transmuted to a gospel, and China very much dreams of the bygone centuries of imperial pax sinica, the time of peace in East Asia, maintained by Chinese hegemony during the period of rule by the dynasties like Han, Tang, Yuan and Ming. As history shows, kingdoms were forerunners of empires, and modern China is rising.

On the other hand, Indian foreign policy establishment is still beaming under the Ideas like Panchsheel and non-alignment, the mighty contributions of Nehruvian genius, but certainly not the best pick for the day. Unable to articulate a new world view that is strikingly original, but staking India’s claim, our policy makers wonder what went wrong in projecting India’s power. At best, India remains a regional giant. When theory lends more credibility to claim, it gains acceptance in strategic circles. China is also having a unique corpus of Chinese strategic thought and theory of international relations, which are distinct from the occidental ones.

Similar is the case with foreign policy formulation processes, where China maintains a unique advantage over India. Unlike most other nations, Chinese foreign policy is formulated in think tanks(zhiku or sixiang ku),which are formally outside the government. They are sponsored and supervised by government, but contribute immense research in relevant foreign policy areas, with analysis and prescription. Even though Chinese think tanks owe its nurturance to the foresightfulness of Zhao Ziyang, it lost its clout after the infamous Tiananmen massacre. But once Hu Jintao became the secretary General of Chinese Communist Party, he has since regularly invited think tank members to give lectures to the politburo study sessions and brief relevant ministries. Thus the course of Chinese foreign policy is a central research matter for vast number of think tanks, and institutes like Shanghai Institute for International Studies earn coveted place in foreign policy formulation of China.

On the other hand, Government of India did not yet understand the role of think tanks in enriching strategic thinking. Indeed, we have only few think tanks worth naming, even they are not funded by ministry of external affairs. The only active government funded autonomous think tank in strategic studies is Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses(IDSA), surprisingly even that is funded not by External Affairs Ministry, but by ministry of Defence. Even though IDSA made remarkable strides in research during the tenures of Commodore Udayabhaskar and N.S.Sisodia, occasional instances of plagiarism creep in its main journal, Strategic Analysis, thereby questioning the credibility of the Institution. To top it all, most of its recent books are authored by a small group of senior officials in the organisation, bringing to the open the prevailing scarcity of intellect and ideas.

leadership matters

Another distinctive aspect of Chinese foreign policy is its active leadership. In recent years Chinese leaders have become regular travellers to all parts of the globe. For instance, South America is considered as the strategic backyard of the United States, but Chinese are increasingly engaging Latin America, in a bid to counter American activities in South Asia. In the months of March and April alone , Chinese President or Premier met with head of the states of three South American countries, out of the total twelve countries of the continent. This shows the intensity of the engagement and the day China can question the claim of the U.S. as the patriarch of Latin America is not very far.

tethering the adversary

Former U.S. Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice, once pointed out that the aim the U.S. is to tether China to South Asia to prevent its global rise. China deceitfully pursues the same policy with regard to its contenders, be it Taiwan, Japan or India. Such actions of real politick are alien to Indian ethos, but are unavoidable in a nation’s rise to power. Chinese naval build up around the regions of Indian ocean and its helping hand to Sri Lanka to build Hambantota port in southern Sri Lanka are only parts of the planned attempt to curtail India’s clout in the region.

Hat off to External Affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, for sending Indian Navy’s warship to protect its interest in the Somalian straits. But the day India took stern action against sea-pirates, Chinese too jumped into the fray and asserted themselves, leading to the reported stand-off between Indian submarine and Chinese warships, resolving only to the disadvantage of India. The brief is that China did not allow the power vacuum to be exploited to the advantage to India, rather asserted their presence. Chinese maritime ambitions, indeed, go beyond India. Sending a shock to Pentagon in November 2007 and springing a surprise to the world, Chinese Song class sub marine surfaced within sight of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk during exercises in the pacific ocean, asserting its capacity to spy, whomsoever it may be.

In contrast, India is painfully trying to maintain warm bilateral relations with individual countries in South Asia, not to speak of “spheres of influence”, an extremely ambitious notion at present. Apart from Bhutan and Afghanistan, India does not have non-conflictual co-operation with any other South Asian country. On the South East Asian side, India was able to accomplish good trade relations with most ASEAN countries, but that do not qualify to be called sphere of influence, with the sole notable exception being , Singapore.

Of Soft power

In contrast, India diversity and cultural legacy offer greater scope for its soft power. But the initiatives remain essentially private with no official strategy to popularise and cater it to the masses of the world.

ABHILASH M.R