Deciphering Chinese Diplomatic Might
India, Pause and Ponder.
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 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.
“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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 trade relations 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 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.
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.
ABHILASH M.R
