Making sense of China
K. Subrahmanyam
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/making-sense-of-china/530767/0
The editorial in the People's Daily of October 14 attacking India's
alleged hegemonism took the memories of senior citizens and Sinologists
back to 1959-60, when polemical articles attacking Jawaharlal Nehru
appeared in the Chinese media. In those articles Nehru was accused of
taking an aggressive line on Tibet in the expectation of aid from the
US. Nations tend to see other nations as extensions of their own
self-image. There are serious cultural problems in the Chinese
interpretation of India and Indian foreign policy.
Whenever a major power emerges the rest of the international system
voices concerns about the aggressive nature of that power. The rise of
Britain, France, Germany, US, Japan, Russia and Communist China itself
have been viewed with apprehension by other powers, and in most of those
instances there were wars. Though today all those nations, other than
China, are democracies, they were not so at the time of their emergence
as powers, except for the US. Even the US, with slavery, was only a
partial democracy. The foreign policy of a country is mostly an
extension of its domestic values. Since most of the nations listed
emerged as powers before they became full-fledged liberal democracies
their non-democratic internal values got projected in their external
policies, often resulting in aggression. Once nations get fully
democratised, their mutual animosities tend to fade as witnessed in
Europe with the formation of the European Union.
China expects to overtake the US as the nation with the highest GDP in
the next two to three decades. China today has the world's highest
foreign exchange reserves and the highest economic growth rate. They
already talk about a G-2 arrangement, sharing world financial dominance
with the US. Proposals are afloat in the Chinese strategic community
about dividing the Pacific Ocean into spheres of influence between China
and the US. Their military modernisation programme is being pushed ahead
rapidly, and is not transparent. Consequently there is concern all over
the world that a non-democratic China wants to become the untethered
hegemon first of Asia, and then of the world.
There are no such fears about India. At an April 2008 conference in
Delhi held by the International Institute of Strategic Studies the
emergence of India was greeted as a uniquely non-threatening phenomenon,
unprecedented in history. It is no surprise, since India's emergence as
a global player has come about decades after India adopted a democratic
and pluralistic constitution. It is a widely-recognised fact that
democracies do not fight each other. Today all major powers except China
are democracies. Once upon a time it used to be said that socialist
countries did not initiate wars. But China's own experience with India,
the Soviet Union and Vietnam disproves it.
China is far ahead of India economically, militarily and - in some
sectors - technologically. Still, why are they picking on India,
creating terrorism- and nuclear-related problems through their
surrogate, Pakistan? Why are they applying pressure on India and trying
to keep it off-balance on the border?
In the editorial India has been accused of having followed a "befriend
the far and attack the near" foreign policy. This perhaps is a reference
to India's wars with Pakistan and China. History has recorded that in
all these cases India did not initiate the attack but was subjected to
attacks by Pakistan and China. Pakistani attacks have been meticulously
described by Shuja Nawaz in his book Crossed Swords and a detailed
account of Chinese planning of the 1962 attack using Chinese
documentation has been made available by the American Sinologist, John
Garver. At the same time it cannot be overlooked that China also
attacked the USSR at Ussuri in 1969 and Vietnam in 1979. After
conducting annual "hate America" campaigns, pontificating on the
antagonistic contradictions between capitalism and socialism, and
promoting the strategy of "countryside surrounding the cities", China
made a complete U-turn and befriended the far-off US in 1971, gave it
bases to monitor Soviet missile tests in 1979 and allowed free access to
US multinationals. Its trade surpluses were not utilised for the benefit
of the Chinese population but invested in US bonds to enable further
credit expansion in the US and higher spending by US consumers. Which
country in recent history has done so much for a far-off friend? Deng
Xiaoping, who talked of seeking truth from facts, should be spinning in
his grave.
The Indian government discouraged jingoist views in the media. The
Chinese ambassador in India wrote an article advocating further
cooperation between the two countries pointing out that it would be in
mutual interest of both countries. That cannot be faulted. In those
circumstances why should the Chinese Communist Party embark on these
provocations, with such wholesale misrepresentation of facts? Dr
Manmohan Singh was not the first prime minister to visit Arunachal
Pradesh. Previous prime ministers had been there without evoking such
protests. We are only left to speculate on possible reasons for this
provocative behaviour.
Since the protest and the editorial came at the time of the Pakistani
prime minister's visit to Beijing, could it be an attempt to show
solidarity with the Pakistanis at a time when they are having serious
problems? Or is this a follow-up to the successful forestalling of the
Dalai Lama's meeting with President Obama? If it is an attempt to bully
India away from developing a closer relationship with either Russia
(which the prime minister is due to visit in December) or the US (which
is hosting a state visit for him in November) nothing could have been
more foolhardy. Russia has reasonable worries about Siberia and Central
Asia. The Indian defence minister just had a very fruitful visit to that
country. The US is keen on sustaining its pre-eminence in a world where
China has reduced the gap between itself and the US in the aftermath of
the recession.
Having recorded all this to clarify the misrepresentations by the
official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, it must be recognised
that India and China together constitute 40 per cent of mankind, yet
face common international challenges such as climate change, trade,
energy, food security, etc., on which they have a significant mutuality
of interests. They have a fast-growing trade and technology relationship
and their leaders have had a number of cordial interactions. There are
certain problems involving nearly a century-old status quo which need to
be handled with delicacy and care. Slanging exercises of the type
witnessed in recent weeks do not help, when indeed more steps to promote
confidence-building are called for.
--
"Life is a comedy for those who think... and a tragedy for those who feel." - Horace Walpole
No comments:
Post a Comment