China’s absolutist diplomatic regime and Indian democracy’s transparent diplomacy have rarely witnessed any degree of convergence in recent years. And Beijing obviously prefers it that way to be able to project its hardline strategies to its neighbourhood and the world at large and essentially to its vast but restless domestic constituency shorn of genuine freedoms and human rights. One illustration that lends credence to this proposition is the fact that while China keeps all of its maritime and land border issues simmering over time and space, most of the outstanding border disputes within the European continent were resolved with finality on negotiating tables, essentially on the premise of the spirit of a transformational concord in the post-colonial era. These European countries without exception chose democracy as the mode of governance of the people, by the people and for the people.
When India was pronounced a sovereign democratic republic by its constitution with effect from January 26, 1950, the People’s Republic of China failed to duly take cognizance of the world’s largest democracy and its post-Independence borders. Even today, despite nearly 20 Sino-Indian Inter Special Representative level rounds of talks, the material issue of border demarcation is yet to be seriously or sincerely addressed by Beijing. Since the world at large is yet to hold China accountable for such dereliction, the evident conclusion is that only regimented governments can unconditionally defend their national interests, not the popular democracies meant to reflect people’s aspirations and their subliminal interests.
Significantly, China has been conspicuously selective in solving border issues with Russia and North Korea decades ago. But it continues to diligently push its incremental claimed area propositions (CAP) in respect of the South China Seas and stubbornly reinforcing CAPs on its borders with India.
Looking back into history, had New Delhi expressed reservations on China’s annexation of Tibet in 1950 by highlighting that Mount Kailas, near Lake Mansorovar in the Kailash Range, or Gangdise Mountains form a part of Trans-Himalaya in Tibet and are a sacred arena for Hindus, Buddhists and the Jains alike, India’s case would have been stronger.
But India did not adhere to CAPs as a strategic proposition for diplomatic exploitation. China does not dignify such largeness of mind, considering Beijing’s stubborn and illogical reaction to Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama’s recent visit to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh bordering with China on the plea that it was part of the disputed territory.Such gargantuan claims are put forward by Beijing only to heighten its own branding within the UN Big Five and overawe and pressurize dissidence among Chinese people in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Contrarily, China’s blatantly protective armour over notorious Pakistan’s terror mandarins is part of its vicious campaign against India.
To add to India’s discomfiture, as the world’s most empowered democracy, the USA, too, has so far failed to extend anything more than verbal support to India when China is in the process of creating the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through legitimate Indian territory.
Now that US President Donald Trump’s much-touted face-off with Chinese President Xi Jinping has ended in warm declarations of goodwill and mutual respect, experts are wondering if he will walk the talk, given that he had accused China of “stealing” American jobs and currency manipulation, fuelling speculations of conflict.
However, Sebastian Rosato, Associate Professor of the University of Notre Dame, USA and international policy specialist, does not think so. In a recent interview he reiterated his theory that China and US were on “a collision course”. Asked about President Xi Jinping’s assertion that the new model of great power relations emphasized no conflict or confrontation, mutual respect for each other’s core interests, and mutually beneficial cooperation, he said: “My view is that statements such as these do little to reassure the United States about China’s intentions. They could equally be interpreted as a Chinese attempt to create an international environment that will allow China to rise to great power status unopposed, at which point it will have the capability to push the United States and its allies around.”
Considering that President Trump met his Chinese counterpart on American soil, it remains to be seen whether the dialogue was confined to ‘saving’ only the American democracy from the empowered clutches of China or the global democratic domain too. China has veritably annexed trading grounds of democracies like the US and permeated irreversibly the trade marts and outlets of countries like India.
These are matters of global concern.
Mohan Das Menon
Former additional secretary, Cabinet Secretariat
mdmenonconsulting@gmail.com