Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Room Enough in Asia for Its Giants?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Room Enough in Asia for Its Giants?

    [An Asia Pacific Millennium] Room Enough in Asia for Its Giants?


    By Philip Dorsey Iglauer

    China and India are ancient civilizations and they are neighbors and rising powers, seeing the 55th anniversary of formal relations this year, first established when they emerged from colonialism.

    Their bilateral ties have seen good times, such as the 1950s camaraderie of Panch Sheel, or the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, but suspicion and rivalry better characterized their relationship.

    The 1962 India-China War along the still-disputed 3,225-kilometer-long Himalayan border, which, contrary to the exculpatory dissembling of the Indian government, experts agree was an accidental war that killed 500 soldiers on either side and left China in actual control over the disputed land, set the tone for India-China relations through the 60s, 70s and 80s.

    Though it is still a source of friction and 400,000 soldiers of the two behemoths still eyeball each other 22,000 kilometers above sea level, the border has not been considered a flash point since the Sino-Indian bilateral Peace and Tranquility Accords were signed in 1993 and ‘96.

    And Sino-Indian relations today are enjoying their highest level of stability and closest economic ties ever. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India this year in April helped accelerate momentum generated by former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s June 2003 visit to Beijing.

    But relations can easily slip, as they did temporarily when India’s nuclear ambitions erected a major obstacle to achieving good ties. When India conducted its May 1998 underground nuke test at Pokhran, New Delhi policymakers pointed to China, as well as Pakistan, as the reason. Indeed, India said China was a major motivation for the test.

    New Delhi has shifted gears since then and is now pursing rapprochement with Beijing, as Indian policymakers backpedaled from their ``China threat’’ rhetoric.

    China and India are interested in economic development. Triangulating relations with Pakistan and the U.S. are helping the two Asian giants integrate their economies into the global trading system, albeit slowly and in ways that allow for ample transition time for their industries to adjust.

    Though the economic interdependence remains low, bilateral trade has mushroomed over just a few years to $13 billion in 2004. Both countries have registered significant growth over the last decade. India must catch up in foreign direct investment, with China commanding $60 billion in FDI _ twelve times India’s 2004 total.

    You would think that is all the more reason to resolve territorial disputes along the Himalayan border. According John Kenneth Galbraith, U.S. ambassador at the time and an eyewitness to the war, Chinese and Indian leaders must first solve this dispute over worthless mountain terrain if they are to develop their economies.

    A host of potential fissures could disrupt what is only a start to a beautiful friendship: intractable territorial disputes, for one, but security competition, China’s intimate relationship with Pakistan, or the failure to manage the China-India-U.S. triangle could each undo the budding amity between the two vast nations.

    For decades, China has provided both moral and material support to Pakistan in its rivalry with India. Since the 1980s, as China and India embarked on a path toward normalization, Beijing has shifted to a policy of equidistance with Islamabad and New Delhi, and assuages New Delhi’s legitimate concerns regarding Sino-Pakistani defense ties.

    For the Sino-Indian relationship to work, the delicate China-India-Pakistan triangle requires effective management. Beijing and Islamabad have developed a close political-security relationship for more than forty years, particularly after the 1962 China-India War.

    China’s demonstrated its equidistant position vis-à-vis Islamabad and New Delhi during the 1999 Kargil crisis when war between India and Pakistan seemed very possible. China’s engaged neutrality pulled the two countries from the brink of war.

    But Sino-Pakistani ties in the security area remain a serious concern to India, as Chinese missile assistance and help constructing a strategic outlet for Pakistan in the Gwadar Port feed Indian encirclement paranoia.

    But support to Pakistan might never stop. China depends on Pakistan because it is an important Islamic country and nuclear weapons state. Beijing needs to retain close ties with Islamabad not because of India, but out of concerns over Islamic unrest in its own territory, especially in Xinjiang.

    The two countries military buildup is another source of tension. India has watched China’s phenomenal growth in the economic and military sectors with both envy and alarm. Beijing’s defense budgets have grown at double digits for more than a decade, acquiring advanced weaponry from Russia and Israel that have improved the aerial and naval capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (See my March 6, 2005 column, ``Will China Cause Trans-Atlantic Rift?’’).

    The fact that China continues to lead India, as measured by innumerable power indicators, poses a greater threat than its military defeat in 1962, according to Indian defense analysts. In response, New Delhi is also purchasing advanced fighter aircraft, submarines _ even an aircraft carrier _ supplied by Israel or Russia. And an arms race between these two Asian giants is very real.

    Chinese security analysts are also debating the implications of a warming U.S.-India nuclear relationship. Prior to 9-11, there were growing concerns that close ties between Washington and New Delhi could pose a security risk to China, especially if Washington enlists New Delhi as a potential counterweight in a containment strategy against China.

    Leaders of the Hindu extremist Bhartiya Janta Party were briefed by the Bush administration on major policy initiatives, treating India almost as an ally. In return, the BJP-led 22 party coalition government openly endorsed a U.S. missile defense initiative. Washington’s sharing of sensitive security information alarmed many U.S. allies.

    But the War on Terror made Washington emphasize great power cooperation, at least in South Asia, and could motivate the U.S. to improve India-China and U.S.-China security cooperation, assuaging worries among policymakers in Beijing over the growing U.S.-India entente against China.

    So, a China-India-U.S. strategic triangle has emerged and, if nurtured further, could inspire policymakers in Beijing and India to be sensitive to how initiatives would be seen in the other’s capital.

    If regional competition between India and China can be managed in two interconnected triangular relationships with the U.S. and Pakistan, then there would be room enough for the Asian giants.

    The two could just as easily cooperate as compete; they could meet the major Asia Pacific leadership challenge of this millennium and avoid the zero-sum trap of competition.


    [email protected]
    10-31-2005 16:29
    http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opin...6272454190.htm
    A view from Korea.

    Proxy for the Chinese viewpoint?



    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Leaders of the Hindu extremist Bhartiya Janta Party
    Do this foreign journos take indian politiical & social lessons with BBC?
    Hala Madrid!!

    Comment


    • #3
      well, it's waht the world thinks, perhaps it's time to replace those rose lenses....

      the first step to overcoming a problem is accepting it...

      Comment


      • #4
        So is it ok to say Dictator turned President Musharaff?? Or CEO turned President or Pakistani General who arm twisted the parliment to make him the president ??
        A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

        Comment


        • #5
          please, go right ahead...there is no doubt over the way he took power and the stereotype associated with that, but for what he has done for the nation and continues to do we don't care...

          if we never had an elecrted leader ever again most people probably would never care, as long as they make things right!

          Comment

          Working...
          X