Home Contact Us
Search :
IPCS: Research Institutes in India
   

India & the world - Articles

Print Bookmark Email FacebookFacebook
#461, 10 February 2001
 
Why is China so Ambiguous?
Bhartendu Kumar Singh
Research Scholar, JNU
 

For the last two years, one of the major foreign policy objectives  of India has  been to lobby  for permanent  membership of the Security Council. We have seen the top political leadership and the mandarins of the MEA indulging in diplomatic shopping to secure  commitments of support from different countries. While India has been successful in garnering support from several small and middle-powers across the globe, it has not been as successful with the great-powers. Of the P-5 countries, only Russia has supported India ’s candidature, while Britain and France have given muted support. The U.S. does not regard India as a natural candidate for the Security Council as compared to Germany and Japan , its favoured candidates.

 

 

The strange case, however, is that of China, which has so far been ambiguous and has refused to come out either in support or opposition of India’s  claims to permanent membership of the Security Council. During the last year, the Indian leadership has approached China at least three times to solicit its support   for membership. Indeed, seeking Beijing ’s support on this issue was one of the objectives of President  Narayanan’s visit to China in May last year. Soon after, Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson Dr. Najma  Heptullah also canvassed India ’s  case before the Chinese leadership during her Beijing visit. And when the number two leader of China, Li Peng, was in India, New Delhi had again sought commitment from China, but Li Peng had repeated the same old elements of China’s ambiguous’  policy : 

 

 

1. That the issue is a ‘complex’ one and needed thorough discussion with all UN members.

 

 

2. That  a ‘consensus’ has to be  evolved  on all  possible candidates  including  India ; and 

 

 

3. That China would go by the consensus.

 

 

It is not difficult to decipher the Chinese emphasis on  ‘complexity’ and ‘consensus’.     Traditionally, China has perceived India as a South Asian power rather than one with a global voice. In fact, China has devoted its diplomatic efforts to restrain India within the limits of South Asia . China is not too happy with India ’s status of a rising great-power in the post-Cold War period, and refuses to accept that India would constitute a pole in the evolving multipolar world. Perhaps, China is of the view that by supporting India ’s claim to the Security Council, it would only be recognizing  India ’s claims to great-power status.

 

 

Secondly, with a permanent seat in the Security Council India would emerge as the natural leader of the Third World much to the chagrin of China . Although both China and India have, in the past, projected themselves as belonging to the Third World , China ’s support to the Third World has been lukewarm. China has not associated itself with the Third World associations like NAM , G-77 etc. The  practice of Chinese  relations shows that it was always willing to barter its  Third World interests when it came into conflict with its national interests. In its 29-year record in the Security Council, China has not done anything special to protect Third World interests. Whether it was the ‘liberation’ of Bangladesh or the Gulf War, China always gave primacy to its own interests. On the other hand, India has always been a part of Third World associations and played a lead role in some of them. It is this track record of India which endangers China ’s claims to be a Third World leader!

 

 

Thirdly, the Chinese fear that India ’s position in the Security Council would be used by others  (read U.S. )  to form a containment ring around China .  With both India and Japan in the Security  Council as permanent members, it feels, the  Security Council would  be turned into a platform where ‘great-power conspiracies’ would be hatched against it. Besides, there is every possibility that the South East Asian countries would be courting India , apart from Japan to maintain a establish a balance of power against  China in their region.

 

 

Yet, norms of diplomacy and international relations discourage China from voicing its fears openly. China knows that, with or without it, India will continue lobbying for a permanent seat in the Security Council and in every probability, will succeed. China prefers to  ‘wait and watch’ the entire drama of Security Council reforms in which many claimants might emerge whom China would like  to support against India and  Japan. Hence, China talks of ‘complexity’ and ‘consensus’.

 

 

It is time China came out of its own misperceptions about India . India ’s track  record in the United Nations and elsewhere is proof that it stands for certain principles rather than the pursuit of power politics. India was one of those few non-communist countries that supported China ’s admission into the United Nations and its specialized agencies. There was no change in this policy even though, Sino-Indian relations nosedived since the 1962 war. As for Third World leadership, China should realize that there is enough space for the two countries to co-exist; and India as a permanent member of the Security Council  would not threaten to China ’s status. In fact, Sino-Indian partnership in the Security Council can deter the forces of intervention in the of the Third  World .

 

 

The twenty-first century is witnessing a gradual shift of power from Europe to Asia . In a restructured Security Council, four of its permanent members would be from Asia   (if Russia is also included). China should help accelerate this power shift to  Asia . It is an open secret that China is more suspicious of Japan than India in a future Security Council. The presence of India would ensure its opposition to any form of alliance or  conspiracies against China by other permanent members.  China had supported India in the past for a two-year tenure in the Security Council, and there is no reason why China cannot support India ’s case. If China   stands for a normative structure of international relations, it should demand a Security Council reflecting  current power realities and  recognize the due place of India China should come out in India ’s support in unequivocal terms lest it  reflect its ‘middle kingdom’ complex.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Article by same Author
India's China Policy: Should it be ‘Effective’ or ‘Assertive’?

Agni V: Will it Enhance India’s Deterrence against China?

China’s Military Modernization: The Pentagon Report and Indian Fears

Defence, Development and National Security: Challenges for Naresh Chandra Committee

Resurrecting the Sino-Indian Defence Dialogue

Chinese Military Power and the Politics of Reports

The Annual Report of the MoD: Need for Change?

Chinese Military 'Website' : Possible Interpretations

China's 'Stride 2009' and India

Beyond the Chinese fantasy: Will India Disintegrate?

Negotiating with China

Taking China Seriously

Clamour over the Henderson Brooks Report: Missing the Wood for the Trees?

Does China Matter? Elections and Foreign Policy Issues in India

China and the Politics of UN Peacekeeping

Has India's Military Diplomacy Come of Age?

China, India and the Red Star over Nepal

China, India and the Tibet Crisis

China's Emergence as India's Largest Trade Partner

The Indian Prime Minister's Visit to China

The Kunming Joint Military Exercises and Sino-Indian Relations

Whither China's Democratic Transition?

Ideology, Foreign Policy and the Rhetoric of Anti-Americanism

Bullets vs. Ballots: Foreign Policy Decision-Making in China and India

India, China and the Prospects of Asian Economic Community

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
FacebookFacebook
 
Print Bookmark Email
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
Email:
© Copyright 2012, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design India Internet