Home Contact Us  
   

Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#211, 25 June 1999
 
Chinese Views on the Kargil Conflict
Bhartendu Kumar Singh
Research Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
 

The ongoing conflict in Kargil between India and Pakistan has attracted world-wide reaction including China . Of all the Great Powers, the Chinese views are most important for India . Firstly, China is India ’s neighbour, and also borders Pakistan by virtue of its occupation of nearly 5000 sq. kms. of Kashmir transferred to it by Pakistan . Secondly, Pakistan has tried to enlist Chinese support on Kargil where it has been pushing infiltrators across the Line of Control (LOC). Yet, it has failed in this effort, despite its close friendship with China .

 

 

Behaving as a responsible ‘Great Power’, China has refrained from taking sides in the Kargil imbroglio and adopted a neutral posture. Firstly, China believes that resort to military confrontation by India and Pakistan will not resolve the Kargil crisis. As a leading official Chinese daily commented editorially on 7th June, 1999, “history has repeatedly told (us) that war will do nothing to the settlement of border disputes but crank up tensions”. Secondly, in the Chinese opinion, continued Indo-Pak hostility will be detrimental to peace and security in South Asia . Therefore, China has advised both India and Pakistan to show restraint to prevent the situation from further deteriorating. Thirdly, China has asked both countries to discuss and negotiate the issue. On June 12, 1999, when the Pakistan Foreign Minister Mr. Sartaz Aziz went to Beijing to seek Chinese support, China   told Pakistan to ‘settle its disputes with India peacefully through dialogue and negotiations’.

 

 

Reasons behind China 's neutrality

 

 

China ’s views on Kargil has to be seen in the broader context of its policy on Kashmir . In the last two decades, there has been a change in its Kashmir policy, which has much to do with its own internal compulsions. During the days of Sino-Indian hostility, China adopted a pro-Pak policy on Kashmir , and talked of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people. By the early 1980s, however, the new thinking in China developed an anathema for the word ‘self-determination’, lest it be applied by the West to the case of Tibet . The rise of secessionist tendencies in its Muslim province of Xinjiang also made China aware of the dangers of ‘self-determination. Moreover, by the late 1980s, China 's own territorial disputes with the South-East Asian countries over the Spratly Group of Islands led to military clashes. Having shown its preference for bilateral talks to resolve the dispute, China could not deny the same principle in the case of Kashmir . Therefore, as relations between India and China improved by the end of the 1980s, China advocated bilateral talks between India and Pakistan on Kashmir . In fact, during his visit to India and Pakistan in December 1996, the Chinese President, Mr. Jiang Zemin, stunned the Pakistani Senate by calling on both countries to build a co-operative relationship and set aside ‘difficult issues’. Although he did not directly mention Kashmir the reference was obvious.

 

 

There are other reasons why China cannot support Pakistan on Kashmir or Kargil. The very foundation of Pakistan is based on Islam and therefore is a source of religious terrorism. While it has openly supported terrorist forces in Kashmir , there are reports of Uighur Muslim terrorists getting training in Pakistani camps. In fact, China had protested to Pakistan on this issue in February this year, an allegation denied by Pakistan . Besides, after the break-up of the Soviet Union , Muslim fundamentalism is on the increase in Central Asia . Any support to Pakistan on Kashmir , therefore, will only lead to more problems in the adjoining more vulnerable Chinese province of Xinjiang .

 

 

A policy meant to appease

 

 

China 's present stand on Kargil is designed to please both India and Pakistan . Unlike the G-8 countries (excluding Japan ), China has not blamed Pakistan for infiltrating militants across the Line of Control (LOC). When Li Peng, China's number two leader, described Kashmir as a ‘complicated affair’ during his meeting with Mr. Sartaz Aziz, it was meant to keep Pakistan in good humour. It has not allowed Kargil to become an irritant in Sino-Indian relations either. Unlike Iran and Libya , China has not offered to play a ‘third-party role’ in the  Kargil crisis. Moreover, during the recent visit of the Indian External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, to Beijing only a passing reference was made to the Kargil crisis during his talks with his Chinese counterpart Tang Jiaxuan.

 

 

 

 

 

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary
D Suba Chandran
Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues
Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?
The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani
Big Picture
Prof Varun Sahni
Understanding Democracy and Diversity in J&K
When Xi Met Modi: Juxtaposing China and India
Pakistan?s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: The Inevitability of Instability

Dateline Colombo

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera.
Sri Lanka: Moving Towards a Higher Collective Outcome
The Importance of Electing the Best to our Nation's Parliament
Sri Lanka: Toward a Diaspora Re-Engagement Plan
Dateline Islamabad
Salma Malik
Pakistan's Hurt Locker: What Next?
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
India-Pakistan Relations in 2015: Through a Looking Glass
 
Dhaka Discourse
Prof Delwar Hossain
IPCS Forecast: Bangladesh in 2015
18th SAARC Summit: A Perspective from Bangladesh
Bangladesh in Global Forums: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Politics
Eagle Eye
Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
India-US: Significance of the Second Modi-Obama Meet
Has President Obama Turned Lame Duck?
Modi-Obama Summit: Criticism for Criticism?s Sake?

East Asia Compass
Dr Sandip Mishra
India-Japan-US Trilateral: India?s Policy for the Indo-Pacific
China-South Korea Ties: Implications for the US Pivot to Asia
Many ?Pivots to Asia?: What Does It Mean For Regional Stability?
Himalayan Frontier
Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal?s New Constitution: Instrument towards Peace or Catalyst to Conflict?
IPCS Forecast: Nepal in 2015
Constitution-making: Will Nepal Miss its Second Deadline?

Indo-Pacific
Prof Shankari Sundararaman
IPCS Forecast: Southeast Asia in 2015
Indonesia's Pacific Identity: What Jakarta Must Do in West Papua
Modi in Myanmar: From ?Look East? to ?Act East?
Indus-tan
Sushant Sareen
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
Islamic State: Prospects in Pakistan
Pakistan: The Futility of Internationalising Kashmir

Looking East
Wasbir Hussain
Myanmar in New Delhi's Naga Riddle
China: ?Peaceful? Display of Military Might
Naga Peace Accord: Need to Reserve Euphoria
Maritime Matters
Vijay Sakhuja
Indian Ocean: Modi on a Maritime Pilgrimage
Indian Ocean: Exploring Maritime Domain Awareness
IPCS Forecast: The Indian Ocean in 2015

Nuke Street
Amb Sheelkant Sharma
US-Russia and Global Nuclear Security: Under a Frosty Spell?
India's Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile: The Nirbhay Test
India-Australia Nuclear Agreement: Bespeaking of a New Age
Red Affairs
Bibhu Prasad
Countering Left Wing Extremism: Failures within Successes
Return of the Native: CPI-Maoist in Kerala
The Rising Civilian Costs of the State-Vs-Extremists Conflict

Regional Economy
Amita Batra
India and the APEC
IPCS Forecast: South Asian Regional Integration
South Asia: Rupee Regionalisation and Intra-regional Trade Enhancement
South Asian Dialectic
PR Chari
Resuming the Indo-Pak Dialogue: Evolving a New Focus
Defence Management in India: An Agenda for Parrikar
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: Implications for Asian Security

Spotlight West Asia
Amb Ranjit Gupta
Prime Minister Modi Finally Begins His Interaction with West Asia*
A Potential Indian Role in West Asia?
US-GCC Summit: More Hype than Substance
Strategic Space
Manpreet Sethi
India-Russia Nuclear Vision Statement: See that it Delivers
Global Nuclear Disarmament: The Humanitarian Consequences Route
Nasr: Dangers of Pakistan's Short Range Ballistic Missile

The Strategist
Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Jihadi Aggression and Nuclear Deterrence
The Blight of Ambiguity
Falun Gong: The Fear Within


OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


 

Browse by Publications

Commentaries 
Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 
China 
Myanmar 
Afghanistan 
Iran 
Pakistan 
India 
J&K  

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Indo-Pak 
Military 
Terrorism 
Naxalite Violence 
Nuclear 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Rightsizing the Armed Forces: Problems and Prospects

China’s Nepal Game: Oli’s Visit and Thereafter

India: Defence Budget in an Age of Scarcity

Beyond ‘Hand-in-Hand’: Enhancing Sino-Indian Military Cooperation

China's Defence Expenditure: Has the Debate Ended?

Why India Needs an Outcome Budget for Defence

Using Defence for Development: New Policy Options for India

Chinese FDI in India: Will it augment the bilateral relations?

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

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
Facebook
 
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2017
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August  September  October  November
 2016  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011  2010  2009
 2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001
 2000  1999  1998  1997
 
 

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
18, Link Road, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014, INDIA.

Tel: 91-11-4100-1902    Email: officemail@ipcs.org

© Copyright 2017, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.