Spread the love

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

Latest Developments

Last week on Thursday, China and India agreed to de-escalate the renewed tensions on the contested north-western section of their border in Ladakh [of the former Jammu & Kashmir princely state] am Karakorum/Himalaya. They also resolved – for the umpteenth time – to take steps to restore “peace and tranquillity” [the famous Chinese formulation for the ideal situation on their many borders] following a high-level diplomatic meeting in Moscow (Reuters, September 11).

The two foreign ministers Wang Yi [also a State Counsellor, i.e. of higher rank] and S. Jaishanker [for many years ambassador in Beijing] reached a five-point consensus including that the current border situation is not in their (self) interests and that troops on both sides should quickly disengage and ease tensions, the two countries said in a joint statement.

This latest consensus was struck on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting in Moscow after another clash in the same border area earlier last week.

On that occasion, China and India accused each other of firing into the air – probably warning shots, to avoid actual fighting – during the confrontation, a clear violation of long-held protocol not to use firearms on the sensitive frontier.

The long-simmering conflict, which was so long dormant could now dangerously erupt.

Role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

Russia utilized the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization/ Shanghai Pact to broker the special diplomatic tête-à-tête of the Chinese and Indian foreign ministers.

The SCO is a Eurasian political, economic and security organization of only eight members – China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan (1996); Uzbekistan (2001); India and Pakistan (2017). Nepal has been a ‘dialogue partner’ since 2015.

The SCO, also known as the ‘Alliance of the East’ has gained prominence due to the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific and as the primary security pillar of this huge landmass. After all, it accounts for approximately half of the world’s population, a quarter of the world’s GDP, and about 80 % per cent of Eurasia’s landmass.

However, the SCO as an international governmental organization (IGO) has not been able to develop even a fraction of its potential. It has concentrated on the ‘three evils’ — terrorism, separatism and extremism – which are, of course, liable to various, one-sided interpretations. The two main issues plaguing the region – the Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani Conflicts have been approached with velvet gloves. Above all, it is top-heavy: the ‘Council of the Heads of State’ as the supreme decision-making body is not conducive to a smooth and effective functioning as some heads of state – those of India and Pakistan – have only ceremonial functions and no executive power!

Chinese Position

Wang told Jaishankar during the meeting the “imperative is to immediately stop provocations such as firing and other dangerous actions that violate the commitments made by the two sides.”

He also insisted that all (military) personnel and equipment that have “trespassed’ the border must be removed and that frontier troops on both sides “must quickly disengage” in order to de-escalate the situation.

These are very fine and reasonable words, but the crux of the matter is that there is no such demarcated or official border recognized as such by the two sides of the international community. India and China both have their own conception of where the so-called Line of Actual Control (LAC) lies/runs. It is, therefore, astounding that both sides invoke this imaginary, never negotiated line as their common border.

The reality on the ground is “a hostile face-off between troops” (BBC).

Need for International Intervention

However, the Sino-Indian conflict can no longer be a bilateral issue. If it erupts into a hot war, it may not remain a regional conflict. Besides the neighbouring countries of South and Central Asia, others may be involved. In addition, both are nuclear powers. Could the bilateral war remain limited to conventional weapons?

This major dispute – probably the most dangerous currently in world affairs – cannot be resolved bilaterally, because it is impacted by so many domestic [jingoistic elements in both countries and whipped-up public opinion] and external factors [role of U.S., Pakistan, Australia, Japan]. Primarily, as we have seen, this is because of the fundamental difference over the question of where the real/verified/confirmed border or Line of Actual Control (LAC) is located/situated. In this sector, neither side can cite any historical treaty, agreement or understanding; unlike in the eastern sector, where the McMahon Line separating Indian Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet has historical antecedents.

Thus, whether the two parties at loggerheads like it or not, an international body, preferably the United Nations Security Council must step in to restrain the two war-mongering powers. UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres has it in his power to undertake the necessary initiative. A possible outcome would be to insert peace-keeping forces of the UN [the costs to be shared by India and China] adjacent to the areas of each of the perceived ‘Line of Actual Control’.

Chinese Actions

Chinese (semi-) official commentary contrast stark with a recent show of force by the Chinese military (SCMP/South China Morning Post, September 11).

China’s The Global Times, the influential tabloid published by the newspaper conglomerate of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) reported last Wednesday that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) were moving soldiers, bombers and armoured vehicles into the disputed border area.

This was a direct invitation for India’s defence forces to reciprocate.

In addition, Chinese state media also recently reported armed jump drills by PLA paratroopers in the Tibet Autonomous Region adjacent to the disputed area.

If actions on the ground were not enough, The Global Times sent a clear and dire warning in its editorial last Thursday saying any talks with India should be paired with ‘war readiness’.

Analysts are nonplused. Is China speaking with a forked tongue? Or does the right hand [diplomatic and peaceful engagement] not know what the left hand [armed military preparations] is doing?

Official Indian Standpoint

Jaishankar told Wang that the immediate task would be for troops to step back from the areas of friction so that things do not get worse. Troops are barely a few hundred metres apart at some points.

He also told Wang that India was deeply concerned about the buildup of Chinese forces on the LAC on the poorly defined border, saying: “The Chinese side has not provided a credible explanation for this deployment.”

Moreover, “the provocative behaviour of Chinese frontline troops at numerous incidents of friction along the LAC also showed disregard for bilateral agreements and protocols,” Jaishankar complained, adding any unilateral attempt to change the status quo would be resisted.

In June this year, tensions erupted into a deadly frontier clash with clubs and stones [a flashback to our primitive ancestors] in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed and China suffered an unspecified number of casualties. Some analysts have regretted the lack of transparency.

India’s Secret Weapon?

In a very recent development, India has upped the ante by introducing secret troops of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) composed mainly of ethnic Tibetans in the border region, according to the leading German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). (September 8). This would be like a red rag to a bull – a major provocation and challenge to Chinese sensitivities on the Tibet Question. If it weren’t for other restraining factors, it could almost count as a casus belli.

The Conflict in the Context of World Politics

The two ministers’ meeting was the latest diplomatic effort to head off a broader conflict between the world’s two most populated countries, which went to war in 1962. The situation now is radically different. A hot war between the Asian juggernauts would have unforeseen consequences for the region and the world at large.

After the United States, China is the world’s second-largest economy, while India is the fifth [preceded by Japan and Germany; and followed by the UK and France/IMF database].

The so-called ‘Group of Seven’ [G-7] of the highly industrialized countries, formed way back in 1975, does not include either China or India and consists of the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK.

The international power constellation does not reflect the new reality of world politics. After the pandemic is over, and even now planning for the future, international institutions must take into account China’s rise as a super-power and Japan and India as rising great powers. The latter two must somehow be incorporated into the UN Security Council – if not immediately as full members, at least as ‘permanent observers’ [after a majority resolution of the UN General Assembly]. The fulcrum of power is shifting precipitously towards Asia.

A hot war between China and India at the present juncture would sorely damage the world economy and disrupt supply chains – at a time when they are already seriously disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is a time when the world economy has to get back on its feet. It is also a vital necessity that the international community in cooperation with and under the leadership of the World Health Organization (WHO) starts planning for an equitable distribution of the various Covid-19 vaccines. And as the wildfires in the US states of California, Oregon and Washington State illustrate, it is also high noon for all countries of the world to confront the scary, apocalyptic nature of climate change.

The world does not need the eruption of the Sino-Indian conflict. It is a completely unnecessary distraction from other more pressing international crises. To use a metaphor: two fine, well-fed pedigree dogs are fighting over an old, meatless bone!

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com