On China, just get real

and get international recognition as a nuclear weapons state, whose interests could not be ignored. Deng Xiao Ping dumped all pretences of Marxism and Leninism. He embarked on a single-minded pursuit of developing China’s economic muscle, to build an economy that would dwarf others and even challenge the might of the American economy. We would have to understand these dynamics of its quest for power while dealing with China. Ideology has no place in the conduct of China’s external relations. China’s apologists in India seem to conveniently forget how Deng proudly proclaimed in 1979 that he had invaded a fellow Communist country, Vietnam, in order to teach it a “lesson” in much the same manner that China had taught India a “lesson” in 1962.

China today has territorial differences and claims on many of its neighbors. Its border disputes with Russia and its Central Asian neighbors have been settled on its terms. These settlements have been reached with Russia and Central Asian countries only after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Soviet power. When a weakened Kyrgyzstan delimited its borders with China, there were countrywide protests, as it was required to cede about 1,25,000 hectares in its mountainous borders with China. Similarly, China has not hesitated to make extravagant claims against virtually all its neighbors including Vietnam, Phlippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia on issues pertaining to its maritime frontiers. The Chinese attacked and took over the Paracel Islands from Vietnam in 1974. Military force was again used by China against Vietnam in 1988 to occupy the Fiery Reefs in the Spratlys. China occupied the “Mischief Reef” claimed by the Philippines in 1995, only to find the Philippines, quite obviously emboldened by tacit American support, retake the island shortly thereafter.

There are lessons for India from the experiences of China’s other neighbors in settling border disputes. We should never negotiate from a position of military or economic weakness. We should avoid the temptation of being in a hurry to resolve differences on the border and eschew any romanticism and nostalgia. Given its border disputes with so many of its neighbors and the American military presence off the Taiwan Straits, China realises that peace and tranquility on its borders with India makes sound strategic sense.

Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China has consolidated the progress made in the quest for a negotiated settlement to the vexed border issue during visits by prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao. The Chinese have shown a measure of realism by according de facto recognition to Sikkim being an integral part of India, by signing the agreement on border trade between Changgu in “Sikkim State” and Renquinggang in the “Tibet Autonomous Region”. In turn, India has been somewhat more forthcoming than in the past by acknowledging that it “recognises” the Tibet Autonomous Region as a part of China. Not surprisingly, the Chinese spokesman claimed that the border trade agreement did not constitute Chinese recognition of Sikkim being an integral part of India, while asserting that India had admitted that the Tibet Autonomous Region is an “inalienable” part of China. All this only confirms that China remains afflicted by the Middle Kingdom Syndrome, where visiting foreign dignitaries are shown to ‘‘Kow Tow” before China’s modern day emperors. But, the decision to raise the level of talks on the border issue is a welcome one. It will not only consolidate the relaxed and tension free atmosphere prevailing on our borders with China, but also perhaps evolve a framework on which an ultimate border settlement could be reached. But New Delhi should remember that it is India’s military muscle that is the ultimate guarantor of the security of its borders. At the same time, an economically confident India should be ready to expand its economic cooperation with China. There is much to learn from China’s economic successes.

There has been much hype about India and China being partners to develop a “multi-polar world order”. But what has China’s record been on this score? China does not endorse India’s ambitions as a major regional power in the Indian Ocean Region, or a permanent member of the Security Council. India is, at best, referred to by China as “an important country in South Asia”. China supplied M 11 missiles to Pakistan that could target India’s border areas shortly after the visit of Rajiv Gandhi. After the visit of Narasimha Rao in 1993, China supplied nuclear capable M 9 missiles to Pakistan that could target northern Indian cities including Delhi. The Chinese are now supplying M 18 intermediate range missiles to Pakistan that can target cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad. China has supplied fissile material, and designs and components for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades. Its relationship with Pakistan is evidently part of a policy of strategic “containment” of India.

Even as it talks about multi-polarity in the world, China never hesitates to make common cause, accommodate and strike deals with the US whenever it suits its interests. The Russians are increasingly recognising that China’s present support for a multi-polar world order is evidently designed to buy time for its ambitions in a bipolar world. There is a chasm between rhetoric and reality when China talks of global multi-polarity. Despite this, it is in our interests to promote peace and tranquility on our borders, seek to resolve the border issue realistically and promote economic cooperation with China, bilaterally and in regional and international forums.
This week’s National Interest by Shekhar Gupta will appear on Monday