Indian Defence Review

Realpolitik dictates a policy of ‘congagement’ of China and explains America’s reasons for accommodating the former at the grand table. Thus, while the US-Chinese relationship is expected to remain the ‘most important,’ it is only to the point that the overall balance of power and global primacy remains with USA. Thus, while economics dictates that business can be done as usual, the USA would attempt to limit Chinese power projection capability thereby challenging the status quo in the Asia-Pacific region. The desire to do this by greater and more robust collaboration with established and new allies/partners is the underlying theme of the US re-balancing and is ‘pre-emptive’ in nature.

‘Chess’ and ‘Go’ are ancient board games which originated in India and China; both require astuteness and well-considered strategies. ‘Chess’ being a hierarchical game, aims to attack the enemy’s centre of gravity – the ultimate symbol of power. On the other hand, victory in ‘Go’ is achieved by spatial domination and neutralising the opponent options. Translated in strategic/military parlance, Chess can be considered to be ‘attritionist,’ whereas Go is all about ‘manoeuvre.’ Multiple games analogous to ‘Chess’ and ‘Go’, are being played on the gargantuan board of Asia-Pacific. China and the USA are the main competitors while other powers are playing games that, in some way or the other, are linked with the larger outcome. The aim of this paper is to interpret the moves of each player within the larger context, in order to decipher which side is playing what game, to what end; and by doing so, recommend how ‘emerging’ India could enmesh her strategic goals ‘within’ what portends to be the game of the century.

It would be pertinent to highlight the change that has come about in a ‘globalised’ paradigm where multi-layered and multi-dimensional linkages bind nations and make their destinies acutely inter-dependent on each other. Apropos, traditional understanding of security has transmuted to ‘inclusive human security,’ which on one hand, is reducing chances of war but on the other, has intensified the competition since nations are constrained to vie for limited markets and scarce resources. This interdependence paradigm is exemplified by the complex Sino-American relationship. If China has become the factory of the world, it is because the West outsourced ‘low end’ manufacturing to her, as not only did this make sound economic sense, but it also provided major strategic gains as China was propped up to counter a powerful Soviet Russia. As a result of this western largesse, China with her booming economy has become the ‘largest trading partner,’ not only of the USA, but also of most of the countries with whom she also has adversarial relations: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and the like. Yet at the same time, this is what has created a militarily powerful China, who is threatening the established power equations and purportedly, has become a threat to the ‘free’ world.

It seems that the US strategy that ‘thriving’ America was good for China and vice-versa, has turned a full circle as this arrangement of convenience has been imbalanced due to the slow-down in the USA and the financial crisis in Europe. At the same time, this has affected Chinese manufacturing, as is evident from piling of inventories and reduction in maritime trade. Rebounding from this ‘low’ appears difficult, as in the corresponding period, production costs have also risen and China’s products no longer have the same competitive edge. Both sides realise that things can never be the same again, and this has initiated a new race for residual resources and under-tapped markets. This complex game of move and counter moves explains both China’s aggressiveness and America’s re-balancing.

What is also important to point out that this could not have come at a worse moment as USA is yet to rebound from recession, and Europe is struggling to emerge from the Euro-zone morass, while on the other hand, China has her ‘war chests’ full and therefore, better placed for this clash of the century.

The game intensified after Mr Panetta’s flag-waving proclamation at the Shangri-La Summit, where the USA re-affirmed her resolve to retain global leadership. Conversely, an assertive China feels that she has finally arrived after a century of humiliation, and is now in a position to unshackle the hegemony over what she perceives to be her sphere of influence. Having said that, both sides are careful in avoiding direct confrontation and the game is being played by proxy; gaining moral ascendency in an increasingly complex Asia-Pacific board is the name of this new power game.

Realpolitik dictates a policy of ‘congagement’ of China and explains America’s reasons for accommodating the former at the grand table. Thus, while the US-Chinese relationship is expected to remain the ‘most important,’ it is only to the point that the overall balance of power and global primacy remains with USA. Thus, while economics dictates that business can be done as usual, the USA would attempt to limit Chinese power projection capability thereby challenging the status quo in the Asia-Pacific region. The desire to do this by greater and more robust collaboration with established and new allies/partners is the underlying theme of the US re-balancing and is ‘pre-emptive’ in nature.

By elaborating on the American plans to infuse fresh blood and resurrect the existing American ties with Japan, Philippines and Thailand, a clear message is being sent out to China. At the same time, this reaffirms US support to China’s neighbours who have been concerned by her growing belligerence. How much of this can be taken at face value and what others read from this signalling is for individual nations to interpret in accordance with their compulsions and aspirations. On the face of it, they seem to be caught between ‘the devil and the deep sea’. The question that lingers is that will the ‘enhanced’ American presence and defence cooperation be ‘adequate’ and ready in terms of time to take on the Chinese challenge. If the competition gets more pronounced, as it is likely to be, these countries, which lie on China’s periphery need to take a call to ensure their security and help counter the threat or corroborate with the new kid on the block.

By pronouncing India as a ‘lynch-pin’ in the new American policy, Mr Panetta may be meaning that, in the American calculus, India ‘could’ be a major player in this game. While this is potentially true, by no interpretation should Indian analysts take this to mean that the game planned to be played by the US in India’s immediate neighbourhood ‘cannot’ or ‘will not’ be played without them. At the same time, it is in India’s interests to collaborate on matters of strategic cooperation and defence technology, without having to take sides.

India is uniquely placed; in terms of her geographical location, potential and stature to make a significant contribution and help create conditions that bring stability in the immediate South Asian region that also affects South East Asia. India could definitely be the South Asian ‘pivot’ or ‘lynch-pin’ if it ushers peace and stability in her immediate neighbourhood. At the same time, it also needs to be said that USA must respect India’s sensibilities and she should not be made to feel that her strategic autonomy is being diluted in any manner.

Click to buy

While cooperation in economic and defence technology is welcome, it would be in everyone’s interests for India to ‘engage’ her neighbours to bring about ‘stability’ in her immediate periphery – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh  and Myanmar. This is where India can enmesh with the larger game plan, apart from being a stabilising force in the Indian Ocean Region. If the game is played with tact and finesse and in the spirit of collaboration, this could become a ‘win-win’ situation for all.

Chinese Reactions and Concerns

The tone and tenor of the immediate Chinese responses to Mr Panetta’s pronouncements were shorn of rhetoric and generally on expected lines. Having said that, it needs to be noted that the Chinese Defence Ministry’s representative, Mr Geng Yansheng was emphatic that, “the re-enforcement of military deployment in Asia-Pacific was not conducive to security and mutual trust in the region.” On the other hand, striking a shriller note, the Chinese Foreign Ministry representative Mr Liu Weimin stated that, “deploying more military forces and strengthening military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region were inappropriate.” The spokesman appeared to be pragmatic when he acknowledged that both China and the United States had overlapping interests, and he expressed hope that, “the United States plays a constructive role in the region and respects the interests and concerns of all parties, and help build a more stable and prosperous Asia-Pacific region-conforming to both the interests of China and USA and also meeting the expectations of the countries of the region.”

The restraint notwithstanding, China has been critical of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s disparaging comments. Closer home, China lodged a protest to Japan for violating its territorial sovereignty after two Japanese right-wing activists landed on the disputed Senkuku/Diaoyu Islands. At the same time, the Chinese brush with the Philippines Navy in the Scarborough Shoals/Panatag and the conflicting claims over the energy-rich Spratly Islands continue with Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan and even with Brunei, since China claims nearly eighty per cent of the South China Sea waters. The war of words seems to be well and truly on and the developments in this potential flashpoint need to be closely monitored.

There can be no denying the strategic importance of the South China Sea for China’s economic growth and strategic progression. While the importance of the East China Sea remains, the strategic import of the South China Sea is paramount, not merely for China but also for the nations that lie on its rim. However, for the other nations, the economic factor including the right of free passage is more important whereas for rising China, it is the stranglehold that the first island chain imposes which she has to breach to be able to project forces beyond the immediate neighbourhood. Thus, for China who has aspirations beyond the region and has global economic interests, domination of the South China Sea is vital for her strategic progression as a superpower in the making. It is precisely this hold that USA is trying to maintain in order to retain her domination of the larger Indo-Pacific region.

There can be no underrating or underplaying the Chinese concerns and therefore, the seriousness and urgency with which they would have taken these pronouncements since the aim of ‘ganging up’ of China’s neighbours under the banner of the Stars and Stripes is apparent. Nevertheless, there can be no faulting the nature and tenor of the response by China, as she realises that for the time being, she is no match to the technologically superior US military. Thus, while her military preparations continue at an accelerated pace, for the interim, she will try to act diplomatically against the American strategy to hem her while simultaneously exploit her much hyped about ‘asymmetrical warfare’ capabilities, especially in the realms of cyber, space and anti-satellite warfare as also to operationalise her Anti Access and Area Denial (A2/AD) means expeditiously.

China would naturally want India to remain out of this US-led initiative. However, realistically speaking, except for the economic leverage, there is very little that China can offer to keep India out of the engagement that is being offered by the USA. Over the years, she has consistently armed India’s western protagonist Pakistan, even to the extent of providing her with nuclear and missile technology. Similarly, Bangladesh and Myanmar have also been supplied arms, a strategy which is inimical to India’s interests. The Sino-Indian border dispute is kept as a convenient lever to be switched on and off, as and when China desires. Thus, on her part, China has done little to engage India in order to ease the Sino-Indian tensions, and she has to do something significantly new and novel to mend fences with India. On her part, India has not only acquiesced to the Chinese occupation of Tibet but has also accepted the ‘One China’ policy. However, this did not prevent the 1962 War and periodic incidents at the frontiers – territorial and diplomatic.

Concerns of New Delhi

The Indian take on the American overtures seem cautious and it almost seems that the advice proffered by Mr Deng Xiaoping ‘to cross the river by feeling the stones’ has been better imbibed by the Indians rather than the Chinese for who it was meant to be. While undoubtedly the waters are uncharted, the reality is that under the conditions, India can play a constructive role in conflict avoidance and help create conditions of strategic collaboration. Since there is much for India and the region to gain by ushering in cooperation rather than acerbating competition, this has the potential of becoming a win-win situation for all. The issues that impact India and contribute to the stability of the region need to be made the start point. The issues range from Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar apart from stability in Pakistan and these are analysed from the Indian perspective.

Afghanistan

Despite the optimism expressed at the recent Tokyo Summit, 2014 is close at hand and arrangements for ensuring tolerable levels of security are still to be put in place. Under the circumstances, a larger and more balanced alliance to possibly include the SCO countries could be considered to assist the Afghans and ensuring security and the common interests shared by nations could be made a basis of collaboration. Although Pakistan is bound to have reservations, in view of the larger good, US, China, the CAR countries and Russia could possibly join hands and ensure her cooperation with support from India.

Nepal

Despite being off the radar of the international media, Nepal – wedged between China and Tibet, has been on the boil since the last two decades and her transition to democracy has not ushered in the desired stability. The current lawlessness that prevails appears to have assumed ‘crisis proportions,’ and this has grave implications for India in more ways than one. The situation has a parallel and as peace and stability in Tibet is important for China so as is peace in Nepal from the Indian perspective. This understanding can be made the theme of bilateral Sino-Indian collaboration on a quid pro quo basis. Apart from ushering in peace in Nepal, this will also improve the relations between the two largest nations of Asia, which will have a major stabilising effect on the region and will also tone down the Sino-US competition.

Myanmar

Winds of change are already perceptible over Myanmar, though her re-entry to the modern world remains incomplete. Both China and India have interests in Myanmar since it abuts both countries. Geographically situated at the crossroads of South and South-East Asia and offering entry to the Bay of Bengal, opening up of Myanmar to facilitate cross border trade and commerce will not only be beneficial to Myanmar’s neighbours, including China and India, but will also result in bringing about prosperity to the nation. India can take the initiative in this regard and facilitate Myanmar’s return to modernity and prosperity, which is bound to bring about stability in the region.

Pakistan

Pakistan’s internal instability, coupled with her propensity to export terror worldwide has become both her bane and curse. Based on his vast experience and knowledge of the country, Mr Cohen has deduced that, “Pakistan has become the target, transit lounge and training centre for jihadis of all varieties.” Apart from terror being her most dreaded export, her nuclear weapons falling into irresponsible hands remain a constant nightmare for the rest of the world. If Pakistan is to regain her position and be counted as a progressive member of the global community, there is no other option for her but to set her own house in order and the war on terror must be taken up with the earnestness it deserves. While the USA has been recommending this all along, China needs to take the initiative and by providing Pakistan a Sino-US assurance against Indian adventurism, the fight against the fount of terror must be followed to its logical conclusion.

Conclusion

India stands on the threshold of history and while, on one hand, she seems to have emerged, on the other, her strategic stature has not matured and she appears to be unsure of her potential and future role. Understandably, breaking away from established convention and tradition is difficult yet under the circumstances, India’s potential to champion peace and progress and bring about stability needs to be harnessed. Since there is no real need to take sides, especially at this stage, Mr Kanwar Sibal’s timely advice seems appropriate, “A pragmatic Indian response to US defence overtures is required – cautious and measured, but not negative.” At the same time, India cannot afford to let her guard down militarily and she needs to be prepared for the ‘worst case situation’, in the best manner she can. Neither can she let events overtake her and dictate her foreign policy. While she must be mindful in not letting the pace and direction be dictated by others, she cannot fall behind the times. If she is really to make a meaningful contribution on the world scene, India needs to get into the game and act proactively in the best interests of the nation and the region.