It is now well-known that in 1988, Deng Xiaoping, the chief architect of China’s rise as an economic power, told the then Indian prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, that the 21st century could not be an Asian century unless both China and India were doing well. Unlike Mao Zedong, the revolutionary founder of the People’s Republic, Deng was not an ideologue and he stopped the Mao-era policy of exporting revolution to other Asian countries once he had consolidated his power as the paramount leader of China in the late 1970s.
Deng was a supreme pragmatist who knew that China’s economic well-being was intimately linked to stability in its neighbourhood and the world as a whole. He advised his party and people to keep a low profile and focus on economic development. Under his influence, China settled land border disputes with many of its neighbours and reached some critical agreements with India that allowed the peace to be maintained along their long but disputed mutual border.
Twenty years after his death, the Chinese leadership has all but abandoned Deng’s advice. It is no longer interested in playing down disputes and is determined to pursue its territorial claims, even at the cost of risking tensions with its neighbours. China and India are both rising economically and have the potential to together sustain the growth momentum in Asia for another couple of decades or longer, despite the recent slowing of China’s economic growth. There are, however, two disturbing trends that could jeopardise Asia’s prospects.
China and India are both rising economically and have the potential to together sustain the growth momentum in Asia for another couple of decades or longer, despite the recent slowing of China’s economic growth.
The first is the growing rivalry between China and India, which could snowball into a confrontation if not managed carefully. China’s rising military spending, now the world’s second highest at about 200 billion US dollars, and it’s growing defence capabilities, are creating a security dilemma for other Asian powers, including India. Not only is India compelled to increase its own defence expenditure, it is also developing a closer strategic partnership with the United States and Japan in spite of the long tradition in Indian foreign policy of non-alignment and, since the end of the Cold War, strategic autonomy.
A recent manifestation of this rivalry between the two Asian giants is the ongoing military stand-off in the remote Himalayas that has received very little coverage in the international media. Known as Doklam in India and Donglang in China, this Himalayan plateau has been the site of a face-off between the Indian and Chinese forces since the middle of June. China claims this area as part of its Tibet Autonomous Region, but the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, which has historically maintained a close security relationship with India, also claims ownership of the area. The trouble started when Indian forces, acting on behalf of Bhutan and in its own security interests (the Doklam area is very close to India’s strategic Siliguri Corridor that connects the sensitive North-eastern states with the rest of the country), stopped a Chinese military construction team from building a strategic road in that area.
China has said it will not engage in negotiations with India to diffuse the situation until Indian soldiers withdraw, unconditionally, from the area. The Chinese government and state-controlled media in China have issued numerous thinly veiled threats of war, India in a racist video and warning it of a certain defeat and reminding it of the disastrous consequences of the 1962 border war.
It is the rise of a virulent form of nationalism in both countries that could have long-lasting consequences – not just for relations between China and India but also for the entire Indo-Pacific region.
India, on its part, has offered a negotiated withdrawal but reminded China that, should there be a war, today’s Indian military will be a completely different adversary to the one that lost to China in 1962. While India’s state-owned television channels have been quite restrained in their coverage of the standoff, the country’s commercial media outlets – mostly privately owned and fiercely competitive – have reciprocated the Chinese belligerence with equal passion.
The second worrying trend is closely related to the passion and fury that has been on display over the past two months. It is the rise of a virulent form of nationalism in both countries that could have long-lasting consequences – not just for relations between China and India but also for the entire Indo-Pacific region.
This nationalism, bordering on jingoism, manifests itself in many forms, one of which is the uncritical defence of government policies or actions aimed at boosting national prestige or territorial claims against other countries. Such support is particularly visible on the internet and on social media. Any hint of criticism of the government or its leader invites immediate and furious reaction from the nationalists.
Australia has not remained untouched by this rising tide of nationalism in our Asian neighbourhood. As SBS recently, Chinese students in Sydney targeted a university lecturer for using a world map in his information technology class that allegedly showed “Chinese territory under Indian control”. Although the focus of the lecture had nothing to do with international boundaries, the Chinese students apparently took offence at the map, which the lecturer said he had downloaded from the internet.
It is important for Australia to continue to emphasise peaceful approaches to the resolution of territorial disputes in the region. But it also needs to make sure that the nationalist ire in these countries does not spread to Australia and threaten the ethnic harmony here.
In another , on 15 August – India’s Independence Day, a group of wealthy Chinese car owners drove around university campuses in Sydney in their luxury cars, covered in China’s red flag, to defend China’s position in the ongoing Doklam dispute with India. The cars also sported slogans such as “Anyone who offends China will be killed no matter how far the target” and “China: not even a bit can be left behind.” This bizarre protest, which ended outside the Indian consulate in the city, said as much about China’s domestic politics as it did about the nationalist sentiments of Chinese youth.
On a visit to India in July, Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, the Sino-Indian dispute to be “resolved peacefully”. Australia was the only developed country to issue a major government report on the Asian Century, even though the Coalition shelved it when it came to power in 2013. Australia’s prosperity depends on the economic progress of Asia’s major economies. An Asian Century will also be Australia’s Century. It is important for Australia to continue to emphasise peaceful approaches to the resolution of territorial disputes in the region. But it also needs to make sure that the nationalist ire in these countries does not spread to Australia and threaten the ethnic harmony here.
Dr Pradeep Taneja lectures in Asian politics and international relations at the University of Melbourne, where he is also a Fellow of the Australia India Institute and an Associate of the Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies. He spent many years studying or working in China and is an alumnus of Peking University. His primary areas of research are Chinese and Indian foreign policies and political economies. He is currently working on a book looking at the rise of China and its implications for India.
Dr Pradeep Taneja Source: Supplied
