Conflict between India and China: choice of global partnership strategy

Frontier conflicts over disputed territories between India and China started as far back as in 1960, then grew into a shooting war in 1962. Conflicts continued in 1965 and 1967. Note that conflicts sporadically emerged in the pre- and post 1975period but later on abated. The parties even agreed that patrols of the two countries (within limits of 2 km from contact line) protected frontiers without firearms. However, on May 5, 2020 a new confrontation took place in the region of Ladakh during the frontier patrolling. On June 9 it became known that India and China began withdrawing their troops from th conflict zone. This notwithstanding, on the night 15 to16 June, armed clashes took place again. According to preliminary figures, the Chinese party sustained 43 killed and badly wounded; Indians – approx. 20 killed.

As a result, China charged India with frontier crossing though it is well known that there has never been a commonly recognized frontier in the area, there is just a line of actual control between the two countries. Allowing for the fact that if India and China had practically equal economies in 1960-70s, today the Chinese GDP is up five times from the India one and Beijing is investing four times more into defense. What are underlying causes of tensions growth between the two world powers-nuclear weapon holders?

«Medieval fighting to the bitter end on top of the world: soldiers were transpierced with iron rods, thrown down from rocks and left frozen. These were results of scuffle between frontier guards of the two nuclear powers – India and China» - Daily Mail (Great Britain) «Fighting to the bitter end between Chinese and Indian soldiers» - 17.06.2020

It is a matter of particular importance to discuss key issues of the disputed frontier areas in Himalayas and other regions, China’s support of its key ally – Pakistan in the conflict with India; issues arising from Beijing’s interest in Sri-Lanka and Nepal that are gradually estranging from India as is the case with Bangladesh with its enormous Chinese investments.

It has to be kept in mind that the global project «One belt, one way» also causes apprehensions of Indians who are doing their utmost to oppose its implementation. In the first turn, the point is about the Chinese-Pakistani economic corridor in Kashmir region which provides for implementation of some large-scale infrastructure projects on disputed areas.
It transpires that China is laying siege to its neighbor, and it is obvious that India is forced to respond. However, the problem seems to be more complicated: the question is about future global partnership where the Indo-Pacific region plays a system-forming part. A question arises: which of the two countries with their declared neutrality proved to be the first to have encroached on Indo-Chinese domination in the region; which of them connived at external actors to get consolidated in the region; and finally is a member of associations actually aimed against another party?

What is important to notice is that the incredible geopolitical and economic growth of China has sharply been halted by the pandemic outbreak that led to mobilization of external forces confronting China. This, in turn, resulted in intensifying instability in the country and changing the policy of «soft force» into more aggressive diplomacy. It is not surprising, for the Chinese leadership has perpetually been pressured both by the Communist Party functionaries and «lower strata» which is an alarming signal of possible succession of the heads of the state: «…we’d like to appeal to the Chinese public. It is essential to trust in the government and National Liberation Army in the frontier conflict with India; believe that in the course of settling frontier dispute with India they will really protect territorial sovereignty and comprehensive interests of the state. China has power and wisdom enough to protect not only a single inch of its land but also prevent attempts of ill-intentioned states to attain its goal to the detriment of China» - Huantsu shibao (China). «India should get rid of its two faulty judgments in respect of the frontier situation». 17.06.2020

The editorial in question matters not in openly revealing internal and external political «errors» of India only, errors unacceptable by China. Granting this, New-Delhi believes that China is under ever growing strategic pressures of the United States and, hence, is unwilling to spoil relations with India. Besides, some Indian experts are deluded that India is stronger than China militarily. The most important thing is that it was US implementation of the Indo-Pacific strategy that led to faulty judgments among the Indian elite. India has been suggested to understand that US investment resources into Chinese-Indian relations are rather restricted. Given the above, Washington will never invest in the implementation of Indian interests. The US goal is to set India against China and thus make India serve interests of Washington».

Of interest is the fact that this stand on the issue is shared by M. Narayanan, former national security advisor and former governor of Western Bengali who believes that the frontier issue is a matter of minor importance. In his view, there is more forcible argument behind China’s actions, so India should ponder over this circumstance, especially as India tends to follow American sphere of interest. 

It should be remembered that «India, along with the United States, Japan and Australia are parties to the quadripartite security dialogue with evidently anti-Chinese orientation. The latest Trump’s trick to reconstruct «Big Seven» by joining India (has given its consent) and excluding China, once again proves that China and India are in opposing camps» - The Hindu (India). «Keeping off-bloc status is a good advice». М. К. Narayanan/17.06.2020.

In a word, Chine reminded again that India should adhere to the principle of equidistance from the United State and China. To M. K. Narayanan’ thinking, this is the best way for India that is not pressured by the USA as is NATO member-countries.
But what are actual interests of the USA in its pressing efforts to draw nearer to India? We have already noted in our previous article that Washington and New-Delhi are involved in strained dialogue about a future text of bilateral agreement on free trade as a major document regulating relations between the United States and countries worldwide. It is obvious that Trump would like India to counterbalance Russia and China in Asia. However, according to Trump, India’s real importance lies in the fact that this country becomes economic alternative to China. For this plan to get implemented, India is supposed to build up its missing might at the expense of the United States and the EU which are concerned about growing China’ expansion.

P.S. 18.06.2020: Chinese Foreign Minister Van I had a telephone conversation with Indian Foreign Minister Subramaniam Jayshankar. The heads of Foreign Ministries laid out official views on the conflict and reached an understanding on setting up a commission for joint investigation of the incident.
However, international experts voiced their skepticism about possible Chinese-Indian conflict resolution in the forthcoming future.