Policy Alert #212 | July 17, 2020

In responding to criticism over its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak, China has adopted a new, more assertive “wolf warrior diplomacy,” but it has also taken a more aggressive stance in its territorial disputes. Simmering tensions since May on their Himalayan border came to a head on June 15th, when a violent clash between Chinese and Indian forces broke out in disputed territory in the Galwan Valley. The brawl resulted in casualties for the first time in 45 years, with twenty Indians killed and an undisclosed number of Chinese deaths. A fourteen-hour marathon meeting of commanders from both sides was held on July 14th, and relations between the two countries appear to be getting a reprieve. Nevertheless, the violence turned attention to other altercations China has been party to in recent months: a Chinese survey ship was in a month-long stand-off in Malaysia’s exclusive economic zone, a Chinese vessel rammed a Vietnamese fishing ship and China instituted a unilateral fishing ban in the South China Sea, and both the Philippines and Vietnam protested a new wave of Chinese claims on disputed islands. In response, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a stronger stance against Chinese actions in the South China Sea. In its 2020 White Paper, the Japanese Ministry of Defense pointedly criticized China for agitating in disputed waters in the East China Sea during the pandemic. While Russia has managed to stay out of any direct conflicts, it was nevertheless caught in the awkward tension between the two other key members of the BRICS at their trilateral “RIC” meeting.

In this RPI Policy Alert, we take stock of the Rising Powers’ temper amidst the turbulence in the Indo-Pacific. 

 

CHINA

Following the phone conversation between Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Spokesperson Zhao echoed China’s confidence that the two sides “can properly deal with the current situation, jointly uphold peace and stability in the border areas, and ensure a sound and steady development of bilateral relations.” In response to a press inquiry regarding the bans on Chinese apps and the announcement that Chinese companies would be barred from road construction projects in India, Spokesperson Zhao argued that such action “hurts India’s interests.” In response to a request for comment on Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the border area on July 3rd, Spokesperson Zhao warned that “Neither side should make any move that may complicate the border situation.” China’s account of the June 15th incident was added to the transcript of the Foreign Ministry’s June 19th regular press conference. When questioned about Japan’s White Paper on July 14th, which asserts that China has continued to agitate the territorial dispute in the East China Sea, Spokesperson Zhao retorted: “Japan’s Defense of Japan 2020 white paper is fraught with bias against China and false information. China has already stated its solemn position. As a responsible major country firmly committed to pursuing a neighborhood diplomacy of building friendships and partnerships with its neighbors and upholding a national defense policy that is defensive in nature, China has been safeguarding, building and contributing to world peace, stability and prosperity. At the same time, China is unswerving in upholding its sovereignty, security and development interests.”

• In an editorial, the government-supported China Daily speculated that the Indian government “ignite[d]” the situation at the border to justify an economic decoupling from China. The Daily warned, “[T]he reality is that Indian people benefit from Chinese imports, as they are what India needs to improve its people’s livelihoods and to facilitate its economic development. […] The rising tensions will distract India’s focus from its pandemic prevention and control work and economic development, which will create risks and uncertainties for the entire region.”
• The nationalist Global Times similarly turned its attention to the economic consequences to the tension: “India cannot replicate the US’ [sic] overbearing approach to China. India will suffer more losses if it launches a trade war against China, and the Indian people’s livelihood, which has been supported by Chinese products, will bear the brunt.”
• In response to the US State Department’s policy announcement, the Global Times claimed that the US was only motivated by its own seeming decline: “It is China’s rise, which directly benefits the Asia-Pacific, that has made the US feel uneasy about losing its leadership role in the region. […] Countries in the region are well aware that the US is only using them as pawns in its game with China, while China wholeheartedly wishes to promote peace and stability in the region, and seek common development with all of them.”
• In an op-ed for the independent, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, professor of international relations at Griffith University in Australia Kai He, contextualized China’s spat with India against other conflicts emerging in the South China Sea and international distrust of its role in the pandemic: “If you feel as a person that everyone is against you, before blaming others you might want to ask what’s wrong with your behaviour. […] Wolf warrior diplomacy might serve some of the domestic audience in the short-run, but it will damage China’s reputation and status in the long term.”

 

INDIA

Following the most recent Meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs on July 10th, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs reported that it was “reaffirmed that both sides will ensure complete disengagement of the troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and de-escalation from India-China border areas for full restoration of peace and tranquility in the border areas in accordance with bilateral agreements and protocols.”

While the Ministry conveyed reports of peaceful disengagement, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took a seemingly different stand. In an address to the nation on June 17th, Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that the deaths of Indian soldiers at the border would not “be in vain”: “India’s integrity and sovereignty is supreme for us, and no one can stop us from defending it. Nobody should have any iota of doubt about this. India wants peace. But on provocation, India will give a befitting reply.” On July 3rd, Prime Minister Modi visited the border towns of Leh and Nimu to meet with Indian troops. In his speech to wounded soldiers in Leh, Prime Minister Modi praised the soldiers for their efforts: “I have come to salute you all today. You have fought bravely! […] The way you stood up to the powers, the world wishes to know who are these brave-hearts?” In none of the speeches did he specifically mention China, but anti-Chinese sentiment has been displayed by other arms of the Indian government. On June 30th, the Department of Telecommunications ordered internet operators in India to block fifty-nine Chinese apps, including social media platforms TikTok and WeChat. Minister of Road Transport and Highways Nitin Jairam Gadkari announced on July 1st that Chinese firms would no longer be allowed to bid on road construction projects. The Bureau of Indian Standards and the Trade Ministry have reportedly begun investigating how to impose both tariffs and non-tariff measures to slow the import of Chinese goods, including tougher and more frequent inspections. On July 15th, the Ministry of Defence announced that in addition to the thirty-three fighter jets it is purchasing from Russia, the government approved the purchase of defense weapons and equipment up to $39.9 million. 

• The liberal Hindustan Times took account of a growing strategic debate in the country and concluded that “Whether India desires it or not, it will end up as one of the frontline states which will have to step up to contain Chinese power, not because of a third power, but because its own interests are at stake.”
• The center-right Times of India called for the government to “bridge the vast power gap with China,” and to abandon big talk for action: “India’s obsession with populist politics[…] doesn’t help here as it distracts from the real task of growing India’s economy and military might.”
• The pro-government Daily Pioneer argued that the whole episode is part of a larger effort by President Xi to demonstrate China’s capabilities to the region: “[H]e meant to warn India about becoming too pro-American and not forget its economic dependencies yet. Internationally, he knew he could not win the game of perception. He, therefore, played his strengths in the neighbourhood as leader of an Asian century. But without some congruencies [sic] with India, the second biggest Asian power, if not compliance, China would not be able to convince others.”
• In an op-ed for the liberal Mint, Harsh V. Pant, professor of international relations at King’s College London and director of studies at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, called for the government to “drop all sentimentality for a clear-eyed assessment of Beijing’s logic of power”: “What India and the world are facing is not an ordinary rising power troubled by the shackles of the existing global order. We are facing an expansionist authoritarian state bent on shredding the international system to pieces to create an order in its own image.”
• In an op-ed for the liberal Print, professor of international studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University Rajesh Rajagopalan argued that it was time for Indian to abandon its belief that domestic economic development is a substitute for security policy: “Security policy cannot be based on the hope or plans of long term economic development. Such thinking is based on the potentially fatal assumption that the country will face no unmanageable security challenges in the decades that it will take to become wealthy and strong. Unless there are other means of keeping security threats at bay in the meantime, or unless a country is extremely fortunate, this is a highly risky strategy.”  

 

JAPAN

On July 14th, the Japanese Ministry of Defense released its annual White Paper on Japan’s security environment. In the full Japanese report, the government criticized China for continuing to challenge the status quo in the East China Sea territorial dispute in the midst of the pandemic, although that assertion was not included in the English digest version. 

• In an editorial in May, the business-oriented Nikkei Asian Review criticized China for “exploit[ing] the global crisis” and called for other countries in the region to push back: “Southeast Asia, Japan and the U.S. must make clear that exploiting the global crisis to harass rival claimants with the goal of taking de facto control of the region is simply not acceptable.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun similarly condemned China’s “coercive behavior.” Against the background of the Ministry of Defense canceling the planned installation of the Aegis Ashore land-to-air missile defense system in the north, the Yomiuri urged the government to expand its defense footprint in the East China Sea: “It is hoped that deterrence will be enhanced by deploying units to remote islands in a planned manner.”

 

RUSSIA

Following the incident in the Galwan Valley, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Maria Zakharov expressed Russia’s hope for resolution: “We hope that these two states, as responsible members of the international community, will be able to find mutually acceptable ways to ease tensions as soon as possible, using well-functioning mechanisms of bilateral dialogue in accordance with their political agreement on non-violence.” Russia’s planned meeting of the trilateral “RIC” subset of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) went on as scheduled on June 23rd. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied that he attempted to help mend ties between them: “We have never set the goal of helping India and China improve their bilateral relations. These countries have everything they need to address and review any problems that arise in their relations, as problems can arise between any countries, including neighbouring states. I don’t think that India and China need help and assistance aiming to somehow resolve their disputes or situations.” In early July, India finalized an order of weapons and fighter jets from Russia.

• In an op-ed for state-supported RT, Retired Colonel Andrey Akulov outlined the rationale for Russia’s seemingly hands-off approach to the dispute between China and India: “It is true that, unlike the US, Russia is not willing to be directly involved as a go-between, but a reduction of tensions and launching talks on border demarcation would be an ideal scenario that it wants to see happen. India and China are the global actors that Moscow needs to further its economic interests and foreign policy goals. Each great nation serves as a counterweight to the other. Besides, China counterbalances the US, while India counterbalances China.”