By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
There has been a novel suggestion by Prabhash K. Datta in India Today (July 9) that India could by increasing its maritime role in the South China Sea possibly ease Chinese pressure in the Ladakh region [formerly of the disputed Jammu & Kashmir semi-countries. China is attempting to unilaterally alter the status quo along the disputed, un-demarcated border, or so-called Line of Actual Control (LAC).
India’s bone of contention has been that it has been treated mightily shabbily by China, considering that right from its independence it has actively promoted China on the world stage. India was among the first countries to recognize the new Communist republic and to uphold the ‘One China’ principle.
However, what readily exasperated the Chinese leadership, above all Zhou En-lai the foreign minister, was when Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru welcomed the 14th Dalai Lama with open arms, and offered him political asylum. Not to mince matters, he was even allowed to establish a Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamshala, his place of residence in Himachal Pradesh, which soon developed into a veritable ‘Little Tibet’ – adding insult to injury! It was the classic example of India attempting to eat its cake and having it too!
Contrast the polished approach adopted by Nepal – a key player in the Himalayan region since ancient times. It recognized the new Chinese Communist republic only in 1955. Considering its ancient, close, and intimate relations with the trans-Himalayan theocracy and from the humanitarian standpoint, it accepted hundreds of thousands of Tibetan refugees, but under the stipulation that they do not engage in anti-Chinese politics.
The whole strata of Indian society bemoan the fact that from very early on China has rewarded India’s very friendly overtures by capturing the Aksai Chin plateau in Ladakh [even clandestinely building a road through it connecting Tibet to Xinjiang!], taking the side of Pakistan by calling Jammu & Kashmir a disputed state and laying claims to vast territories in the mid-section of the Himalayan chain and the east – the whole of the North Eastern Frontier Agency [NEFA/in British-Indian nomenclature, later re-named Arunachal Pradesh], and even designating it ‘Southern Tibet’.
Today, in India itself there have been frantic and clamorous demands for a radical revision of India’s China policy. Without exception, Indians view China’s activities in the Himalayan region as definitely ‘aggressive’, especially after the advent of Xi Jinping. According to Kautilya, India’s ancient and masterful adept of statecraft [puts the Florentiner Machiavelli completely in the shade], the close friend of a mortal enemy can only also be an enemy!
India was a declared neutral power, and in fact one of the founders of the non-aligned movement (NAM).
The US was one of the two main protagonists in the Cold War, which broke out after the allies in the Second World War fell out with each other. Its main aim was to achieving geo-strategic supremacy.
The Soviet Union, the primary US rival, nonetheless maintained friendship with neutral India, but was loathe to support it during the 1962 autumn border war against China, a fraternal Communist state.
In dire straits, Pandit Nehru wrote two letters (one of which has remained secret) to US President John F. Kennedy requesting urgent assistance. US response was swift – the solicited fighter aircraft and trained pilots arrived on November 22. In addition, the US navy announced the immediate transfer of its famed Seventh Fleet from Hawaii to the apex of the Bay of Bengal.
Was it a coincidence that the active US military involvement was flashed on November 20, and China’s unanticipated, unilateral ceasefire and decision to withdraw behind the 1959 Line of Actual Control in NEFA followed on November 21?
However, many analysts have attributed China’s sudden decision to the immanent onset of winter in the high Himalayas when snowfall would have certainly made supplying the ground troops almost impossible. It was anyhow already overstretched in its supply lines.
Was it also a convenient coincidence that the Chinese example to ‘teach India a lesson’ with the massive border incursion was timed simultaneously with the US-Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis?
Balochistan& the Iranian/Saudi Connexion
A surge of lethal attacks by Baloch separatists has sent the risks and costs of China’s Belt and Road projects (BRI) in Pakistan soaring.
At the same time, a web of espionage and proxy warfare involving Iran has tangled up Beijing’s interests in Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea. It is still not fully operational, but has recently handled Afghan transshipment cargo.
In the 1970s of the last century, Pakistan, the autocratic Shah regime in Iran and the Soviet-backed Communist government in Afghanistan found it feasible to cooperate against the Baloch rebels, but not today. The political systems in all three countries have changed radically, and there are also now two new players in the block – China and Saudi Arabia.
Iran is highly suspicious of Pakistan and its relationship with Saudi Arabia, especially since Riyadh was invited in late 2018 to establish a US Dollar 10 billion oil refinery and storage facilities in Gwadar.
“The Iranians feel that Pakistan is not doing enough to secure the border on its side,” said Seyed Mohammed Marandi, a professor of oriental studies at the University of Tehran. “A lot of Saudi money has gone to extremist groups in this region and the Saudis have funded these [Jaishul-Adl] terrorists,” he added [SCMP/Tom Hussain, July 18].
Similarly, Pakistan is deeply concerned about India’s involvement at the Iranian Chabahar port, which is competing with Gwadar for transit cargoes heading to landlocked Afghanistan.
King Mahendra’s Panchayat Regime survives
An unintended effect of India’s summary defeat in 1962 was the sudden collapse of the Nepali Congress-led anti-regime insurgency under the leadership of General Subarna Shumsher [deputy PM and finance minister in the B.P. Koirala cabinet] from Indian bases against the Panchayat System and King Mahendra.
Analysts have also pointed out that the Chinese military’s and official media’s oblique references to the 1962 border war – in conjunction with the Doklam incident in 2017 [involving Bhutan] and above all the recent June 15 flare-up in the Galwan Valley in the Karakorum range have rattled Indian decision-makers, especially with reference to China’s military and economic superiority vis-à-vis India.
This time around, China only reacted on the ground by giving up some space, i.e. retreating to their side of the LAC – so some analysts – only after the U.S. stepped up activities in the South China Sea. China was also under increased pressure with regard to Hong Kong, Taiwan, the East China Sea.
The U.S. had previously already attempted atilt from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific – that is, with possible allies, it would now be challenging China, which stood alone, geo-strategically in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
Nepal: Between the Dragon & the Tiger
Under the current Communist regime, Nepal has no strategy for survival.
The country’s domestic policies are in a complete mess. The Oli government has no sense of direction, let alone vision. Its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is a catastrophe. It has collected funds handsomely, but not handed them out fairly. Corruption is rampant, so that Lord Acton’s dictum can be slightly modified:
Power corrupts,
Communist power corrupts absolutely!
Oli and his cohorts have no inkling how to conquer the pandemic, or even what comes after. There is no planning with regard to the opening up of the economy and the education sector. The tourism sector and the job market in general are in dire straits.
The Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) is on the verge of imploding, and the attempts of the Chinese ambassador to patch up things will not ultimately succeed. The CPN is riddled with internal contradictions and a Hydra-headed monster at the pinnacle will not solve matters. In any case, her attempt to micro-manage Nepal’s domestic affairs is a sorry matter! The CPN is holding the entire country hostage, and China’s image will definitely suffer.
Oli and his gang of brothers [and sisters] are only surviving by the skin of their teeth, and mass revolt is not a question of if, but when.
In the meantime, Oli has allowed Nepal’s relations with India – whether at the official or people-to-people level – to go the dogs. Two developments must be stressed. First, Oli and the Nepali Communists have expunged the boundary between domestic and external politics. In fact, there is no such thing as ‘foreign affairs’, as illustrated by the Chinese ambassador’s activities. Second, Oli and his cohorts have tilted Nepal’s external relations in favor of China, and this is a cardinal sin – they should all be ‘ex-communicated’, i.e. they are no longer fit to lead this proud nation, which has held its own between the two great civilizations of Asia! They have badly disturbed the delicate balance and should be removed from office. But how?
Thanks to Oli and the Nepali Communists, Nepal is now exposed to grave security threats from both the south and the north. Nepal’s soft underbelly is no match for the two Asian behemoths. In the time of the planetary pandemic there is no succor in the so-called policy of non-alignment.
In concrete terms, Oli and the Nepali Communists have so enfeebled the once proud Nepal Army that it is not capable of carrying out its primary duty of protecting the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. What can it do if either China or India, or God forbid both, attempt to take ‘necessary actions’ in ‘defense’ of their own ‘national interests’. Is the Nepal Army equipped with necessary and trained personnel and sophisticated equipment to offer meaningful resistance till the resolute British Gurkhas arrive?
Do the Nepal Army top brass possibly have a so-called ‘grand strategy’ somewhere in a hidden drawer? Or are they ‘gentlemen in uniform’ schooled in pigeonholing and stereotyped thinking, upholding ‘categoritis’ at every turn, for example the ‘principle of civilian supremacy’ when the ship of state is inexorably sinking? Has it planned for any and every eventuality? Or has it surrendered to the prophecy of a mad wag of the Fifties of the last century who predicted that Nepal’s ultimate fate would be to surrender the plains to the south and the hills and mountains to the north? Are they at all capable of thinking out of the box?
Sino-American Confrontation in the South China Sea
The USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz carrier strike groups, consisting of more than 12,000 US military personnel among the two aircraft carriers and their escorting cruisers and destroyers were operating in the South China Sea as of Friday last week, the US Pacific Fleet said in a statement (CNN/Brad Lendon, July 17).
The two carriers with more than 120 aircraft deployed between them, were conducting tactical air defense drills “to maintain war fight readiness and proficiency as well as “to ensure responsiveness to any contingency through power projection.”
There are conflicting claims in the South China Sea with China claiming a huge swathe, and the other maritime surrounding countries – Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines asserting ownership of parts. India has inserted itself into the dispute by cooperating with Vietnam and supplying equipment.
Washington has labeled most of China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea as illegal. “The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire. America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law,” US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned in a lengthy statement.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington countered, calling those accusations “completely unjustified”. Moreover, the US “distorts the facts and international law…exaggerates the situation in the region and attempts to sow discord between China and other littoral countries.”
The naval exercises also prompted a veiled threat to the US forces in the state-sponsored Global Times which called the US carriers “nothing more than paper tigers on China’s doorsteps.”
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) could regulate territorial waters (12 nautical miles), the Contiguous Zone (a further 12 nautical miles), Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ/ 200 nautical miles), and International Waters. All involved parties – whether signatories or not — would have to agree to UNCLOS principles to reach a fair solution. China is a signatory, but not the U.S.
In connexion with Chinese maritime activities in the South China Sea, Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Richard Heydarian said it was indicative of “China’s rise as an increasingly brazen regional hegemon,” and designated China’s fishing fleet in those waters “the tip of the dagger of Beijing’s efforts to dominate adjacent waters”(SCMP).
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment