Author: Seema Sirohi
Publication: Outlook
Date: May 17, 2004
Introduction: A book by American
scholars steps out of the dragon's thrall to see India as a serious East
Asian contender
The geopolitical triangle to watch
this century: India, China and the United States. The interplay of the
world's two most populous nations and the sole superpower is a strategist's
dream, complete with civilisational competition and shifting interests.
American thinkers, who in the past were infected by some of that Great
Chinese Disdain for India, are cleaning their lenses to look at Asia with
new eyes. And guess what? India looks better to these hardnosed, hard-boiled
analysts, sometimes even better than China. The reason: the potential for
chaos when the Big Lid finally blows and the political lava starts running
down the edges of the Chinese bowl.
Last month, two major conferences
addressed the topic, deconstructing the layers of Sino-Indian relations
in light of India's growing economic muscle and China's already alpha physique.
They coincided with the release of a book that addresses the future of
the triangle and the relative weight of the three arms. In 10 crisp chapters,
the cream of US scholars on India and China have outlined
the history, geography and even
astrology of the triangle in The India-China Relationship: What the United
States Needs to Know with a set of policy recommendations to boot. Edited
by Francine Frankel and Harry Harding, the book includes respected names-George
Perkovich, Ashley Tellis and T.N. Srinivasan. The foreword is by Frank
Wisner, a former US ambassador to India, and Winston Lord, former ambassador
to China. Both have helped with information only they were privy to during
their tenures. This diplomatic-academic exercise can help shift the tectonic
plates of policy in Washington.
In the past, American experts didn't
speak of the two countries in the same breath, or even in the same room,
leave alone in the same book. China was treated with reverence as a world
power while India was an "also ran" of the minor seminar circuit, a counterweight
to Pakistan. It suited the Middle Kingdom-thinking of the Chinese just
fine. But the Great Wall in the American mind, erected with active Chinese
help, between the two rising powers of Asia is slowly collapsing.
"The Chinese felt it was absurd
to make any comparisons between India and China," said Frankel, recounting
her meetings with the Chinese vice-foreign minister just two years ago
while working on the book. "He said we were being pro- India in even suggesting
India as a competitor. There was derision on the Chinese side."
While telling the Americans India
was not worth quality time, the Chinese themselves were engaged in a delicate
rapprochement, loading the triangle with possibilities that intrigued the
Americans. The thinking evolved and today Lord, who accompanied Henry Kissinger
on his 1971 trip to China, says the US should go on record to support India's
bid for a seat in the UN Security Council. "The old alignments have shaken
up. We paid greater attention to China for geopolitical reasons...despite
the fact that China has a ruthless system and India was a democracy," he
told Outlook. "But there is a limit to our relations with China because
we share only interests, not values. The fundamental reason for India and
the US coming together is our shared values." As US interests in India
grow, the value addition would be a bonus. But he stressed that US relations
with one country should not be at the expense of the other. Even though
the Bush administration came in talking of countering China's growing power
by building up India, the trauma of 9/11 changed all calculations. Washington
went back to Beijing for support in the war on terrorism and later in containing
North Korea. President George Bush, whose foreign travels are sparse, has
been to China twice.
So, how should Washington deal with
this multi-layered, evolving triangle? Can it have both its Butter Chicken
and Peking Duck? The scholarly view is that while individual events will
dictate alliances, there is little use in any two countries lining up against
the third. Harding, a China scholar at the George Washington University,
says the US should "increasingly treat India on a par with China" not just
as a South Asian player. "China's importance has long been understood in
the US-indeed, it has perhaps occasionally been exaggerated. But India,
too, is on the move," he writes. "It is an emerging power in East Asia,
and shows the desire to play a major role globally."
Tellis argues that on balance, Indo-China
relations are likely to be more "competitive than cooperative" because
of the history and the present. This means India will look for US support
as fissures develop. As Washington adjusts its "grand strategy for the
new century", India will become the "more desirable object of American
geopolitical attention" compared to China. As for the occasional Indian
and Chinese talk of a multipolar world, Tellis says, it is unlikely to
turn real for the next five decades because US supremacy is overwhelming.
Besides, the US as big dad is far more advantageous to India than any dreamy
multipolarity which will only establish China as a pole, not India.
But the superpower needs to do a
few things too. The US must drop the old dividing lines in Asia that confined
India to South Asia and reorganise its bureaucracy to deal with the complexities
of Sino-Indian relations. Washington should help India become a member
of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), says Lord, who supported
India's inclusion in the asean regional forum or ARF as assistant secretary
of state for East Asia, on the condition that South Asian issues (read
Kashmir) be kept out.
The US, so far, has consistently
opposed India's entry into APEC, on the basis of "questions about New Delhi's
sincerity about its economic reforms", writes Tellis. "China has been content
to ride behind US opposition because India's membership would bring no
particular economic benefit to China and would elevate India's stature
in the Asia-Pacific," he writes. China has consistently opposed all Indian
attempts to enter economic groupings in East Asia to prevent its rise as
a power. The Chinese are fond of saying: "One mountain can't accommodate
two tigers."
But the Americans are no longer
content to let Beijing decide the Asian agenda. They want to hedge their
bets and won't buy 'Chinese' lies anymore. The book meticulously documents
how the Chinese passed on nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan to
keep India tangled in South Asia. "They would lie to us about the transfers,"
Lord said. "We had very strong evidence and now the revelations about A.Q.
Khan show that our evidence was correct. There were suspicious cargo(es).
But they would either deny it or brush it off."
While it is good to learn about
the past, it won't necessarily determine the future of the triangle. According
to Harding, India and China may align together in the future to oppose
the US if it grows more unilateralist and interventionist; China and the
US may come together if India violates non-proliferation norms. It is also
likely that India and the US may find common cause against China if Beijing
threatens friendly countries or seeks to exclude them from Asia. "The future
relationship among the three countries may occasionally resemble a romantic
triangle, in which one tries to benefit from the tensions between the other
two."
