Author: Amos Perlmutter
Publication: The Washington Times
Date: May 1, 2001
(Note from Hindu Vivek Kendra: This
article has two responses. One is directly relevant. The other is a little
off the tangent, but relevant from a broader context.)
China and India, the two most populated
states in the world, comprise one-fourth of humanity, dominate South Asia,
the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Indian population comes close to that
of China, which is more than 1 billion. The two oldest civilizations of
the East, centers of culture, philosophy and military, were dominated politically
and militarily by foreign powers between 1700 and 1950. Both have been
successful in emerging from colonial rule and seeking independence, which
makes them among the three most significant states in Asia and the Pacific
along with Japan.
An American policy toward China
and India must be oriented for the long run. Each must be treated differently.
India is a democracy awakening from the failed Nehru family Congress Party
rule that advocated neutralism and Third Worldism, a policy that only strengthened
the Soviet Union. China is a totalitarian state. In 1949, it ended a long
history of foreign domination and has become a state mired in false Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist
ideology. It is still a one-party rule regime.
While India is searching for accommodation
and closer relationships with the United States and the West that could
match its new economic power, China is still belligerent and, as the recent
spy plane incident demonstrates, aggressive and, when it comes to its neighbors,expansionist.
China is undergoing a process of economic and military modernization at
the expense of the economy. China is one of the world´s leading violators
of human rights and a suppressor of internal opposition. While India is
a multiparty democratic state and an open society, China is still a closed
Stalinist state. India faces internal opposition, most of which comes from
pro-Pakistani, anti-Indian,fundamentalist Muslims. America´s China
apologists tell us that the regime is a benign totalitarianism and that
economic modernization leads to democracy and pluralism. This is historically
untrue and intellectually dishonest.
China is in flux. The political
and international implications are that China could go in two contradictory
directions since its political system in the future is still unpredictable.
It may go backward into greater oppression, more xenophobic nationalism,
and militaristic threats; or it may become more reasonable. This, however,
cannot be achieved without America playing a serious role in the Pacific
and China. We must adopt a policy of containment that is linked to a controlled
free trade arrangement. We must monitor whether free trade means greater
militarization or real economic development.
The big picture is how to continue
the management of U.S.-China relations. The Bush administration must take
the position, in contradistinction to the former administration, that totalitarian
acts of aggression are unacceptable. To fulfill such a policy, we must
mix force and diplomacy in a measured balance. We must mix cooperation
with containment, at least in the area of trade.
But the onus of preserving the relationship
must be laid at the feet of the present Chinese leadership. The most recent
and ongoing negotiations over the last incident clearly demonstrates that
the political leadership in China is paralyzed by an internal struggle
and the processes of ossification of one-party rule threatens to crack
the Stalinist control.
The Jiang Zemin regime is reminiscent
of Leonid Brezhnev´s and his successors before the rise of Mikhail
Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. There is no Gorbachev on China´s horizon.
The present regime is trying to maintain a status quo while the party,military,
and state political elites are in conflict. Those who argue that we could
intervene on behalf of the more moderate forces should learn the lesson
of the Soviet Union. We never had an iota of leverage in the inner struggles
of the Politburo and Central Committee of the Soviet Union. In the case
of China, an attempt to intervene would be an exercise in futility, and
at best counterproductive.
What is required on the part of
American foreign policy-makers on China is to pay greater attention to
the role of its military. Willy Wo-Lap Lam, one of the leading recognized
authorities on China and especially its military, contends in his book,
"The Era 0f Jiang Zemin" (1999), that Mr. Jiang is committed to giving
more power to the PLA, which already wields more power than its military
strength would suggest.
Under Jiang Zemin, the importance
of the PLA stems from the fact that it supported his faction after Deng
Xiao-ping´s death, which enabled Mr. Jiang to elbow aside his political
challengers. Mr. Jiang is politically in debt to his generals. The PLA
has been emboldened under his regime. Therefore, the American-Chinese investigative
committee cannot succeed because the Chinese military will not apologize
or accept responsibility for the spy plane incident under any conditions.
According to Mr. Lam, Mr. Jiang
supports Quansha, or Chinese-style Machiavellianism: he banned the military
business empire while simultaneously raising the PLA budget compensating
what is called "army business" (bingshang). This encourages corruption
and hurts army morale.
India, on the other hand, should
become one of our closest allies along with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
We should make serious efforts to beef up and modernize the Indian army
and openly condemn China´s role in the support of Pakistan´s
nuclear development. The Cold War is over and Pakistan is no longer an
ally. It is a Taleban fundamentalist oriented state, which runs against
our values and interests.
The containment of China must be
linked to a policy of support for India. An independent, democratic, pro-American
India clearly serves our national interest. We must end our obsessive,
non-productive, non-proliferation attitude toward India. The stakes are
too high in view of the emergence of an expansionist China. We need allies
that share our interests and values.
(Amos Perlmutter is a professor
of political science and sociology at American University and editor of
the Journal of Strategic Studies.)
====================
Response One
"India and China: An insightful
comparison"
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010504-92397579.htm
The Washington Times - Letters
to the editor -
May 4, 2001
I agree with columnist Amos Perlmutter
that "India should become one of our closest allies with Japan, South Korea,
and Taiwan" ("China and India in the long run," Commentary, May 1).
Juxtaposing India and China both
billion-strong but quite different proves especially useful in dispelling
the sort of myths that Mr. Perlmutter calls "historically untrue and intellectually
dishonest":
. "China is too big and too poor
to be a democracy." India is equally populous and even poorer but has been
a democracy for more than half a century, whereas the Chinese communist
leadership has steadfastly refused political reforms. This proves that
democracy is mainly a result of choice and resolve, not inviolable socioeconomic
preconditions.
. "China will disintegrate if it
practices democracy." India is far more racially, linguistically and religiously
diverse than China, but democracy proves far more effective than dictatorship
in holding this vast country together. China´s "cohesiveness" is
a myth, which is in turn used to justify one-party dictatorship.
. "China is a great power with special
sensitivities that need to be respected." The Clinton administration´s
"strategic partnership" with China drove India to explode its nuclear weapons
(followed by Pakistan) and caused consternation in Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei.
A China-centered deferential policy has raised regional tensions.
. "China is a market of 1 billion,
with endless commercial opportunities." The same is true with India rapidly
growing and with a burgeoning middle class. In reality, both are emerging
markets with comparable risks and reward, red tape and corruption.
India, with a federalist governmental
structure and commitment to democracy, offers a model to China. The United
States should pursue a more balanced policy toward these two awakening
giants.
VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG
Associate professor of political
science
University of Richmond
Richmond
====================
Resonse Two
Columnist mistreats Pakistan
Letter from Pakistan Embassy
Washington Times - May 5, 2001.
It is not the Embassy of Pakistan
s business to question how the United States should conduct its relations
with India. Our interests are only in Amos Perlmutter s treatment of Pakistan
in the May 1 Commentary column "China and India in the long run," among
other articles.
The fact is that Hindu fundamentalists,
and not Pakistanis, are responsible for the communal tensions between Muslims
and Hindus, as evidenced by the destruction of Babri Mosque and the persecution
of Muslims and Christians. In Indian-occupied Kashmir, the exploitation
and repression of the Kashmiri people for the past 50 years is a well-documented
reality that is validated by neutral and objective observers such as Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and others. As a result of the brutality
of the Indian occupation forces, at least 50,000 Kashmiris have been killed
in the past decade alone.
As far as Pakistan s internal affairs
are concerned, Mr. Perlmutter is either unaware of the facts or has chosen
to ignore them. In every election, the Pakistani people have not voted
for Islamic parties, which is a matter of record that he simply has overlooked.
For his information, India, and not Pakistan, is being ruled by religious
fanatics.
As a professor of international
relations, Mr. Perlmutter also should know better than to downplay the
role and importance of Pakistan as a pivotal state in the region with its
geostrategic location at the crossroads of South and Central Asia and the
Near East.
ASAD HAYAUDDIN
Press attache
Embassy of Pakistan
Washington
