Why is China so Ambiguous?
10 Feb, 2001 · 461
Bhartendu Kumar Singh demystifies China’s ambiguous stand on India’s claim to a permanent seat in the security council
For the last two years, one of the major foreign policy objectives of
India has been to lobby for permanent membership of the Security Council. We have seen the top political leadership and the mandarins of the MEA indulging in diplomatic shopping to secure commitments of support from different countries. While
India has been successful in garnering support from several small and middle-powers across the globe, it has not been as successful with the great-powers. Of the P-5 countries, only
Russia has supported
India ’s candidature, while
Britain and
France have given muted support. The
U.S. does not regard
India as a natural candidate for the Security Council as compared to
Germany and
Japan , its favoured candidates.
China at least three times to solicit its support for membership. Indeed, seeking
Beijing ’s support on this issue was one of the objectives of President Narayanan’s visit to
China in May last year. Soon after, Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson Dr. Najma Heptullah also canvassed
India ’s case before the Chinese leadership during her
Beijing visit. And when the number two leader of China, Li Peng, was in India, New Delhi had again sought commitment from China, but Li Peng had repeated the same old elements of China’s ambiguous’ policy :
India ; and
China would go by the consensus.
China has perceived
India as a South Asian power rather than one with a global voice. In fact,
China has devoted its diplomatic efforts to restrain
India within the limits of
South Asia .
China is not too happy with
India ’s status of a rising great-power in the post-Cold War period, and refuses to accept that
India would constitute a pole in the evolving multipolar world. Perhaps,
China is of the view that by supporting
India ’s claim to the Security Council, it would only be recognizing
India ’s claims to great-power status.
Third World much to the chagrin of
China . Although both
China and
India have, in the past, projected themselves as belonging to the
Third World ,
China ’s support to the
Third World has been lukewarm.
China has not associated itself with the
Third World associations like
NAM , G-77 etc. The practice of Chinese relations shows that it was always willing to barter its
Third World interests when it came into conflict with its national interests. In its 29-year record in the Security Council,
China has not done anything special to protect
Third World interests. Whether it was the ‘liberation’ of
Bangladesh or the Gulf War,
China always gave primacy to its own interests. On the other hand,
India has always been a part of
Third World associations and played a lead role in some of them. It is this track record of
India which endangers
China ’s claims to be a
Third World leader!
India ’s position in the Security Council would be used by others (read
U.S. ) to form a containment ring around
China . With both
India and
Japan in the Security Council as permanent members, it feels, the Security Council would be turned into a platform where ‘great-power conspiracies’ would be hatched against it. Besides, there is every possibility that the South East Asian countries would be courting
India , apart from
Japan to maintain a establish a balance of power against
China in their region.
China from voicing its fears openly.
China knows that, with or without it,
India will continue lobbying for a permanent seat in the Security Council and in every probability, will succeed. China prefers to ‘wait and watch’ the entire drama of Security Council reforms in which many claimants might emerge whom China would like to support against India and Japan. Hence,
China talks of ‘complexity’ and ‘consensus’.
China came out of its own misperceptions about
India .
India ’s track record in the United Nations and elsewhere is proof that it stands for certain principles rather than the pursuit of power politics.
India was one of those few non-communist countries that supported
China ’s admission into the United Nations and its specialized agencies. There was no change in this policy even though, Sino-Indian relations nosedived since the 1962 war. As for
Third World leadership,
China should realize that there is enough space for the two countries to co-exist; and
India as a permanent member of the Security Council would not threaten to
China ’s status. In fact, Sino-Indian partnership in the Security Council can deter the forces of intervention in the of the
Third World .
Europe to
Asia . In a restructured Security Council, four of its permanent members would be from
Asia (if
Russia is also included).
China should help accelerate this power shift to
Asia . It is an open secret that
China is more suspicious of
Japan than
India in a future Security Council. The presence of
India would ensure its opposition to any form of alliance or conspiracies against
China by other permanent members.
China had supported
India in the past for a two-year tenure in the Security Council, and there is no reason why
China cannot support
India ’s case. If
China stands for a normative structure of international relations, it should demand a Security Council reflecting current power realities and recognize the due place of
India .
China should come out in
India ’s support in unequivocal terms lest it reflect its ‘middle kingdom’ complex.
The strange case, however, is that of China, which has so far been ambiguous and has refused to come out either in support or opposition of India’s claims to permanent membership of the Security Council. During the last year, the Indian leadership has approached
1. That the issue is a ‘complex’ one and needed thorough discussion with all UN members.
2. That a ‘consensus’ has to be evolved on all possible candidates including
3. That
It is not difficult to decipher the Chinese emphasis on ‘complexity’ and ‘consensus’. Traditionally,
Secondly, with a permanent seat in the Security Council India would emerge as the natural leader of the
Thirdly, the Chinese fear that
Yet, norms of diplomacy and international relations discourage
It is time
The twenty-first century is witnessing a gradual shift of power from
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
