As the world anxiously anticipates the economic and military strategies of President-designate Donald Trump, China gave a lesson in realpolitiks by preemptively spelling out how it proposes to deal with the emerging uncertain situation. The focus of President Xi Jinping – Joe Biden meeting, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, was to review the trajectory of China-US relations during the last four years. However, Xi seized the opportunity to clearly spell out China’s national security strategy vis-a-vis the US.
The message was aimed at Trump who has selected known China hawks, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, John Ratcliffe as Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Director of CIA respectively, and vowed during the election campaign to impose up to 60 per cent tariffs on imports from China.
During the talks with Biden, Xi traced the history of China-US relations, spelled out China’s ‘red lines’ and charted the future course it would adopt. China’s quest for power and challenge to the preeminence of the US over the last two decades leaves many lessons for India, which too seeks to become a global power.
China’s red lines
China has clearly stated its goal to become a great power by 2049. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs readout on the Xi-Biden meeting on 16 November unambiguously lays out how it proposes to progress its relationship with the US, its principal competitor, in the future. I highlight only the essential aspects related to national security.
To begin with, Xi questioned Thucydides’ Trap—the inevitability of war when a rising power competes with an established one—to emphasise that “a new Cold War must not be fought and that it cannot be won. Thus, containing China is unwise, unacceptable, and bound to fail.”
Xi highlighted the importance of credibility in the relationship wherein words must match actions to maintain trust. China also demanded to be treated as an equal without any attempt by either side to impose its will from a “position of strength” and deny the other a legitimate right to growth and development in order to maintain own leading status.
The most important point raised by Xi was that while contradictions and differences are inevitable, red lines and paramount principles of each other must not be challenged. No attempt should be made to undermine each other’s core interests, let alone seek conflict or confrontation. Xi emphasised that the One China principle and the three China-US joint communiques are the foundation of the relationship.
Xi categorically spelled out China’s four red lines: “The Taiwan question, democracy and human rights, China’s path and system, and China’s development right. They must not be challenged. These are the most important guardrails and safety nets for China-US relations.”
“The Taiwan Question” is the central issue in the relationship. China is determined to reunify Taiwan. While the US accepts the principle of “One China”, however, it is committed to defending Taiwan if reunification is done by force. Xi stressed that “Cross-Strait peace and stability and ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist activities are irreconcilable as water and fire. If the US side cares about maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait, it must see clearly the true nature of Lai Ching-te (President of Taiwan) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities in seeking ‘Taiwan independence’. It’s important that Washington handles the Taiwan question with extra prudence, unequivocally opposes ‘Taiwan independence’, and supports China’s peaceful reunification.”
The red line— “Democracy and human rights”—implies that democratic principles and human rights with reference to Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and the detention of dissidents must not be cited to criticise and interfere in China’s internal affairs.
“China’s path and system”— this red line lays down that China’s ideology and system of government are sacrosanct and regime change must not be sought citing democratic principles.
“Right to development” means that there should be no attempt to suppress China’s economic and technological advancement implying unfair tariffs and trade practices, and technology denial. Xi reiterated this aspect by emphasising that “Neither decoupling nor supply-chain disruption is the solution; common development can only be achieved through mutually beneficial cooperation. Small yard, high fences is not what a major country should do; only openness and sharing can advance the well-being of humanity.
On the South China Sea and its island territories, China reiterated that it is committed to upholding its territory, sovereignty, and maritime rights and interests. Xi warned that “The United States should not get involved in bilateral disputes over the relevant islands and reefs nor should it aid or abet the impulsion to make provocations”.
Also read: India-China border can’t be changed. Formalising LAC as the redline is the answer
Lessons for India
In 2008, China hosted the Olympics to signal its arrival on the world stage. It was around this time that China seriously began to compete with the US. Its economy then was $4.6 trillion and the US was $14.7 trillion. Militarily, there was a huge differential in favour of the US. Today, India with a GDP of nearly $4 trillion and a defence budget of $83.6 billion is economically and militarily in a similar position vis-a-vis China. And like China, then, India’s rise is on course. It is time for New Delhi to be more assertive in dealing with China.
India’s policy of “strategic restraint” in dealing with China, like Deng Xiaoping’s famous policy—“observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time” in dealing with America—is sound in principle until our GDP reaches at least 50 per cent of China’s and our military capability are at par. However, this must not stop India from formally stating its national security strategy with respect to China. A declared national security strategy will send a message about the potential consequences of threatening India’s core interests.
Defining the red lines is relative to a country’s economic and military potential to impose costs. Hence, for equal status and parity in the relationship, India will have to rely upon diplomacy. However, since China exploits the unsettled borders to impose its hegemony, it is imperative for India to formally spell out its red lines regarding its territorial integrity. Nuclear weapons and its military capability safeguard India against a decisive defeat and any major loss of territory provided adequate military precautions are taken.
Keeping that in view, India must unilaterally publicise and hand over marked maps to China clearly showing its International Boundary and the Line of Actual Control. It must categorically state that pending the settlement of the boundary dispute, the present borders as marked are inviolable. As highlighted by me earlier, the disengagement and patrolling agreements in Eastern Ladakh have de facto delineated the LAC. In northeast, the LAC runs along the McMahon Line, which has long been delineated albeit with a few areas of differing perceptions.
India’s territorial red line: The present borders defined by the Line of Actual Control cannot be changed and any violation to impose hegemony or seize a position of advantage will be considered as an act of war. In my view, India has the military potential to uphold this red line.
Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal.