Indo-China relations will be influenced by Pak CENJOWS 20 Jan 2020
https://cenjows.gov.in/article-detail?id=237
Indo-China relations will be influenced by Pak CENJOWS 20 Jan 2020
China attempted to raise the issue of Kashmir under the heading of ‘Any other Business’ in the UNSC meet last week. It was met with resistance from other permanent members of the UNSC and ended without a whimper. The Indian foreign office commented, ‘China should seriously reflect on this global consensus, draw proper lessons and refrain from taking such action in future.’ On Pak pushing China for initiating the discussion the foreign office stated, ‘Pakistan can avoid this global embarrassment time and again by putting their energy in something constructive.’
The Indian permanent representative to the UN, Mr Syed Akbaruddin, stated, ‘Diplomacy is not about crying wolf. It is about taking tough but realistic steps, steps that can even be small. And that small step has to be where we were on August 5.’ In contrast the Pak foreign office commented, ‘Since, it was a closed session and Pakistan is currently not a member of the UNSC, we do not know the exact debate that took place. However, the fact that the debate took place and lasted that long shows that it was an all-encompassing debate.’
Imran Khan tweeted, ‘Pakistan welcomes UNSC discussing the situation in J and K again.’ He added, ‘We will continue to provide moral, political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri people until they secure their inalienable right to self-determination.’ There is no doubt that Pak was aware of the reality but failed to share the same with its public. The timing of the raising of the issue by China coincided with the visit of the Pak foreign minister to the UN and US.
The Chinese Ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun, addressed the media and stated “We had a meeting on Jammu and Kashmir. And I am sure you all know that the foreign minister of Pakistan wrote letters to the UNSC asking the UNSC to pay attention to the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The issue of India and Pakistan has always been on the agenda of the Security Council, and today we have also seen some tensions, so the Security Council had a briefing concerning the current situation on the ground. Members exchanged views on that.’
The reality was that views were exchanged on Mali, which was the topic for discussion, and NOT Kashmir. Kashmir was not discussed as members defined Indian actions as internal and Indo-Pak dispute over Kashmir as bilateral. The statement did not state reality, as for China, admitting failure of the raising of Kashmir, would have been tantamount to losing face.
There is also a difference within China’s own foreign ministry on what was raised and discussed. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, as per the Dawn newspaper of Pakistan, stated on 17 Jan, ‘Members of the Security Council are concerned about the current situation in Kashmir, and call for observance of the UN Charter and international law, and peaceful resolution of disputes through political dialogue. They believe relevant parties should remain restrained and deescalate the tension.’
As per Indian news, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson called the Kashmir issue, ‘a dispute left over from history’ and added that it should be resolved properly and peacefully. This implied that China raised Indo-Pak tensions along the LoC and NOT the restrictions in Kashmir as stated by Pakistan and written on by Qureshi to the UN.
China, which has attempted to raise the Kashmir issue thrice in the UNSC, since India abrogated Article 370 on 05 Aug 19, has ignored its own actions which are against all international laws. These include interning millions in Xinjiang, its highhanded and threatening approach to protestors in Hong Kong and its unilateral actions in the South China Sea, grabbing Exclusive Economic Zones of multiple nations and enhancing tensions in the region. It has ensured that these are not discussed in the UNSC as it possesses a veto power. These issues are flagged by some nations but never come up in the UNSC for discussion.
This is not the first time that discussion of actions taken by non-veto members come up, while those concerning permanent members are brushed under the carpet. Israel has regularly faced a host of issues, but backed by US veto power, they are never pushed further. In the current environment, Syria has Russian backing and there are almost no discussions concerning the ongoing internal war there, including resultant humanitarian disasters or use of chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen leading to mass casualties are blocked by the US.
Currently nations which have the backing of members with veto power can escape being questioned or their actions defended. Nations without such support will always face UNSC criticism.
If the UN is expected to be an impartial body and the UNSC is a part of it, then issues concerning nations with a veto must also be discussed with equal vigour, if the institution needs to be respected. If the current trend within the UNSC continues, it would soon have nations ignoring UNSC resolutions as these remain biased.
China has been forced to support Pak mainly because its investments in Pak are immense and it has projected the CPEC as a role model. During the recent visit of Xi Jinping to Myanmar, he promised a similar development plan as the CPEC. Hence, while it may disagree with Pakistan, it must continue raising the Kashmir bogey to satisfy Pak audiences. Even despite being rebuffed it had to lie to satisfy Pak. This will also enhance China’s image with nations under UN pressure like Myanmar.
Further, for China it makes strategic sense to support Pak militarily and diplomatically as a counterweight to India. This divides Indian military attention and gives China greater leverage in the region.
Despite all Indo-China bonhomie and positive comments by both sides, especially after the Modi-Xi Chennai summit last year, Chinese actions on the global stage convey a different message. The message is that wherever interests of Pak are involved, China would always view India through the Pak prism. Hence, China would never back the entry of India into any international forum, whether it be as a permanent member of the UNSC or into the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG), as it would be detrimental to Pak’s interest.
Indo-China border management has no link to Pak, except the Chinese deployment in the Shaksgam valley, implying the importance of Siachen. In this context the current army chief, General Naravane had stated, ‘That is one area where a formation is looking at both the western and the northern fronts. That is what makes it so strategically important. We must not lose sight that this is where the collusivity can happen. Therefore, it is important to be on guard and keep that area in our possession.’
There is a fair semblance of peace along the Indo-China border as Pak is not involved. Chinese interests only perk where its CPEC is threatened or Pak comes under Indian military pressure. While resolution of the Indo-China border dispute is still some distance away, there would be continuous forward movement albeit slowly.
Similarly, on trade and investment issues between India and China, there would always be progress, as Pak is nowhere in the picture. India even permitted Chinese company Huawei to participate in 5G trials, despite a cautionary advice from the US and other nations and aware that it is backed by the PLA. India’s non-participation in the Belt Road Initiative on account of the CPEC transgressing disputed territory has been accepted by China as a reality.
The Modi-Xi summit of last year did involve exchanging notes on Pakistan, but most discussions ignored Pak. It was only then that there was forward movement on most bilateral issues. Where Pak is involved, Indo-China relations would always face stumbling blocks. If India accepts this reality, then it can expect improvement in Indo-China relations. Hence, Chinese comments and actions backing Pak should be taken with a pinch of salt as it involves safeguarding Chinese investments in Pak.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army
•Very well articulated by the General, as always.
•As mentioned, Kashmir opens communications into various Nations, North into Central Asia, East into Tibet, South into the Arabian Sea & West into the Middle East.
•That is also what the Geographic location of Pakistan, in various stages of internal strife, provides to any country inclined to have a platform for nefarious military adventurism or positive economic expansion, like the Chinese would like this part of the World to view CEPEC initiatives.
•Surely the US, EU would also view the region thus
economically, while the NATO associates would, even as we discuss this, be grappling with Pakistan, at a diplomatic & intelligence operations levels.
•Kashmir is a real estate pie that everyone wants a finger in for reasons explained by the General, but that if snatched away would lead to diminished Geostrategic importance of the rest of Pakistan & providing impetus to various separatist aspirations within Pakistan, almost decimating it!
• Hence the current Indian Government has done well to aborogate divisive articles of its constitution to stake reclaim the actual legal & Global position on the whole of Kashmir from propoganda & narrative creation diplomatic exercises in play since 1947.
•That the World has taken note & accepted the original Indian existential claim, has not gone down well with Pakistan for the above reasons.
•Pakistan sees the move as one, that has potential to make its territories in POK, Sindh, Baluchistan, & FATA regions further fragmented, as the march destabilising the Middle East by the Super- Powers for establishing a new order, started in the distant Middle East & has been moving Eastward ever since & is now threatening Iran!
• For obvious reasons Pakistan has no options but to remain a Military State & China to cater and use the advantage a Pakistan torn between its benefactors since 1947 & China post 9/11, can provide.
•Sino-Indian relationship has to consider millions of worth unexplored resources in the thousands of kilometres along the shared Himalayas, Bays & Oceans they can cooperate to explore & exploit and thus will remain at war in one part while benefiting in others.
Excellent views. A lot to think from them. Thank you