Salami slicing must be stopped CENJOWS 05 Aug 2020

Salami slicing must be stopped CENJOWS 05 Aug 2020

https://cenjows.in/article-detail?id=361

Salami slicing must be stopped 05 Aug 2020

          Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of state, during a recent visit to UK, stated, ‘You can’t make claims for maritime regions that you have no lawful claim to. You can’t threaten countries and bully them in the Himalayas,’ adding, ‘We hope we can build a coalition that understands the threat.’ He was referring to Chinese salami slicing in the South China Sea (SCS), Ladakh and their claims on Bhutanese territory. The coalition, referred to by Pompeo, need not be military alone. Economic actions against China would hurt it harder, as is now evident with nations blocking Huawei, Indian decisions of banning Chinese apps and blocking Chinese participation in its developmental projects. 

Wikipedia defines salami slicing as a ‘series of many small actions, often performed by clandestine means, that as an accumulated whole produces a much larger action or result that would be difficult or unlawful to perform all at once.’

Historically, ignoring salami slicing has added to global problems. Prior to the second world war, European powers sought to appease German actions of salami slicing, hoping it would not signal another conflict. The German remilitarization of Rhineland in 1936, annexation of Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938 and occupation of Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia in Mar 1939 were ignored. It was only after annexation of Poland did European eyes open to reality and appeasement ended.

In the last two decades Russia has been accused of adopting similar tactics against its neighbours. The most established case is Russian occupation of Crimea. In addition, Russia maintains its forces in Ukraine’s Donbas region and Moldovia’s Transnistria region. It seized Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia and subsequently had them declare independence. Global silence or muted protests have always failed to deter such actions.

Recent Chinese history is replete with examples of expansionism. Its occupation of Aksai Chin from India, capture of Tibet and grabbing of Paracel Islands from Vietnam are examples. In recent days, it attempted to recommence the same strategy in the South China Sea. It believed that there would be no global reaction if transgressions were small. Initially they kept these well below levels of major threat and hence were ignored. Global powers overlooked the same, including their militarization of islands, mildly objecting. The world was appeasing China, permitting it to expand.

With passage of time China became bolder and demanded most islands in the SCS and East China Sea, disregarding claims of other nations. It managed to split ASEAN and opted to open dialogue on ‘code of conduct for the SCS’ while firming its demands. It employed military power to coerce its smaller neighbours into silence or submission. Economic dependence and Chinese military power compelled ASEAN nations into silence. The world slowly began awakening to Chinese games.

ASEAN nations are caught between the devil and the deep sea. While they support current US actions, yet do not want to get involved in a US-China confrontation. Writing for the Los Angeles Times in an article on 14^th Jul, Shashank Bengali quotes Collin Koh of the Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, when he states that even making an official statement supporting the US could ‘potentially put them (ASEAN nations) in a spot, considering their economic dependence on China.’

The two most threatened nations in the SCS are Taiwan and Japan, both close allies of the US. The US has been providing these nations the latest weaponry to counter China, enhancing their military capability. To deter China from invading Taiwan, the US is currently pushing through the Taiwan Defence Act, aimed at maintaining the ability to deter any Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

On Chinese actions in the region, US Defence Secretary, Mark Esper stated, ‘We firmly believe no single nation can or should dominate the public commons, and we will continue to work alongside our allies and partners to support a prosperous and secure Indo-Pacific for all.’

In 2017, China attempted Salami Slicing in Doklam. It was stopped in its tracks. General Bipin Rawat, speaking at an event organised by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies in New Delhi in Sept 2017, stated, ‘As far as northern adversary is concerned, the flexing of muscle has started. The salami slicing, taking over territory in a very gradual manner, testing our limits of threshold is something we have to be wary about and remain prepared for situations emerging which could gradually lead to conflict.’

China moved into Ladakh with similar intentions. It launched the intrusion, refused to withdraw, attempted to brow beat the Indian government and then sought dialogue to resolve the intrusion. All the time, it kept demanding that India should meet it halfway for a final resolution, whereas it was the transgressor. China blamed India for the intrusion, claiming it was defending its own territory. Talks have been held at multiple levels, no resolution appears in the vicinity, force levels have been enhanced and both nations appear to be preparing for the long haul.

Speaking at an event last week, Mike Pompeo stated, ‘Beijing is testing the world with its incursions into Indian territory, but the tide is turning.’ He added Beijing under President Xi Jinping is ‘trying to find out whether other countries are going to push back.’

For the Indian government there are no choices. It cannot surrender to Chinese salami slicing, aware that if it does so, Chinese demands would only increase, and their actions spread across the LAC. While it continues to rely on dialogue to resolve the standoff, it builds force levels, procures equipment essential for enhancing capabilities and remains prepared for escalation. It is aware that the standoff in Ladakh may be a precursor to China resorting to similar actions in other parts of the LAC.

India retaliated on the economic and diplomatic front, seeking to send a message to China on its determination. The world is watching the scenario as it unfolds. A stalemate or a withdrawal by China would enhance the reputation of India, while encouraging other nations to stand tall, whereas further escalation may tilt the balance either way. The globe backs India as it is the nation, which is at the forefront of stopping Chinese salami slicing.

China too would need to assess its own options. It could risk an escalation, which may no longer be localised and open doors for international cooperation against it, after all, India is being projected as the victim and China the aggressor. There is no certainty of victory if it escalates. China could also be pressured in the Indo-Pacific by a global coalition. Facing multiple fronts, India and in the SCS, where US warships are on the prowl, may not be their intention for the moment. For a face-saving action, it may have to continue deploying forces in the region for a prolonged duration.     

Ignoring Chinese salami slicing and permitting China to push ahead would open doors for expansionism on similar lines as Hitler did in the 1930’s. Ultimately, the world would need to act and when it does, it would be too late. The major change in the environment of the 30’s and current is the availability of nuclear weapons and hence escalation levels need to be contained within the realms of conventional operations. Ideally the emphasis could be on economic and diplomatic with strong military posturing.

Currently, India is the nation being most observed. Its actions would halt Chinese salami slicing. It has no choice but to hold its positions and stop Chinese actions. The world must join hands to stop this trend, failing which smaller nations would remain at the mercy of hegemonistic regimes seeking to expand territory based on imaginary claim lines.