WHEN THE DRAGON BREATHES FIRE: CHINA’S DISPLAY OF SOFT POWER AGAINST INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY

1. Introduction to the Nuances of Soft Power

In traditional terms, power reflects itself in multifarious acts of the ‘oppressor’ in ways that are either latent or manifest and the degree of such acts of power is determined by the extent the opposite party engages or refrains from engaging in a certain activity. Joseph Nye’s division of power, however, completely revolutionized this thought process. In the 1980s when the Cold War was at its peak, Nye felt that using full-frontal force and resorting to active military tactics, not only draws international backlash, it also hampers the public opinion of the sovereign and leads to distrust of the ruling party. Thus, there was need of differentiating between expressed exemplification of power in the terms of Hard Power and Soft Power. Hard power, being self-explanatory, pertains to the usage of force upon an entity in order to coerce them to do something against their wish, whereas, the term "soft power" -- the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion -- is now widely invoked in foreign policy debates.

1. The Chinese Model of Hegemony: Following Sun Tzu’s Steps

If any nation has truly embodied the geist of soft power in modern-day diplomacy and is completely inebriated, inside out in the ideals of hegemony, then it is the People’s Republic of China. The only ancient Chinese philosopher to survive Mao’s cultural revolution, was Sun Tzu, for manifold reasons. Chinese sovereigns have always looked up to Sun Tzu’s Art of War as a mandate that they need to uphold and it clearly shows in modern-day China’s actions. Nye believes that China’s new political approach that makes extensive usage of soft power through foreign investments and international initiative, is based on Tzu’s line of thoughts, Sun Tzu, he said, had concluded that “the highest excellence is never having to fight because the commencement of battle signifies a political failure”. Tzu was a believer in the fact that “all warfare is based on deception” and China is a propounder of a similar ideology on an international scale these days.

2.1. Unleashing of Chinese dominance in seas, land and foreign markets

China’s modus operandi for realizing its world dominance is two-fold. Firstly, consolidating local territorial integrity and completely waterproofing the nation from foreign manufacturers and goods influx and secondly, using modern-day soft colonialization by the virtue of debt traps created in African and South-Asian countries with dismal GDPs and high poverty rates, in order to facilitate its own products flooding foreign markets alongside harbouring its military interests.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began with consolidating its authority over its own territory, by following a pattern of neo-socialism through which, though large-scale private manufacturing was promoted, the companies remained answerable to the CCP directly. Thus, China banned global tech-giants such as YouTube and Facebook from operating within China and created state substitutes such as RenRen, Sina Weibo, etc. The next step was maintaining a steady influx of high volumes of Chinese goods into major consumer markets that were possible because of the low quality and pricing of the products. Then, in the 2010s, China looked forward to making big moves into the heart of Europe and blanketing the entirety of Asia by the virtue of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and One Belt-One Road (OBOR) schemes. The Belt and Road Initiative, or BRI, described by leaders as a vehicle for soft power, calls for spurring regional connectivity. It seeks to bring together the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road through a vast network of railways, roads, pipelines, ports, and telecommunications infrastructure that will promote economic integration from China, through Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, to Europe and beyond.

The next step included the consolidation of its military interests by the creation of tactical geopolitical traps around rival nations such as India while actively invigorating its colonial interests in Africa. Under the pretext of creating good relations with Pakistan and Nepal. It took advantage of the fragile political and economic situation prevailing in both nations. China ‘graciously’ kept lending loans and other benefits to Pakistan which later turned out to be huge debt traps. According to a report, documents of the ministry of planning and development have revealed that Pakistan will pay China $40 billion for the $26.5-billion CPEC investments in 20 years. It created a similar situation of the debt trap in Sri Lanka as well, by the virtue of which, the Sri Lankan government was forced to give up Hambantota Airport to Chinese sovereignty which can be used as a tactical position of keeping watch over India.

Chinese dominance manifested in a different method in the small mountain-nation of Nepal however. As soon as the Communist Party came into power in Nepal, they made political statements that swayed the public away from the good books of India, to that of China. Though, historically a Hindu kingdom with ties to India that are as ancient as time itself, now the Nepalese government wants to identify more with China than with India, so much so, that the Mandarin language now has been made compulsory in the schools of Nepal. This serves as a great example of an expression of soft power through cultural dominance.

The most hideous socio-pathological manifestation of Chinese dogma is seen in the economic neo-colonialization of African nations. The former Secretary of State of the US on his visit to Africa said that while America in its foreign ventures tries to bolster the economic and social conditions in both the countries, China does so for its sole benefit. He was in the opinion that, “This stands in stark contrast to China’s approach, which encourages dependency using opaque contracts, predatory loan practices, and corrupt deals that mire nations in debt and undercut their sovereignty.” 88 percent of Djibouti’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which corresponds to $1.72 billion, is owned by China and stems from investments based on development and infrastructural loans and the figure is steadily increasing in neighbouring countries like Kenya, Mozambique, etc that are being pushed to their limits.

1. Chronology of Institutionalized Aggression against India

Given the nature of power-play that China likes to indulge in, the recent flare-ups should come as no surprise at all. The clashes that took place between India and China, in which 20 Indian soldiers were martyred was along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), this makes it pertinent to understand the underlying issues along the LAC. India and China share the Sino-Indian border, that is divided into three sectors: Eastern, Western and Middle. In the Western Sector, India shares a long border with China which passes through Union Territory of Ladakh and Xinjiang Province of China. In this sector, there exists a historic dispute over an area called Aksai Chin, which India claims to be a part of Kashmir and China claims it to be a part of Xinjiang.

3.1.Attempts to demarcate the boundary line

This dispute dates back to the colonial era, when two separatory frontiers were chosen as boundaries, for India it was the Johnson’s line, which showed Aksai Chin in India and for China, the McDonald line which places it in China. In 1899, McCartney-McDonald line was proposed which included Aksai Chin within China by treating Indus valley as a geographical border. Finally, to demarcate the border, the McMohan line was agreed upon unanimously, in the Shimla Agreement of 1914 by both, Tibet and British India. But, China had clearly rejected it stating that Tibet was never a sovereign to be a party to an agreement. Amongst all these multiple demarcations it is important to state that, there were no demarcations till 1947 which also increased the border struggle for India.[i]

In 1954, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru gave directions to concoct maps of India which were prepared, based upon the Johnson line of 1865 which included Aksai Chin as a part of Indian Territory. This dispute gave way to the Indo-China war in 1962, where China acquired control in the Aksai Chin area. After the war, the Line of Actual Control was established as a de-facto boundary line between India and China. There have been no major incidents along the LAC for more than four decades now, until the recent 15th June clash.

3.2.The Galwan valley and the Political Conundrum it Entails

There exists absolutely no vagueness in the fact that Galwan falls under Indian sovereignty given that, under the McCartney-McDonald line of 1899 it is considered as a part of India. The current tensions are rooted in the objections raised by the Chinese troops against India’s road construction which is to connect the strategic points of Shyok and Daulat Beg Oldi and is 7.5 km away from the LAC. This may be because China is suspicious of India’s aim to gain control in the Aksai Chin area and that this road facilitates Indian soldiers’ quick movement.

The political relationship between India and China has seen its own share of ups and downs since 1950s, but for the major time period, they have been on good diplomatic terms an example being the 2019 visit of President Xi to India and Prime Minister Vajpayee’s signed a MoU to open Nathu La route for Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. But this clash escalated even after many talks at the commander level, and the heat between the two countries has escalated with Prime Minister Modi on 19th June 2020 saying that there were no foreign incursions into India during the clash, and China’s official statement by the foreign ministry said that Galwan valley is located on the Chinese side of the LAC. This explicitly shows the need for a diplomatic talk where attempts can be made to resolve the issue. Presently, both nations have increased forces and surveillance in the border area.

Conclusion

There is no denying the fact that China has went above and beyond its capabilities in order to hide all the malignant imperfections in its governance while adopting a policy of unhinged, but latent aggression towards its rivals by the virtue of its tactical use of soft power. But it also isn’t unfounded to reflect that the perfidious nature of Chinese diplomacy has raised a lot of eyebrows within the international community and the dragon has fallen from the good graces after seeing decades of unchecked uprising.

[i] Gerald Segal, International Affairs, 67(1) HLR 105-106 (January 1991).

{Picture credits: Center for Independent Studies, Australia https://www.cis.org.au/ }

[Authors Monalisa Nanda and Dilisha Nair are the students of law from RG National Law University, Patiala and Army Institute of Law, Mohali respectively. Both are currently interning with Niti Manthan under Left-wing extremism study project]