An informal meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took place on April 27 and 28 with the aim of resetting the relationship between the two nations. During the summit, the two leaders discussed a wide range of bilateral, regional and global issues. Modi and Xi said that since the two nations represent 40 percent of the world’s population and are an import engine for global growth, they are central pillars for promoting a multipolar and globalized world.
A good China-India relationship is an important and positive factor for maintaining peace and stability in the world. The summit led some experts in New Delhi and Beijing to argue that it has set a major milestone in improving bilateral relations.
The political posturing by Modi and Xi was indeed very encouraging, especially when relations between the two nations has been at a low ebb: A 73-day military stand-off in the Doklam region last year, China’s deepening footsteps in South Asian nations, the China-Pakistan economic corridor running through part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Modi government’s decision to allow the Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal Pradesh last year and other factors badly affected relations.
Several academics and experts have argued that the two sides would be fast approaching a serious crisis if New Delhi and Beijing did not effectively use diplomatic tools to cool down tensions. Quite understandably, the governments of the two sides also realized the same rationale in normalizing their relationship.
Thus, the Doklam crisis was brought to a peaceful end and the two capitals focused on reversing the downward direction of bilateral ties. It was in this context that during Modi’s visit to China to attend a BRICS summit last year a proposal emerged for an informal meeting between the leaders of the two sides.
Soon after his visit to China in March, Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale wrote a letter to the Cabinet secretary saying that the participation of senior leaders and dignitaries at a high-profile event commemorating the Dalai Lama’s 60 years of exile is not desirable and should be discouraged.
The Modi government also changed the venue of the event from New Delhi to Dharamshala in a bid to address China’s concerns about India’s position on the Tibet issue.
A series of high-level exchanges, including Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Dova’s visit to China, took place from April 12 to April 13.
After meeting Nepalese Minister of Foreign Affairs Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) floated the idea of a trilateral economic corridor with India and Nepal as part of a trade initiative.
Indian Minister of External Affairs Shushma Swaraj and Indian Minster of Defense Srishita Ram also visited China.
On the heels of these high-profile visits, Modi’s visit to China saw some significant steps taken by both sides to infuse new trust into their relations. India and China have agreed to improve communication between their militaries to maintain peace at the border, with the two leaders endorsing the work of special representatives in their efforts to find a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement.
The two leaders underscored the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility in all areas of the India-China border and agreed to undertake a joint India-China economic project in Afghanistan, which could help India to reduce Pakistan’s presence in that nation.
Both nations have their own reasons for taking the corrective efforts to bring ties back on track. For India, China’s deepening engagement in South Asia is a major cause of concern. An improvement in India-China ties would force South Asian neighbors not to play the China card against New Delhi.
In particular, New Delhi wants to see the expanding relationship between Beijing and Islamabad not become a major cause of concern for its security.
Another reason for New Delhi’s rapprochement toward Beijing is Modi not wanting to see Chinese posturing on the border with general elections only one year away.
For China, US President Donald Trump’s containment policy toward Beijing and a trade war necessitated Xi to improve ties with India in a bid to develop joint efforts to face the US administration’s protectionist approach.
Beijing is also concerned about the strengthening security cooperation between India and the US, as well as the revival of the quadrilateral group comprising the US, Japan, Australia and India.
The success of Modi’s visit will depend on the extent that the two sides develop a comprehensive mechanism to address each other’s concerns, including China’s stance on supporting India’s induction in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, how to resolve the border issue, and how China and India can work together in South Asia.
While the visit marked a new beginning in the direction of fostering at least a working relationship between the two nations, given Xi’s expansionist behavior, it appears highly unlikely that Beijing will show magnanimity in bridging the gap with India.
Sumit Kumar is a Ministry of Foreign Affairs visiting fellow at National Chengchi University and a research fellow at the Chennai Center for China Studies.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS