On April 1, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) alluded to the “dragon-elephant” tango in his message to Indian President Droupadi Murmu to mark the 75th anniversary of the establishment of India-China diplomatic relations. The two countries have patched up after their border agreement in October last year, but the recent India-Pakistan tensions following the Pahalgam terror attack are testing the limits of their fragile truce.
Beijing’s moves in South Asia after the terror attack confirm the widely held view in the Indian community that last year’s border agreement was just a “tactical pause.” The tensions between India and Pakistan have uncovered China’s “tango” with India, as Beijing has thrown its weight fully behind Islamabad.
China is supporting Pakistan in an attempt to harm its competitors using other countries. Pakistan and North Korea (both went nuclear with China’s assistance) have been two strategic proxies helping China in its regional ambitions in south and east Asia. Beijing is trying to thwart New Delhi’s desire to be a global power and keep it bogged down by bolstering Islamabad.
China has three interests in its deep ties with Pakistan:
One, it helps Beijing avoid the internationalization of the Uighur issue through the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, in which Pakistan protects China’s record of targeting Uighurs in Xinjiang.
Second, it increases India’s vulnerability by raising the specter of a “two-front” war.
Third, Pakistan is the linchpin of China’s response to the US and India in the Indo-Pacific region. Things could become more complex for India, as the new dispensation in Bangladesh seems disposed toward China and Pakistan.
China offers Pakistan diplomatic and military protection at a time when the West’s interest in the country might be waning. Its support in the Kashmir issue and in Pakistan’s so-called “fight against terrorism” paints Islamabad’s use of terrorism as a state policy. It is no surprise that anti-India terrorists such as Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar or the Pakistani government do not utter a single word against the oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang.
The “China-Pakistan tango” is now also extending to Eurasia. Azerbaijan had supported Pakistan’s “hollow” demand for a transparent investigation into the Pahalgam terror attack.
Islamabad had supplied weapons to Baku during its war with Armenia, which received military hardware from New Delhi. China had previously signed a partnership with Azerbaijan, an important country for the so-called Middle Corridor of the Belt and Road Initiative.
The Pakistan-China-Turkey cooperation is also of concern to India, as Ankara and Beijing supplied weapons to Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack. China and Turkey also have a history of supporting Pakistan at the Financial Action Task Force, despite well-known Pakistani links to terrorism.
India conducted its “Operation Sindoor” on Wednesday last week. Azerbaijan and Turkey supported Pakistan, while China said it “regretted” India’s military operation against Pakistan-based terrorists.
Before India’s operation, China not only supported Pakistan’s call for an independent probe in the Pahalgam attack, but also backed its “legitimate security concerns and its efforts to safeguard its security and strategic interests.”
The double standards in China’s approach are quite clear.
In contrast to China’s response, the US supported India’s right to self-defense. President William Lai (賴清德) also condemned the attack on Indian civilians, saying that “our hearts are with the people of India.” Russia and Israel have backed India amid the ongoing tensions as well.
India would have to factor in the new developments in the “China-Pakistan” nexus in the Indo-Pacific region and in Eurasia. It would also need to bolster its ties with Taiwan, the US, France, Russia, Japan, Australia, Greece, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Armenia and Afghanistan.
Raj Kumar Sharma is Ministry of Foreign Affairs Taiwan fellow at National Chengchi University. Geetanjali Atri is a sociologist based in Taipei.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS