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.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS