RSS
Home
China should break up India, strategist says
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Should China seek to dismantle India? Could it? One expert at a government-backed Chinese think tank believes China can and should. As alarming as this may sound, the United States should not become overly concerned. China consists of many disparate actors and interests; the beliefs of one individual should not be taken as the belief or intent of the Chinese government.
In an article published by the China International Institute of Strategic Studies (CIISS), strategist Zhan Lue argues forcefully for China to take actions that would lead to the dissolution of the “so-called” Indian state. Zhan posits that there is historically no such thing as an Indian nation because the only element of unity in India is its highly regressive, anti-modern Hindu religion. Zhan suggests that China could break apart India with little effort, simply by allying with India’s neighbors and raising ethnic consciousness among the many nationalities that comprise India.
As a nation given to symbolism, signaling, and indirectness, China’s true intentions are often interpreted by gleaning informal and unofficial statements and actions. In 1970, for example, when China and the United States were still bitter Cold War enemies, Chairman Mao Zedong invited an American writer, Edgar Snow, to China’s National Day Celebration in Beijing. China intended for this invitation to serve as a signal that China was willing to improve relations with the United States.
Because China often communicates its intentions in such an indirect manner, China experts and foreign governments alike tend to place significant emphasis on proxy opinions, statements, or gestures that might provide insight into what the government in Beijing is thinking. It comes as little surprise, then, that an article released by a government-supported think tank such as CIISS could lead to great consternation simply by suggesting something as provocative as dismantling the world’s largest democracy.
But China is neither unitary nor monolithic. Rather, China is comprised of a range of actors, each of whom has interests that may diverge from those of the central government. China’s private sector businesses may desire peaceful relations for the sake of commerce but the Chinese military may not because it may seek reasons to increase funding for weapons systems. Chinese civil servants, who control and approve certain elements within government processes, may be members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) but might have narrow financial or egotistical interests that conflict with the aims and ideas of senior members of the CCP. There are also ideological divisions in China that separate liberal progressives, Confucian nationalist/traditionalists, old school communists, and ideologically agnostic capitalists.
China may not be a liberal democracy but it still consists of a number of identifiable interest groups, each of which has its own goals and priorities.
The challenge, then, for those concerned with China’s true intentions is how to discern the insignificant or uncoordinated messages from those intended to represent the views of the central government, like the Edgar Snow visit.
While there is no tried and true methodology for interpreting signals from China, there is little reason to believe that Zhan’s article represents the views of the government in Beijing. Zhan’s article was released against the backdrop of China and India’s 13th round of border talks, which ended on August 8th. In this meeting, which was characterized as a positive one, China expressed a desire to build a stronger strategic partnership with India. With two strong but conflicting messages being sent simultaneously, the official statements emphasizing an improved relationship with India carry far more weight than the nationalistic arguments of a single expert who does not officially represent the views of the Chinese government.
To be sure, China and India are no less strategic contrasts than China and the United States; they did, after all, fight a short, localized war over border issues in 1962. But like China’s relationship with the United States, the future is what they make of it. Relations characterized by cooperation and strategic partnership offer benefits to both India and China; by contrast, attempts to subvert the world’s largest democracy would only invite blowback.
Interpreting China’s intentions is not an exact science but in this case, the United States—and India—should not lose any sleep over Zhan’s nationalistic sentiment.
Related Articles:
Comments
