[A-List] Competing and collaborating imperialisms

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

COMMENTARY
The reality and illusion of Sino-Indian cooperation
By Ehsan Ahrari
Asia Times, March 22, 2002

The January visit to India by Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji led to
speculation that the two great Asian neighbors were seeking avenues for
cooperation. The issue that was prominently mentioned as of the utmost
concern to both of them was terrorism.

Undoubtedly, China and India have reasons to be wary of terrorism within
their own borders: China is fighting Uighur separatists in its extreme
western regions, whom it accuses of indulging in terrorism, while India
is fighting Kashmiri insurgents who are bent on ending India's rule in
Indian-administered Kashmir. There are two other related common
variables involving the Uighur and the Kashmiri separatists.

First, both groups are Muslims, and have been accused of receiving
assistance from the Taliban-al Qaeda nexus that operated in Afghanistan
until last October. Even though that nexus has been destroyed through
the US military campaign, the separatist movements are very much alive
in Xinjiang and Kashmir. Second, the issues of the independence of
Xinjiang province and the resolution of the Kashmir conflict have been a
part of US concerns.

The Bush administration cloaked its concerns over Xinjiang under the
umbrella of human rights before September 11. Since then, at least from
its own viewpoint, China has had pretty much of a free hand in handling
Uighur separatist activities, which Beijing has conveniently lumped
under the rubric "terrorism".

But in all likelihood the Bush administration will retain its
pre-September 11 mode of scrutiny of the Chinese treatment of the
Uighurs since it has already adopted a similar posture vis-a-vis the
Russian handling of the Chechen separatists. (1)

Regarding Kashmir, the high-level US involvement in putting pressure on
India for its peaceful resolution remains a source of concern to Indian
officials who have consistently rejected outside interference on that
issue. As a fallback option, various Indian spokespersons have sent out
trial balloons suggesting the conversion of the present Line of Control
separating the Indian and Pakistani troops into an international border.

Thus, China and India definitely have high hopes of maintaining their
respective control in Xinjiang and Kashmir for continued cooperation.
But that basis may not be sufficient.

China and India have high aspirations of emerging as great powers. Their
economies are growing at annual rates of between 5 and 7 percent at a
time when the US and Japanese economies are in a state of decline. This
means that both China and India will be able to bankroll their ambitious
force modernization projects, and, indeed, are already doing so.

Since all wanna-be great powers have their respective spheres of
influence, both China and India have also been focused on finding
partners in regions that they deem significant. China has staked out
East Asia as its area of primary concern, but has not ruled out having a
heightened naval presence in an area that India regards as its sphere of
influence, the Indian Ocean. In this regard, the Sino-Pakistani nexus
becomes significant from the Chinese perspective, since Pakistan's
primary interest is to upstage India.

China's presence in Pakistan's Gwadar seaport in the Arabian Sea will
become an important point of China's presence on the northwestern flank
of India, while the availability of Myanmar's ports serves a similar
purpose for the Chinese navy in India's southeastern flank.

India, for its part, has been active in East Asia through its "Look
East" policy, but not with a great deal of success. Lately, however,
India's emerging close ties with Israel and Turkey have been touted as
the making of a "new triple alliance in Eurasia".

If this relationship, indeed, were to evolve in the coming years, India
would gain a decisive advantage over China through the continued
purchase of high-tech weaponry from Israel. Needless to say, the United
States has the power to veto such transactions between Israel and any
third party that Washington deems improper from its own strategic
interests. In fact, the Bush administration is reportedly blocking the
sale of the Arrow anti-missile system - jointly produced by Israel and
the United States - to India. (2)

At the same time, given the fact that Sino-Israeli military ties have
also been in existence for the past decade or so, China may easily
position itself to engage Israel in such a way that the military aspect
of the India-Turkey-Israel nexus would not harm its strategic interests.

So, despite expressing their genuine willingness to cooperate on
transnational terrorism, China and India remain classic adversaries
whose aspirations for strategic primacy remain supreme over other
issues, no matter how intractable or how ominous.

Notes
(1) Peter Baker, "US-Russia Ties Suffer A Renewal of Tension",
Washington Post Foreign Service, electronic version, January 15, 2002.
(2) Janine Zacharia, "US Trying to Stop Arrow Sale to India", Jerusalem
Post, electronic version, January 16, 2002.

Full article at:
http://www.atimes.com/china/DC22Ad01.html

Michael Keaney
Mercuria Business School
Martinlaaksontie 36
01620 Vantaa
Finland

michael.keaney@xxxxxx