The SCO's Landmark Ufa Summit

 July 11, 2015

On the 9th and 10th of July 2015, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has held a landmark summit in Ufa (Russia), its 15th to date. Ufa has simultaneously hosted the BRICS summit, which was meant to further strengthen economic ties between its five emerging economic powers.

Founded in 2001 by Russia, China and four Central Asian republics, the SCO had until recently as its main objective fighting “the three evils: separatism, extremism and terrorism”. At Ufa, the six founding members have for the first time agreed to allow for the expansion of the organization by offering full membership to both India and Pakistan. Thus the US geopolitical push to see India included into a balance-of-power mechanism in Asia aimed at containing China has been thwarted. Accordingly, the United States will remain with a handful of allies in Asia, from the Philippines and possibly Vietnam to its old-time ally Japan.

The expanded SCO covers a huge geographical area which includes Eurasia, China and the entire Indian subcontinent, with a combined population in excess of 3 billion. Four of its members (Russia, China, India and Pakistan) are nuclear powers and have large, well-equipped military forces. During the summit the leaders of member-countries, new and old, have expressed their willingness to also enhance economic cooperation in strategically important sectors such as transport and energy production/distribution.

The State Department officials have reacted to the new developments in Asia by declaring that the United States do not consider Russia or China as “existential threats” to the Americans.

 

Military Spending: Less Boots on the Ground for the EU

March 20, 2012

International military analysts have recently pointed out that military spending in Asia has increased to 262 billion euros in 2012. The amount could overtake the EU’s own military spending in the near future, possibly as early as next year. Smaller military budgets, however, are consistent with the EU’s new focus on soft power and diplomacy, as opposed to investment in new weapons systems and more ‘boots on the ground’. Moreover, European countries have had an insignificant military presence in the Middle East or Asia, its former role being filled over the past sixty years by the United States. Naturally, the financial crisis and subsequent austerity measures are also considered responsible for the anaemic military spending by EU members.

In 2012 the US will spend an estimated 739 billion dollars, which, combined with the EU’s own 270 billion euros in military spending, will secure NATO’s position as the world’s most powerful military alliance. The refocusing of the US’ military strategy on Asia, which includes a new base in Australia and more American warships in Singapore, has been recently decried by Middle Eastern kingdoms feeling somewhat abandoned to their fate. Accordingly, they have increased their own military purchases and are intensifying diplomatic pressure on the US to remain engaged in their region. For Arab leaders, these lobbying efforts could not have been undertaken at a worst time, as the Obama administration plans to further reduce military spending to an estimated 500 billion USD per year.

Russia has recently announced that it would spend 775 billion dollars until 2022 for a much-needed refurbishment of its armed forces’ equipment, and for making its troops more professional.

China’s military will receive an estimated 89 billion dollars in 2012. In recent times, the Chinese military expenditure has shown a tendency to double every five years or so. Worries about Chinese hegemony in Asia have prompted other Asian nations, including India, to increase their military spending this year, which is good news for European weapons manufacturers. Fortunately – according to most analysts – the danger of a confrontation between major powers is rather remote at this point in time, as the Chinese military’s might will match America’s only in 15 or 20 years from now. (sources: www.sipri.org, Le Monde, International Institute for Security Studies, Reuters)

Disputed borders: a tripwire for war

 October 14, 2010

Whilst the world’s attention was recently focused on a relatively minor incident involving disputed islands in the South China Sea, the 4,000-km disputed border between India and China is quietly being beefed up militarily by both sides. In the words of M. Taylor Fravel, borders specialist with MIT, the border in question is “the most continuously negotiated border in modern history”.

Tensions generated by the Indian-Chinese border, which in 1962 erupted into full-fledged war between the two countries, date back to the times of the British Raj. Indeed, in 1914 the border was arbitrarily established by the simple drawing of a line on a map by Sir Robert MacMahon. Following this, in 1914 the British, on behalf of the Indians, signed the notorious Simla accord with the Tibetan government, which had briefly declared independence from China. Republican China had refused to take part in the talks and never recognised the loss of southern Tibet – a territory the size of Austria that goes these days by the name of Arunchal Pradesh – to the British colony, India.

After independence from Britain, India split along confessional lines, with Pakistan and Banglandesh appearing on the map. To date, India went to war in 1965 with Pakistan over Kashmir in the north, and with China over Aksai-Chin (a territory the size of Switzerland occupied by Chinese troops in 1962), as well as over Arunchal Pradesh (a Buddhist territory rich in forests and agricultural land).

The inconclusive conflict of 1962 ended with the two armies retreating behind the Line of Actual Control (LAC) which roughly follows the infamous MacMahon line. Since then, there have been incursions and so-called border violations in their thousands, as the old MacMahon line allowed for a 10 km “give-or-take” corridor the length of the entire border.

Relations between the two superpowers remained largely frozen until the eighties when both Deng Xiaoping and the Indian leadership realised that the two countries have to finalise their border disputes once and for all. Thus in 1993, the two sides agreed to adopt the CBM (Confidence Building Measures) agreement, which provided for non-aggression, notification of large troop movements and the establishment of a 10 km no-fly zone for military aircraft.

Negotiations between China and India continued, with the signing in 2005 of a “strategic partnership for peace and prosperity” by Wen Jiabao and Indian premier M. Sinh. The partnership is aimed at ensuring that border disputes are solved amiably and would not degenerate into a second border war between the two countries.

Latest developments

The neo-conservative Bush Jr. administration in Washington decided to befriend India and use it to contain China’s rise. It agreed to overlook India’s violation of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and the US replaced India’s traditional ally, the defunct Soviet Union, as the country’s new strategic partner. According to Washington Times editorialists, India started to be groomed by the State Department as a “new Australia” in Asia, in spite of the Indian political leadership’s deep suspicion of the US – a 50-year ally of Pakistan.

In 2007, the US military’s involvement with India culminated with joint naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal, in which Singapore, the Australian and Japanese navies also took part. In 2009, India acquired 3.5 billion dollars’ worth of arms from the US, greatly alarming China.

Beijing describes India’s new foreign policy as based on the principle of “befriending the far and attacking the near”. Since the 1980’s the Dalai Lama – the old CIA protege – was reactivated and encouraged to tour world capitals in support of a Tibet cause, as the 1914 border accord had been signed with a de facto Tibetan state that had never been recognised internationally and disappeared after a few years.

The Indian public is continuously bombarded with news about so-called Chinese violations of Indian borders and of a Chinese military build-up of the border zones. In fact, as the same Taylor Fravel of MIT points out, China has successfully concluded permanent border agreements with all its neighbours except India and Bhutan. Its upgrade of military facilities does not target India in particular, as it encompasses the full length of China’s borders.

The anti-Chinese rhetoric has recently culminated with an article published by Baharat Verma, editor of the Indian Defense Review, in which he predicted that by 2012 China will attack India over the disputed territories. The scare tactics might, however, have been employed by the defence establishment in order to obtain the funds needed to renew its antiquated equipment. Thus, on October 7, 2010, India has signed a pre-contract agreement with Russia for the supply of between 250 and 300 latest generation Sukhoi fighter jets at an estimated cost of some 30 billion dollars, or 100 million USD per jet. Some fighter jets were already dispatched close to Arunchal Pradesh and 100,000 mountain troops were also sent to the area.

Meanwhile, Indian military officials and foreign policy pundits are claiming that China has replaced Pakistan as India’s biggest threat. Tensions, however, are mitigated by the fact that bilateral trade between the two countries is booming. If in 1990 this was worth 270 million dollars, the figure has reached around 60 billion dollars in 2009-2010. Clearly, India’s politicians and business establishment have a strong vested interest in normalising relations with China, whose economy is 4 times larger than India’s and is growing at a faster pace.

The Obama administration has fortunately abandoned the Bush administration’s reliance on India as a centerpiece of the US’ geostrategic realignment in Asia. President Obama is on record for saying that China and not India is the US’ main partner in Asia, provided the country abides by its self-imposed “peaceful rise” strategy.

India and China, however, still have the largest unsolved border issue in the world, with the potential to degenerate into full-fledged war at any time. If one takes into account the fact that the two countries are the largest and most populous in Asia and that they are both economically strong and nuclearly armed, one could more easily realise why the resolution of the issue cannot be delayed much longer without enormous risks for peace in Asia. (sources: Hindustan Times, Pakistan Daily, Arunchal News, People’s Daily, WSJ, Newsweek, The Australian, Washington Times, Japan Times)

Beijing's Olive Branch Offer

 March 6, 2009

Even as Western economists disagree as to the depth and duration of the current economic crisis, one thing is certain : it fosters closer economic cooperation between China and its Asian neighbours. The crisis might also generate unexpected peace dividends for the region.

Speaking before the National People’s Congress yesterday, the Chinese premier claimed his country was ready “to hold talks on cross-strait political and military issues and create conditions for ending the state of hostility and the conclusion of a peace agreement between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.” (source: China Post) In a bid to placate Taiwanese critics, premier Wen also hinted that China would consider ways of allowing Taiwan to participate in the activities of international organisations.

The Chinese premier was even more generous with the economic aid package. He promised financial assistance for Taiwanese businesses operating on the mainland and an acceleration of efforts to normalise cross-strait economic relations, culminating with the signing of a comprehensive trade agreement. To be sure, this was welcome news for the Taipei stock exchange, which was up 2.11 per cent following the announcement, whilst the New Taiwan dollar exchange rate rose by 12 cents. This contrasted sharply with the Dow Jones’s 4.1 per cent drop the same day, following news about the troubles affecting US icons General Motors and Citicorp.(source: WSJ)

The fresh peace overtures from Beijing come as the Chinese budget mandates another 15 per cent increase in defence spending for 2009. For Western military analysts, the rise is disquieting. Rightly or wrongly, most intelligence officials see it as leading to a heightening of military tensions in Asia-Pacific. Some also claim that the ultimate aim of increased spending is Asian hegemonism, a charge that Chinese officials reject. The latter cite US sales of sophisticated weapons to Taiwan as justification for the continued rise in the military budget.

Less hawkish analysts, however, consider that the reasons behind the repeated rises in China’s defence budget are Chinese paranoia about NATO’s presence in Afghanistan and its army’s need to modernise antiquated weapons systems.

Ultimately, it may just be that Beijing’s recent peace initiative is simply good old-fashioned Chinese pragmatism at work. As the crisis starts to bite, establishing closer economic ties with Taiwan could prove much more fruitful than continuing with the military or diplomatic confrontations of yesteryear. Time will tell.