China’s Choice: India or Pakistan?

Which South Asian country is more important for China’s future? Many in South Asia may think Pakistan but that may not be a reality, at least now.

Posted on 10/5/14
By Mu Chunshan | Via The Diplomat
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shaking hands with the Chinese President Xi Jinping at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on September 18, 2014. (Photo from videostream)
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shaking hands with the Chinese President Xi Jinping at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on September 18, 2014. (Photo from videostream)

Among China’s relations with Asian neighbors, its ties with the countries in South Asia are generally considered to be the weakest. Now, with Sino-Japan tensions over the East China Sea and conflict with many Southeast Asian countries over the South China Sea, the role of South Asian countries has become more prominent. South Asia is now a focus in China’s regional strategy, as shown by President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to the area.

 

When it comes to South Asia, people think of India and Pakistan first. China has an “all weather friendship” with Pakistan but an ambivalent, often testy relationship with India. But the future is sometimes different from both the past and the present. Moving forward,  which country is more important for China? Even without a clear answer, just puzzling through this question can help make many issues clear.

 

In fact, we only to need to answer two questions to know whether India or Pakistan is more important for China. First, which one is a major power? Second, which one can better help China realize its interests?

 

Which is the major power, India or Pakistan? The answer is relatively simple — India. When it comes to international influence, India is part of BRICS and the G20 and is a leader of the developing world through the G77 and the Non-Aligned Movement. India is well poised to become a major power in the world arena.

 

The answer is even more obvious from the economic perspective. According to the World Bank, India’s GDP in 2013 was roughly $1.9 trillion. By contrast, Pakistan’s GDP was only $236 billion, only about 12 percent of India’s. In 2013, India was the 10th largest economy in the world in terms of GDP.

 

India’s economy is just beginning to boom; its growth rate in 2013 was 4.5 percent. Experts believe that India today is like China in the mid-1980s, poised for rapid economic growth. Despite many difficulties, there is no reason for India’s economic growth to come to a halt. By contrast, Pakistan has not enjoyed the same type of economic growth in the past decade. Of course, at 1.2 billion, India’s population is far greater than Pakistan’s, but even when looking at per capita GDP India outranks Pakistan. The gap between two countries will probably widen in the future, placing Pakistan at even more of a disadvantage when compared with India.

 

Of course, it’s worth asking the obvious question: as India becomes a major power in the international stage, will it necessarily be friendly toward China? Indeed, not all major countries look kindly on China — just look at Japan. However, Sino-Indian international cooperation far outweighs the disputes between two counties. This is the point where they can carry out friendly cooperation. China’s top leaders understand this clearly.

 

Though the Sino-Indian border problem has to be addressed, it is fundamentally different from the Sino-Japan conflict over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. The problem has not become a precondition and impediment for bilateral development; it is instead viewed as one of many issues that are part of a normal bilateral relationship between two countries. Looked at another way, existing issues in the Sino-Indian relationship have not impeded China’s important strategic initiative of “marching West.” Meanwhile, the China-Japan disputes have seriously impacted China’s strategy for oceanic development.

 

Since these two countries kicked off negotiations on border issue in 1981, China and India have established coordination and communication mechanisms on a variety of fronts, including official meetings at the deputy-minister level, task-force meetings, meetings of diplomatic and military experts, special delegate meetings, and the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs. It’s safe to say that these mechanisms rule out the possibility of war over the border issue, even though so-called sensitive incidents are often hyped by the media in both countries. By contrast, there are no such mature communication mechanisms for China and Japan in their dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

 

Given that India is a major power and that the Sino-India border issue has not scuttled bilateral relations, China has good reason to develop diplomatic ties with India. As top Chinese leaders are devoting much effort to establishing a presence in the South Asia, this trend will continue and intensify in the future. Beijing also hopes that India can become a partner to support China’s interests when it comes to international issues. For China, the potential rewards of such a strategy are huge.

 

For a country often seen as “isolated,” as China is, it’s extremely important to have a friend that shares the same stance on international issues. To play such a role, this partner should be economically strong with some clout in international politics. Besides Russia, India is the natural choice to play this role in China’s foreign policy. Hence, the answer to my second question becomes evident – a Sino-Indian partnership can help China achieve its national interests more quickly and easily.

 

Chinese leaders are aware of this. After taking office, China’s Premier Li Keqiang paid a visit to India as part of his first trip abroad. Li also proposed establishing the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor, a sign of how valuable India is to China. Undoubtedly, India was the most important destination during President Xi’s visit to the South Asia. It is quite rare for both top Chinese leaders to visit the same country so soon after taking office; this was China’s way of endorsing Sino-Indian friendship.

 

China and India already have similar positions on a number of issues, including their stances toward Syria, Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, and the need to protect the interests of developing countries. Together with Russia, these three countries have formed a kind of “quasi-alliance” relationship. These three countries already work together in the BRICS organization; now India is getting ready to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These are the foundations for China and India to work together as major world powers.

 

Unlike India, Pakistan cannot become a top-level strategic partner of China in international affairs due to its limited capabilities in the world arena. Pakistan is not a major country in a global sense, although it plays an important role in regional affairs. Despite this, for a long time, China has tried to contain India diplomatically by intensifying bilateral relations with Pakistan. This formed the foundation for China to form a “strategic alliance” with Pakistan in the 1970s. As China seeks more cooperation with India, this rationale for the China-Pakistan friendship becomes less important.

 

Click here to read the complete article at The Diplomat.

Mu Chunshan is a Beijing-based journalist. Previously, Mu was part of an Education Ministry-backed research project investigating the influence of foreign media in shaping China’s image. He has previously reported from the Middle East, Africa, Russia and from around Asia.

Check Also

Book Review: The Tribal Pakhtun as ‘Fixer’

Going by the warlike history of the region, journalism and the fixer within it become “short term slavery” in the service of relentless imperialist forces that have long kept the region unstable.

US Policy of ‘Pragmatic Engagement’ Risks Legitimatizing Taliban Rule

The Biden administration has a choice: Try to keep the Doha deal alive by pressuring the Taliban into intra-Afghan talks, or accept that the deal is now dead. Either way, “pragmatic engagement” with the Taliban has shown itself to be wanting.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.