Connect with us

East Asia

Quadrilateral Bloc: Threatening China’s Regional Dominance

Published

on

Undoubtedly, ‘Co. Gang States’ Australia, India, Japan and the United States of America are trying to buffer the rising power of China. This could be a good scheme for those who engaged in this struggle but their circumstances seem to be more in danger than in favor for each of them.

Debate should be initiated witha briefpreface about the group of four harmonious democracies who met in Manila on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and East Asia Summits on 12th November to discuss regional and global cooperation.

The meeting was the first since the “Quadrilateral Security Dialogue” was first mooted by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2007.Wary of their relations with China, India and Australia hesitated to take part initially.

Recently the Quad meeting again made China circumspect with regards to its strategic security. Chinese foreign ministry warned against countries politicizing cooperation in the region. So that, on 13th November in response of recent meeting of four countries’ officials, US, Australia, Japan and India, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said that ‘The regional cooperation should neither be politicized nor exclusionary’.

Actually thismeet-up highlighted the deep suspicion and turbulence among China’s neighbors over Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitions for regional dominance. It also clearly underscored growing regional competition between Beijing and Washington.

The meeting comes with the United States’emphasisto shift the strategic focus,while Donald Trump using the term ‘Indo-Pacific’ in order to categorize the region during his first trip to Asia. It could be assertively said that this term indicates United States’ diplomatic approach towards security commitment of Asia’s border region.

In their meeting, on the eve of the leaders’ summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the four countries agreed to extend the cooperation towards a “free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific Region”. The meeting, known as the “Quad”, did not release a joint statement and the US officials have denied the move as if it were not aimed at containing China. However, Beijing warned last week that any maneuvers towards a security grouping should not target or damage a “third party’s interest”.

It leads toward a thought provoking question: Is ‘Indo-Pacific’ containment ploy or a new label for region beyond China’s backyard?

In Donald Trump’s meeting with Indian Prime Minister NarendraModi on the sidelines of ASEAN, he not only discussed regional security but also pledged to boost bilateral trade and security ties.

According to the newspaper ‘The Hindu’, Modi told Trump that the Indo-US ties were becoming broader and deeper. “You too can feel that India-US ties can work together beyond the interest of India, for the future of Asia and for the welfare of the humanity in the world,” the Indian Prime Minister was quoted as making this statement. In a separate meeting with ASEAN leaders, Trump called for closer ties with Southeast Asia and urged ASEANleaders not to become “satellites” to anyone,referringto a veiled caution against China’s growing clout in the region.

“We want our partners in the region to be strong, independent, and prosperous, in control of their own destinies, and satellites to no one,” Trump said.

Bydrawing the logical implications, the Quad meeting was not a coincidence or serendipity. Trump appeared keen to promote his Indo-Pacific concept as the keystone of his Asian strategy and worked hard to strengthen ties with its allies and partners, including India and Vietnam to counter-balance China.Jinan University’s Southeast Asian affairs specialist Zhang Mingliang also claimed that“The Quad was largely an expected response from the four countries to Beijing’s growing military and economic influence”.

Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS (School of Oriental & African Studies) China Institute in London, also said: “India, Australia and Japan each had their reasons for wanting the Quad to mean something, especially considering the declining power of the US under Trump.” Moreover,For all the silliness of Trump, China’s neighbors remain wary of China’s increasing might and intentions,especially as Xi Jinpingtried to restate China’s “historical” place or dominance in the region”, he claimed.

Anyhow, by calculating the aftermath of ‘Quad-Nexus’, it can be postulated that the Quad will drive Russia and China closer together.  While Russian President Vladimir Putin will see the Quad as another example of the US attempting to maintain its unipolar world dominance and will feel for China, Moscow is wary of the growing power of China and the Central Asian tentacles of its “Belt and Road Initiative”, Beijing’s plan to grow global trade.

For the United States of America, there are two aims to be fulfilled in this way. One, other states in Quad bloc will be seen as welcome supporters to maintain its constant dominance over the seas. Two, satisfy its own point to provoke an eventual conflict to satisfy its own sense of importance.

What are the fruits for Australia? Not much. About 30 percent of Australian exports go to China, with Japan and South Korea accounting for only 20 percent. China wants to dominate the South China Sea so that it can keep importing from resource-rich countries such as Australia. One other factor is also there, Canberra’s participation in the Quad would encourage India to take part.

India aims to be a main player in Central Asian affairs and seems to counter the belt and road strategy. This Central Asian ambition is largely impractical and unnecessary as any Central Asian resource can be accessed elsewhere. Importantly, the only way for India to gain such access is via Iran, particularly through the Chabahar port. Participation in the Quad would mean that India is spreading itself too thin, and needlessly provoking China by influencing its vital maritime security interests in a similar way as it is attempting to do in Central Asia. It would be deliberately damaging for both India and Australia. To sum-up, it can be argued that the outcome of like-minded ‘Quad-Union’ may reshape the regional geopolitical landscape in the long run. However if this nexus seeks to stop China from gaining power, then it will be just their futile attempt.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

China and Hong Kong

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The real crucial event in China’s current policy, not only for Hong Kong, was the document on “State Security in the Hong Kong Territory”, voted in the recent National People’s Congress at the end of May.

 The document drafted by the National People’s Congress regards above all the Chinese national security and hence the internal security of the Fragrant Harbour, as well as the direct control of the strategic and public security situation of the anti-Chinese political opposition in Hong Kong, and, in particular, the reform of Article 23 of the Basic Law which governs the former British colony.

It should be recalled that two Opium Wars started from there only against mainland China. The opium was cultivated by the British East India Company in its territories in Bengal.

From 1839 to 1842 and from 1856 to 1860, as many as two trade and military conflicts allowed the actual British monopoly of the British and Indian opium throughout the Chinese territory.

Let us revert, however, to Article 23 of the Basic Law, which formally prohibits any act of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the State of the People’s Republic of China, as well as the theft of State secrets.

Therefore, the Chinese government now acts autonomously, in the territory of Hong Kong, for the defence of its interests. This also paves the way for a wide geopolitical transformation, in some ways more “radical” than the one which Deng Xiaoping carried out in 1978 with the Four Modernizations. It should be recalled that they ended with the most important Modernization for China, namely the military one.

The first attempt to adopt national security legislation in Hong Kong was made as early as 2003, when at least half a million people demonstrated against said legislation – very similar to the present one – proposed and established by China. Later there were several other security bills and, again, other large mass demonstrations.

 Until the demonstrations of April 2019 against the Chinese bill to stop the extradition of PRC’s citizens to the Fragrant Harbour.

At the time demonstrators shouted “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”.

Certainly China has often stated it sees Hong Kong’ security severely affected by the operations of various and unspecified “powers”, which (undoubtedly) use Hong Kong to penetrate China and later possibly carry out separatist operations (Uyghurs, Tibetans and other riotous and unruly minorities),as well as infiltrations – sometimes military ones – and finally what China calls “harmful operations”.

 Certainly these “harmful” operations also include those by Europe and the United States, which already repeatedly urge many “partners” and companies of the Global Value Chains (GVC) already present in China to move to the small territory of the Fragrant Harbour. This is also an objective cause of the improbable request for an “independent” investigation on the causes of the outbreak and spreading of the Covid-19 pandemic from the Chinese laboratories of Wuhan, Hebei.

A real attack on global economic development, and on China’s economic security, right now that China is quickly transforming its production formula.

China wants to thwart such a move by bringing many production chains directly back into its territory, and by increasing the Chinese strategic (and hence financial and economic) pressure on the U.S. traditional allies in South-East Asia and the Pacific.

 Not necessarily the Southern Pacific only.

However, we will come back also to this point. As can be easily guessed, for China this is a strong point for the direct control of the Fragrant Harbour’s territory.

 However, a historical and ancient condition is no longer in place, i.e. the separation of Hong Kong’s legislation from Great Britain’s and currently China’s.

Obviously the Chinese decision is also a clear heave-ho given to Governor Carrie Lam and to the entire government in Hong Kong, by-passed in a few hours by the very clear Chinese diktat.

China has probably calculated the pros and cons of this move very well.

The cons, which are not insurmountable, include the reduced importance attached to Hong Kong as the only financial and industrial hub in the Chinese territory, which is also fully Westernized and globalized. This also greatly serves the PRC’s direct interests.

 The U.S. interests in the Fragrant Harbour will no longer be safe and this is not a negligible issue: 1,300 medium-large North American companies and 82.5 trillion U.S. dollars in direct investment.

Not to mention the dozens of NGOs that support democratization in Hong Kong against China and the many large global media headquarters in Hong Kong, as well the several operations of infiltration, intoxication and information manipulation (including some financial and industrial ones) that the West has carried out against the People’s Republic of China, starting from the Fragrant Harbour.

 From now on, for the whole West, Hong Kong’s gateway will be closed with seven seals.

Certainly, when the People’s Republic of China feels threatened, it always sacrifices the economy to global strategy.

Certainly Hong Kong has always been China’s financial lifeline, especially in difficult times.

Currently, however, Hong Kong is an irreplaceable global financial hub in Asia. Nevertheless, I imagine that China will soon want to use other less dangerous and, above all, less close channels to connect to global finance.

 Moreover, for the first time since 1992 – and, probably since 1978, the year of the Four Modernizations, if we analyse older time series – the Chinese economy is slowing down considerably due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, although with less severe damage than in the United States and in some E.U. countries.

The PRC’s first objective was to resume economic and industrial activities in full swing, while the second one was to make the Fragrant Harbour safe.

 But, once again, there is a pro versus a con: while Hong Kong and, for other respects, Macao and Singapore, have been the destination areas of huge amounts of capital resulting from the corruption and embezzlement of many Chinese elites, Hong Kong’s closure will probably also mark the end of the great hunt that President Xi Jinping and his power group have focused on corruption within the Party and Beijing State.

The old strategy of “Power putting down roots”, as recommended in The Prince by Machiavelli.

Hence President Xi Jinping wants to directly control the Fragrant Harbour, the original site of China’s forced Westernization, from the beginning of the “century of humiliation” (precisely with the first Opium War) to its end, with the PRC’s declaration of independence by Mao Zedong – “the Chinese people have stood up!” -at the Gate of Heavenly Peace Square, in 1949.

The countries that are bound to win in the world arena are those with long and very long memories, while the post-modern and childish forgetful ones are always bound to lose.

Obviously – as was also seen in the very recent National People’s Congress in Beijing – Hong Kong is also a powerful sign for regaining Taiwan politically and economically.

Recently, China has announced a 6.6% increase in the Defence budget from 1.72 trillion yuan (187 billion U.S. dollars) and Li Kekiang, Beijing’s Premier, has made it clear that “China resolutely opposes and will deter any separatist activity seeking Taiwan’s independence”.

 Normally, the Chinese authorities speak of “peaceful reunification”, but this time Li Kekiang omitted the adjective. It was not a distraction.

 In Mao Zedong’s time, the always synthetic and enlightening formula of the Chinese leadership was available for Hong Kong: “long-term planning, full use”. Later the “one country, two systems” formula initially developed by Deng Xiaoping was used, later reaffirmed by the various leaders and so far supported by President Xi Jinping himself.

This Chinese choice on the Hong Kong Security Law, therefore, means only one thing: the end of the old Cold War between the West and the PRC, and hence the beginning of a new phase between China and the United States, which will be “hot” or “cold” depending on the circumstances. Therefore, China has no need in the future – not even financially – to have Hong Kong as a buffer zone with a relatively peaceful, but always radically adverse West.

 Both the USSR and Mao Zedong’s China have always regarded the “Cold War” as an unstable phase in which victory is decided by the amount of arsenals, their doctrine of use and the political will to use them as instruments of credible pressure.

Certainly, Mao knew all too well – and it was one of his most enlightening strategic insights – that the “Cold War” was a paper tiger and those who believed in it could only consume themselves, politically and economically, against the United States and its allies – something that punctually happened with the USSR, which collapsed because it had not renounced in time to a clash impossible to win and which, at most, would give it the “great European plain”, as Hegel and Raymond Aron called it.

Hence China quickly closed its accounts with the Fragrant Harbour, pending the closing of the subsequent operations also with Taiwan and all the other controversial areas, from the Philippines to the South China Sea, from South-East Asia to Malaysia and the Indian Ocean.

The old map – born with Kuomintang, but which was also very popular among Chinese Communist leaders in the 1950s, in which the new Chinese territorial waters beyond the Philippines’ line and throughout the Eastern Pacific could be seen -has not been forgotten at all.

 The United States has obviously “condemned” the Chinese decision, while Great Britain, Australia and Canada have signed a common document expressing “deep dismay” at China’s decision.

Furthermore, the United States already has the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Actof 2019 available – pending the great demonstrations which characterized that year and are currently collectively called the Water Revolution.

 Therefore, by virtue of that Act, the United States could remove the preferential trade status of Hong Kong, possibly with the extension to Hong Kong of the tariff and trade sanctions already in place against China. It should be recalled that these restrictions are worth67 billion U.S. dollars per year.

Hence China’s goals for its actual regaining of the Fragrant Harbour are manifold and complex. Firstly, there is the closure of the financial closed circuit between China and Hong Kong, to be put into effect with the minimum international reaction. Secondly, there is also China’s need to rebuild the central and decisive position of the Chinese economy in the Global Value Chains – a position which, even before the “taking” of Hong Kong, had diminished in importance, but which would currently be fatal, especially if it arrived as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Obviously China also regards Hong Kong as a strategic, unavoidable and essential location for controlling the South China Sea militarily. The Chinese always reason with what De Gaulle called the “two caps”, i.e. the civilian and the military one, which must always be kept together.

 Certainly, the peaceful regaining of Hong Kong is also a breaking point of the current U.S. geopolitics in the region: from the Far East probably to the Middle East, the United States has always thought of a long strategic-military continuity that would encircle Russia and close China in its hardly controllable terrestrial mainland.

Hence China’s full control of regional seas will no longer enable the Russian Federation to depart from the project hegemonised by China, the New Silk Road, while the “small silk road” already planned by Russia, mainly with Japanese but also U.S. capital, will be either integrated into the Chinese one or destroyed.

Finally, as already mentioned, China wants to speed up the process to separate Taiwan from the Japanese and North-American military “umbrella” protecting it.

Here we need to carefully examine the relationship between “Xi Jinping’s policy line” and the 1998 theory of unrestricted warfare.

China, which is aware of not yet being clearly superior in terms of “conventional” or traditional warfare, even if technologically advanced, must absolutely win its total war, its new unrestricted warfare.

Hence another reversal of the Cold War theorem: while, during the whole conventional phase of the Cold War, China depended on Russia for military technology, currently it is Russia that depends on China for orders and financing-purchases – although with its own often excellent and innovative war technology.

Hence if China, which has also acquired – both legally and in other ways – excellent Western, and not only post-Soviet military technology, wants to wage war – even regionally and indirectly –  against the United States, it must necessarily do so in time, before the United States rising up to China’s technological-doctrinal challenge, with the weapons it would like to have and has not yet, instead of those it already has.

Furthermore a war game conducted by the RAND Corporation in early March 2020, demonstrated that, in an armed conflict, the United States would lose both against China and the Russian Federation, obviously considered separately.

As also the U.S. analysts maintain, on the neo-technological – and hence also doctrinal level – the United States lags behind China with regard to strategic and missile precision weapons, hypersonic systems and guidance systems for all theatre ballistic weapons. While the United States is still superior in tactical weapons and in conventional medium-high technology weapons.

 The United States, too, has suffered the conceptual impasse of the “Cold War”.

Also the F35 missile could be an excellent weapon for air supremacy, but – as a U.S. analyst said – it could be bombed to the ground by China or Russia.

 Other always accurate and updated war games, conducted by U.S. analysts, show that the United States would be clearly defeated even in the South Pacific, or by Russia in the Baltic, but certainly China would win in a regional clash to take Taiwan, while both Russia and China are working on the new anti-access/denial area weapons (A2A) quite successfully.

 Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping has shifted his strategic interest from the ground forces of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the PLA’s Navy and then to the Air Force, but especially to the Strategic Missile Force and the more recent Strategic Support Force.

Today there is still a window of opportunity, which will last until the end of 2020, so that China can neutralize the U.S. fleet more than a hundred nautical miles from its coast and from the coast of Hong Kong, Macao and Singapore, as well as neutralize the U.S. missile systems both in Guam and Japan and in the small islands of the South Pacific.

Here is the strategic pendant of China’s choice on Hong Kong’s internal security.

Taiwan could also be the operation that makes the war escalate up to its nuclear level, but it is not said that the Chinese supremacy, still viable in a clash with the United States, decides to get to that point, although, probably, it will strike first and, hence, harder. But it will try to stop operations before the U.S. decision to go for the nuclear blow.

 Nor should we forget the regional war that China waged with India precisely in May 2020, in the area of Lake Pangong Tso and the Galwan Valley, with a quick peace negotiation for controlling Ladakh, a border area still disputed by China, as well as an always very fast operation of the Chinese Forces in the north of Sikkim, again at the beginning of May 2020.

We do not know yet whether all future Chinese operations will be lightning ones.

Hence we need to place the Hong Kong issue within this line of thinking.

Continue Reading

East Asia

A comparative analysis of the socialist and the capitalist approach towards COVD-19: China and the U.S.

Gumbu Yeukai Lorreta

Published

on

“Our greatest strength lies in our socialist system, which enables us to pool resources in a major mission. This is the key to our success.” -President Xi Jinping

The COVD-19 pandemic was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. The COVD-19 cases drastically dropped in China as a result of robust measures; however, the diseases rapidly spread across the globe. The results of the study revealed that although China indicated early warning of COVID-19 many countries were caught unaware. These include the UK, Italy, Spain, the US, and the majority of African countries. Most countries delayed detecting the COVD-19 virus and this their ability to respond efficiently and effectively. However, some of the lessons learned from the COVD-19 pandemic might contribute to better preparedness in the future. The study recommends that the US should prioritize the right to life before profit. This commentary shall make a comparative analysis of the socialist and capitalist approaches towards COVID-19

The World health organization declared the COVD-19 a global pandemic in March 2020. Currently, the COVID-19 has topped 6, 056, 021 deaths neared, 367,305 and 2,681,569 recovered The US recorded approximately 104,548deaths and China 4,634 deaths (Wordometer May 30, 2020).China had controlled the COVD-19 epidemic by early March. However, Europe and America became the new epicenter of the pandemic. The COVD-19epidemic exposed the gap in the capitalist nations’ commitment to fighting large scale infectious outbreaks. These include lack of effective strategies, play-back approach, underestimation, and uncoordinated health system. Major outbreak has been recorded in the US, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Germany. As such, most countries adapted lock-downs, curfews, social distancing, travel restrictions, and canceled public gatherings. However, intervention measures were inefficient in the absence of a coordinated health care and strong support system. Many socialist states were able to flatten the COVD-19 curve in their countries due to ideology and commitment. For instance, China, Vietnam, and Cuba. Socialism maintains the principle of right to life before profit. Further, it entails the provision of the best health-care, decent shelter for the homeless, safe water, education, and life for all. Nevertheless, the capitalist upholds profit before the right of life.

History teaches us that many countries implemented social distancing amid of the 1918 Spanish Flu. Nearly 675 000 people died in the US and millions around the world (Lopez, 2020). Further, the 2009 A (HINI) pandemic also led to the cancellation of public gatherings such as universities and schools. As a result, the transmission rate reduced by 30% (Kelly, 2020). However, the rate of infection increased when normalcy was resumed. Moreover, Americans failed to respect experts control measures such as social distancing leading to increased rates of infections and the death of thousands of people.

President Trump has blamed China for deliberately provoking a disease that caused widespread suffering. However, despite China’s efforts, western anti-communist attitudes make it difficult to acknowledge China’s successful and intensive efforts. President Donald Trump ushered anti-Chinese sentiments and referred COVD-19 as the China virus rather than drawing lessons from China’s successful containment of the pandemic. However, scholars have blamed President Trump for spreading some political lies. So far the virus is unknown, might have occurred naturally or bats can be the host of the virus ( Kindrachuk, 2020).

Noteworthy, China gave advance notice of the impending crisis of the COVID – 19 to the world several weeks before it spread to other countries. Chinese Centre for Disease Control was committed to international cooperation and immediately published the entire COVD-19 genome virus after being identified. However, most countries responded lately to the pandemic. Despite possessing vast resources, developed countries failed to upgrade the health care delivery system. For instance, increasing human and physical resources such as protective clothing, ventilators, and test kits. Public health responses were intensified by the end of February and early March 2020. These included tracing detention, quarantining of people returning from highly infected regions, physical distancing, and shift-work. However, cases had already multiplied. The US was unsuccessful in taking necessary precaution measures in time.

Moreover, unrecognized cases contributed to the acceleration of the COVD-19 epidemic in many capitalist states. For instance, in the US COVD-19 cases were difficult to identify because the pandemic started during the influenza season. Furthermore, large gatherings, travel-associated importations, pre-symptomatic spread, densely populated areas such as New York and Texas led to the rapid spread. High-risk workplaces such as the meat market further exposed workers.

China responded aggressively in the absence of a vaccine and adapted rigorous testing, social distancing, contact tracing, isolation of patients, and closure of Hubei Province. This was one of the greatest efforts in history. China also adopted a non -negotiable top priority of meeting people’s needs. More than 30,000 health care providers were deployed to Wuhan from all over China and forty-five hospitals were designated for COVD-19 treatment. More so, other buildings and exhibition centers were converted to 12 temporary hospitals. Two new hospitals that had a carrying capacity of about 1,300 beds were constructed. However, the US downplayed and failed to place contingency plans after a handful of case such as testing facilities, and self -isolation of immune-compromised people like old and HIV positive. Later, a task force to fight the spread of the disease led by Vice President Mike Pence was formed.

The Chinese government announced free testing and treatment including the sophisticated and expensive techniques such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The latest developments in artificial intelligence were adapted such as the use of medical imaging and robots. Efforts were made to mitigate the effect of the crisis on people’s daily lives. The Communist Party of China (CPC) ensured that all people on medication received their prescriptions and every household was given food handouts. Furthermore, payment of wages continued provision of subsidies and credit card payment. Online shopping of food, was also encouraged in China and online education. The US issued home orders starting in April; however, people could go out to purchase medicine and food. Therefore, Americans were further exposed to the virus. Further, these restrictions were to expire end of April and American cities were to reopen for business. As such, the majority of the American cities announced re-opening for businesses as they are capitalist oriented. China eased the restrictions of the look down gradually city after city thereby flattening the cave of COVD-19 cases.

Artificial intelligence was widely deployed in China such as a prediction model-assisted authorities in Shenzhen and Chongqing. Outbreaks were predicted before they occurred and the accuracy rates were almost 90%. AI computing capabilities were provided for free by Alibaba Cloud to public research institutions and to support protein screenings and virus gene sequencing. China did set up temperature checking stations throughout the country. Every person was asked to have a health code application on his or her smartphone and the user could report symptoms. Therefore, health officials were enabled to check and trace the spread of the virus quickly. Nonetheless, in the US the Coronavirus Aid Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was signed into law on 27 March 2020. Stimulus payment was offered by the CARES Act to the US citizens. Furthermore, the US government encouraged telehealth services, employer-sponsored health plans to cover part of COVD-19 testing, and no co-pays. However, all these policies lacked proper coordination by the government leading to the rapid spread of the disease.

The main point of departure between the capitalist countries and socialist countries is the control of capital. Capitalist countries are under the control of capital, whilst socialist nations control of the capital. The economy is directed by the state. For instance, finance, energy, heavy industry, transport, communications, and foreign trade. The centralized system of China enabled it to mobilize resources easily.

China embarked on a program to assist other affected countries. For instance, it sent medical teams, tens of thousands of testing kits, ventilators, and millions of surgical masks. Countries that benefited includedItaly, Cambodia, Poland, Spain, France, Poland, and the Philippines. African countries such as Zimbabwe, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Algeria DRC among others also benefited. Likewise, the US also assisted the most at-risk countries including humanitarian assistance to 10 members of the Association of Southern Asian Nation(ASEAN). Further, the US provided funds to multilateral organizations such as World Health Organizations.

The COVD-19 epidemic does not respect the economic status of nations. Socialism has appeared superior to capitalism as far as protecting the fundamental human right of life. Wealthy countries are struggling to contain COVD-19 due to a lack of coordination in the health sector and delayed mitigation measures. The COVD-19 pandemic has exposed the ruthless nature of the western capitalism.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Sino-India clash: A crisscross of geo-politics and geo-economics

Published

on

Two economic powers of Asia are in a head to head collision over a border clash in the Ladakh sector. It is not the first time when these nuclear powers are in front of each other over the border dispute. In 1962 both of these nations engaged themselves in war over border of Aksai chin. Then in 1967 tensions raised because of Nathu La and Cho La military clashes at the Himalayan border. A similar event took place in the shape of a military standoff in 2017 at Doklam. Such events not only put the regional stability at stake but are also tremendously important for international peace and security. The question here is why the states that have mutual trade of US $100 billion are at daggers drawn? Does India have the capacity of facing a super power like China? The answer is “No”, China’s GDP is more than five times that of India, and it spends four times as much on defense, militarily China is much stronger than India. In such an obnoxious environment when the world is facing a huge crisis in the shape of Covid-19, such disputes depict a much deeper power struggle-where the actors behind the scenes are more than two. Such events in International relations show a crisscross of geo-politics and geo-economics.

Abrogation of article 370 and 35A was not a normal phenomenon in world politics. It could not have been made possible without the support of super power like US. The massive rise of China in South Asia and its efforts to become a world power through its strategies like OBOR and CPEC is clearly not acceptable for US. US at any cost want to maintain its hegemony and as usual it has to use a foreign actor to pursue its interests-Hilary Clinton once said that; power of US lie not within but outside its territory. The strong ties and staunch mutual co-operation between US and India show that Indians In their actions are backed by US. Economies of US and Europe depend on the decline of China. Chinese on the other hand are getting more stronger due to their overwhelming economic co-operation with the developing countries. The only way left for US to counter China is to inflict a crisis situation in the Asian region which could have a direct effect on Chinese economy.

The recent episode of Ladakh clash seems an attempt to jeopardize the deterrence stability of South Asia. US along with its western allies are trying to stop the rise of China in the region. According to an IMF report, estimated growth rate of China for 2021 is 9.9% as compared to it US is estimated to have a growth rate of 4.9%. It clearly shows a sharp decline of US. They are now trying to mess things up using India. They also have a strong hold at South China Sea, which they would use to stumble Chinese trade. Indians are fully aware of the potential which Chinese posses in case of an armed conflict. They are also acquainted with the massive economic co-operation with the Chinese. But they are also anxious about China’s threat to its territorial integrity and its hegemonic design. They also have resentments with progress of Pakistan through projects like CPEC. This show down has its strings in the hands of US which intends to empower emerging India and weaken rising China. US with this strategy is killing two birds with one stone, on one hand they are trying to stimulate an economic imbalance for China and at the same time they are trying to divert Indian market towards US, like they did in case of S-400 deal between India and Russia.

Chinese follow the policy of minimum violence but they have all the might to give a sturdy response in case of any aggression against them. They have surpassed US on many grounds and they see themselves as super power of the world till 2030. India should realize the malicious intentions of US. Ex-President of America George Bush once said that; we are not complacent enough to counter “Indian and Chinese” economy. William Clay said; “This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests”. India should realize that a stable South Asia is in its favor. US have always used a state to pursue its interests and once they achieve their goal they never turn back for any support. Instability and failure of deterrence in the east has always proved to be beneficial for the west. Americans have always used the power of “$” to drive policies of South Asian states which in longer run proved damaging for Asians themselves. A peaceful solution of the Sino-Indian border tension with an immediate effect is necessary in the current circumstances; otherwise the results could be lethal.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending