The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) which geographically borders India’s disputed boundaries with China and Pakistan has been in the limelight due to its religious and ethnically divisive policies carried out by the Chinese government against the domiciled Uyghur Muslims. Significantly, secessionist tendencies in XUAR and the Indian administered Kashmir since the end of the Cold War have created hiccups in their respective nation building process. Hence, against the backdrop of USA’s Islamophobia since 9/11, China and India both have sought to embolden their national policies in rooting out Islamist terrorism, separatism and extremism. However, the existent mutual suspicion in their bilateral relationship has inadvertently made XUAR a geographical and strategic barrier for India.
India and China have long coveted their traditional global images post independence from their colonial masters. However, as terrorism seeks to foil their plans, China’s distorted view of terrorism has proved malignant to India’s national security interests. China’s anxieties pertaining to XUAR is linked to separatism and foreign influence. Hence, to insure China’s security concerns in Xinjiang, relations with Pakistan, Afghanistan and their respective terror groups like JeM and Taliban have been reinforced raising India’s security concerns. Also, the Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) promotion of Chinese labour emigration into its recipient countries usurps the economic opportunities available to the local populace risking the creation of terror outfits namely in Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan given their domestic resentment against China’s counterterrorism policies in XUAR. This resentment may ensue plausible spill over into the Indian administered Kashmir creating strategic risks for India’s national security. However, India’s security concerns remains to be reciprocated by China given the latter’s all-weather friendship with Pakistan indicative in its prolonged resistance to support India’s bid to blacklist Masood Azhar. Hence, India’s membership to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2017 remains instrumental as India’s security concerns synchronise with SCO’s foundational interests in containing and combatting terrorism, separatism and extremism. However, India’s lacklustre relations with China, Russia and Pakistan in the SCO have emboldened its strategic partnership with the USA enabling India to allay regional security concerns by engaging in Afghanistan’s nation-building process while concurrently cooperating in the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) of the SCO.
Access to Central Asia:
China’s opportunism in using XUAR as a major connector in the Silk Road Economic Belt has accentuated China’s policies in India’s extended Western neighbourhood viz. Central Asia. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) running through Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a source of economic and security relief to Pakistan which has been sought to be extended to Afghanistan. The loss of Aksai Chin during the1962 Sino-India war, cession of Shaksgam Valley to China by Pakistan in 1963 and the recent territorial ambitions of China in India’s Galwan valley highlights China’s trepidation in maintaining its territorial integrity by enmeshing its volatile provinces of Xinjiang and Tibet (Xīzàng) within its economic and strategic fold. As a result, India’s options in geographically connecting with the landlocked Central Asian region has dwindled given the Chabahar port interlinkage project remaining in limbo amid growing relations between China and Iran coupled with the unexpected integration of Gilgit Baltistan, a disputed territory between India and Pakistan into Pakistan. Notably, Russia’s activism in securing India’s membership to the SCO was aimed at tackling India’s geographical complexities while balancing China’s interests in Central Asia. However, India’s capacity building attempts in Central Asia in developing a web of complex interdependence in IT, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, etc. has been asymmetrical vis-à-vis its competitors. Hence, a plausible refurbishment of India’s Connect Central Asia policy is required as the Line of Credit to Central Asian countries, Ashgabat agreement, INSTC and EAEU commitments remains to bear fruit. Meanwhile, political will in rebooting the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) pipeline could rectify India’s foreign policy errors while ensuing energy diversification. However, the caveat lies in balancing India’s strategic interests with USA as well as with the permanent and observer members in the SCO that harbour anti-USA views.
India’s union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh harbours second and third generation Indian citizens whose ancestors where Uyghur refugees from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The first wave of immigration occurred during the trade and cultural exchanges along the erstwhile Silk Route while the second wave occurred during the Chinese clampdown on independence movements in the XUAR. India’s silence pertaining to Chinese policies in the XUAR rests against the backdrop of the Panchsheel principles while Turkey, an another abode for the Uyghur refugees although initially vocal about the treatment of its Uyghur brethren presently maintains occasional protests on the issue given its growing economic ties with China. Interestingly, there has been no convergence between Turkey and India pertaining to the Uyghur refugees; instead Turkey has bolstered critical statements on India’s policies in the Indian-administered Kashmir. As China’s security policies in XUAR have started emulating in the Indian-administered Kashmir by means of continued internet shutdown, changes in immigration and property laws, orchestrated visits of foreign dignitaries and the February 2020 riots in Delhi, Tablighi Jamaat outrage and frequent lynching incidents in the country; oppression of Muslim majority locations is a commonality visible in both countries. India’s amendment to its Citizenship law had raised Chinese fears of secessionist tendencies in the XUAR but India’s approach in stifling dissent against the amendment through internet shutdowns had been approved by China. This overarching sense of ethno-religious nationalism experienced in both XUAR and Indian-administered Kashmir is the result of China and India’s repressive policies underlining their skewed perception of threats to national security.
Notably, India and China’s attribution to the moral wounds of colonialism and principle of non-interference has not only been a boon in employing harsh policies to stimulate their perceived peaceful rise but also a bane in respect of pursuing policies to maintain their regional hegemony. India’s despotic polarization of Pakistan as regards terrorism and procrastination in settling the issue of Kashmir bilaterally has intensified hostile relations dimming the hopes for any joint collaborative projects in South Asia or Central Asia. Besides, long-standing hegemonic behaviour of India given its demographic, geographic and economic fundamentals overshadowing other South Asian economies, it has leveraged China in dominating the regional state of affairs through economic and strategic partnerships. The resulting growing ties between China and the BRI recipients in South Asia has ignited a cause of concern for India as the regional identity wanes from a India-led ‘South Asia’ to a ‘Greater South Asia’, a geo-economic concept aimed at diminishing India’s role in South Asia. Thus, India’s bold move in abrogating Article 370 from its Constitution in 2019 that provided special autonomy to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in India, changes in FDI laws pertaining to countries bordering India and the persistent military build-ups across its disputed boundaries with Pakistan and China have although reasserted India’s territorial sovereignty; it has shifted gears in Pakistan and China highlighting the geopolitical importance of India’s disputed territories to its hostile neighbours.
Importance of peace in Afghanistan is vital for China
There are multiple passages from Afghanistan to China, like Wakhan Corridor that is 92 km long, stretching to Xinjiang in China. It was formed in 1893 as a result of an agreement between the British Empire and Afghanistan. Another is Chalachigu valley that shares the border with Tajikistan to the north, Pakistan to the south, and Afghanistan to the west. It is referred to as the Chinese part of the Wakhan Corridor. However, the Chinese side of the valley is closed to the public and only local shepherds are allowed. Then there is Wakhjir Pass on the eastern side of the Wakhan corridor but is not accessible to the general public. The terrain is rough on the Afghan side. There are no roads along the Wakhjir Pass, most of the terrain is a dirt track. Like other passages, it can only be accessed via either animals or SUVs, and also due to extreme weather it is open for only seven months throughout the year. North Wakhjir Pass, also called Tegermansu Pass, is mountainous on the border of China and Afghanistan. It stretches from Tegermansu valley on the east and Chalachigu Valley in Xinjiang. All of these passages are extremely uncertain and rough which makes them too risky to be used for trade purposes. For example, the Chalagigu valley and Wakhjir Pass are an engineering nightmare to develop, let alone make them viable.
Similarly, the Pamir mountain range is also unstable and prone to landslides. Both of these routes also experience extreme weather conditions. Alternatives: Since most of the passages are risky for travel, alternatively, trade activities can be routed via Pakistan. For example, there is an access road at the North Wakhjir that connects to Karakoram Highway.
By expanding the road network from Taxkorgan in Xinjiang to Gilgit, using the Karakoram Highway is a probable option. Land routes in Pakistan are already being developed for better connectivity between Islamabad and Beijing as part of CPEC. These routes stretch from Gwadar up to the North.
The Motorway M-1, which runs from Islamabad to Peshawar can be used to link Afghanistan via Landi Kotal. Although the Karakoram highway also suffers from extreme weather and landslides, it is easier for engineers to handle as compared to those in Afghanistan.
China is the first door neighbor of Afghanistan having a common border. If anything happens in Afghanistan will have a direct impact on China. China has a declared policy of peaceful developments and has abandoned all disputes and adversaries for the time being and focused only on economic developments. For economic developments, social stability and security is a pre-requisite. So China emphasizes peace and stability in Afghanistan. It is China’s requirement that its border with Afghanistan should be secured, and restrict movements of any unwanted individuals or groups. China is compelled by any government in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of its borders in the region.
Taliban has ensured china that, its territory will not use against China and will never support any insurgency in China. Based on this confidence, China is cooperating with the Taliban in all possible manners. On the other hand, China is a responsible nation and obliged to extend humanitarian assistance to starving Afghans. While, the US is coercing and exerting pressures on the Taliban Government to collapse, by freezing their assets, and cutting all economic assistance, and lobbying with its Western allies, for exerting economic pressures on the Taliban, irrespective of human catastrophe in Afghanistan. China is generously assisting in saving human lives in Afghanistan. Whereas, the US is preferring politics over human lives in Afghanistan.
The US has destroyed Afghanistan during the last two decades, infrastructure was damaged completely, Agriculture was destroyed, Industry was destroyed, and the economy was a total disaster. While, China is assisting Afghanistan to rebuild its infrastructure, revive agriculture, industrialization is on its way. Chinese mega initiative, Belt and Road (BRI) is hope for Afghanistan.
A peaceful Afghanistan is a guarantee for peace and stability in China, especially in the bordering areas. The importance of Afghan peace is well conceived by China and practically, China is supporting peace and stability in Afghanistan. In fact, all the neighboring countries, and regional countries, are agreed upon by consensus that peace and stability in Afghanistan is a must and prerequisite for whole regions’ development and prosperity.
Shared Territorial Concern, Opposition to US Intervention Prompt Russia’s Support to China on Taiwan Question
The situation around the island of Taiwan is raising concerns not only in Chinese mainland, Taiwan island or in the US, but also in the whole world. Nobody would like to see a large-scale military clash between China and the US in the East Pacific. Potential repercussions of such a clash, even if it does not escalate to the nuclear level, might be catastrophic for the global economy and strategic stability, not to mention huge losses in blood and treasure for both sides in this conflict.
Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow continued to firmly support Beijing’s position on Taiwan as an integral part of China. Moreover, he also underlined that Moscow would support Beijing in its legitimate efforts to reunite the breakaway province with the rest of the country. A number of foreign media outlets paid particular attention not to what Lavrov actually said, but omitted his other remarks: the Russian official did not add that Moscow expects reunification to be peaceful and gradual in a way that is similar to China’s repossession of Hong Kong. Many observers of the new Taiwan Straits crisis unfolding concluded that Lavrov’s statement was a clear signal to all parties of the crisis: Russia would likely back even Beijing’s military takeover of the island.
Of course, diplomacy is an art of ambiguity. Lavrov clearly did not call for a military solution to the Taiwan problem. Still, his remarks were more blunt and more supportive of Beijing than the standard Russia’s rhetoric on the issue. Why? One possible explanation is that the Russian official simply wanted to sound nice to China as Russia’s major strategic partner. As they say, “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Another explanation is that Lavrov recalled the Russian experience with Chechnya some time ago, when Moscow had to fight two bloody wars to suppress secessionism in the North Caucasus. Territorial integrity means a lot for the Russian leadership. This is something that is worth spilling blood for.
However, one can also imagine that in Russia they simply do not believe that if things go really bad for Taiwan island, the US would dare to come to its rescue and that in the end of the day Taipei would have to yield to Beijing without a single shot fired. Therefore, the risks of a large-scale military conflict in the East Pacific are perceived as relatively low, no matter what apocalyptic scenarios various military experts might come up with.
Indeed, over last 10 or 15 years the US has developed a pretty nasty habit of inciting its friends and partners to take risky and even reckless decisions and of letting these friends and partners down, when the latter had to foot the bill for these decisions. In 2008, the Bush administration explicitly or implicitly encouraged Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili to launch a military operation against South Ossetia including killing some Russian peacekeepers stationed there. But when Russia interfered to stop and to roll back the Georgian offensive, unfortunate Saakashvili was de-facto abandoned by Washington.
During the Ukrainian conflicts of 2013-14, the Obama administration enthusiastically supported the overthrow of the legitimate president in Kiev. However, it later preferred to delegate the management of the crisis to Berlin and to Paris, abstaining from taking part in the Normandy process and from signing the Minsk Agreements. In 2019, President Donald Trump promised his full support to Juan Guaidó, Head of the National Assembly in Venezuela, in his crusade against President Nicolas when the government of Maduro demonstrated its spectacular resilience. Juan Guaido very soon almost completely disappeared from Washington’s political radar screens.
Earlier this year the Biden administration stated its firm commitment to shouldering President Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan in his resistance to Taliban advancements. But when push came to shove, the US easily abandoned its local allies, evacuated its military personal in a rush and left President Ghani to seek political asylum in the United Arab Emirates.
Again and again, Washington gives reasons to conclude that its partners, clients and even allies can no longer consider it as a credible security provider. Would the US make an exception for the Taiwan island? Of course, one can argue that the Taiwan island is more important for the US than Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ukraine and Georgia taken together. But the price for supporting the Taiwan island could also be much higher for the US than the price it would have paid in many other crisis situations. The chances of the US losing to China over Taiwan island, even if Washington mobilizes all of its available military power against Beijing, are also very high. Still, we do not see such a mobilization taking place now. It appears that the Biden administration is not ready for a real showdown with Beijing over the Taiwan question.
If the US does not put its whole weight behind the Taiwan island, the latter will have to seek some kind of accommodation with the mainland on terms abandoning its pipe-dreams of self-determination and independence. This is clear to politicians not only in East Asia, but all over the place, including Moscow. Therefore, Sergey Lavrov has reasons to firmly align himself with the Chinese position. The assumption in the Kremlin is that Uncle Sam will not dare to challenge militarily the Middle Kingdom. Not this time.
From our partner RIAC
Russia-Japan Relations: Were Abe’s Efforts In Vain?
Expanding the modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward.
One year after the end of Shinzo Abe’s long period of leadership, Japan has a new prime minister once again. The greatest foreign policy challenge the new Japanese government led by Fumio Kishida is facing is the intensifying confrontation between its large neighbor China and its main ally America. In addition to moves to energize the Quad group to which Japan belongs alongside Australia, India, and the United States, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has concluded a deal with Canberra and London to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines which in future could patrol the Western Pacific close to Chinese shores. The geopolitical fault lines in the Indo-Pacific region are fast turning into frontlines.
In this context, does anything remain of the eight-year-long effort by former prime minister Abe to improve relations with Russia on the basis of greater economic engagement tailored to Moscow’s needs? Russia’s relations with China continue to develop, including in the military domain; Russia’s constitutional amendments passed last year prohibit the handover of Russian territory, which doesn’t bode well for the long-running territorial dispute with Japan over the South Kuril Islands; and Russian officials and state-run media have been remembering and condemning the Japanese military’s conduct during World War II, something they chose to play down in the past. True, Moscow has invited Tokyo to participate in economic projects on the South Kuril Islands, but on Russian terms and without an exclusive status.
To many, the answer to the above question is clear, and it is negative. Yet that attitude amounts to de facto resignation, a questionable approach. Despite the oft-cited but erroneous Cold War analogy, the present Sino-American confrontation has created two poles in the global system, but not—at least, not yet—two blocs. Again, despite the popular and equally incorrect interpretation, Moscow is not Beijing’s follower or vassal. As a power that is particularly sensitive about its own sovereignty, Russia seeks to maintain an equilibrium—which is not the same as equidistance—between its prime partner and its main adversary. Tokyo would do well to understand that and take it into account as it structures its foreign relations.
The territorial dispute with Russia is considered to be very important for the Japanese people, but it is more symbolic than substantive. In practical terms, the biggest achievement of the Abe era in Japan-Russia relations was the founding of a format for high-level security and foreign policy consultations between the two countries. With security issues topping the agenda in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining the channel for private direct exchanges with a neighboring great power that the “2+2” formula offers is of high value. Such a format is a trademark of Abe’s foreign policy which, while being loyal to Japan’s American ally, prided itself on pursuing Japanese national interests rather than solely relying on others to take them into account.
Kishida, who for five years served as Abe’s foreign minister, will now have a chance to put his own stamp on the country’s foreign policy. Yet it makes sense for him to build on the accomplishments of his predecessor, such as using the unique consultation mechanism mentioned above to address geopolitical and security issues in the Indo-Pacific region, from North Korea to Afghanistan. Even under Abe, Japan’s economic engagement with Russia was by no means charity. The Russian leadership’s recent initiatives to shift more resources to eastern Siberia offer new opportunities to Japanese companies, just like Russia’s early plans for energy transition in response to climate change, and the ongoing development projects in the Arctic. In September 2021, the annual Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok did not feature top-level Japanese participation, but that should be an exception, not the rule.
Japan will remain a trusted ally of the United States for the foreseeable future. It is also safe to predict that at least in the medium term, and possibly longer, the Russo-Chinese partnership will continue to grow. That is no reason for Moscow and Tokyo to regard each other as adversaries, however. Moreover, since an armed conflict between America and China would spell a global calamity and have a high chance of turning nuclear, other major powers, including Russia and Japan, have a vital interest in preventing such a collision. Expanding the still very modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward. The absence of a peace treaty between the two countries more than seventy-five years after the end of the war is abnormal, yet that same unfinished business should serve as a stimulus to persevere. Giving up is an option, but not a good one.
From our partner RIAC
Global Wealth Has Grown, But at the Expense of Future Prosperity
Global wealth has grown overall—but at the expense of future prosperity and by exacerbating inequalities, according to the World Bank’s...
Climate Change Could Further Impact Africa’s Recovery
The World Bank’s new Groundswell Africa reports, released today ahead of the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties...
The Cemetery Of The Mind
This is me. The voices are inside my head. Calling me. Speaking in ancient tongues. They talk and talk and...
The US-China Trade War
Trade deficit with China became a major issue in 2016 American election. Touching the sensibilities of American working class, Donald...
ASEAN has the ability to counteract AUKUS’ Cold War strategies
Authors: Raihan Ronodipuro & Hafizha Dwi Ulfa* The United States’ new tripartite defense alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia,...
Chaos Maker: Bernard-Henry Levy video in Panjshir and the chaos making in the Middle East
First: The Israeli-French intelligence maneuver deliberately displaying the video of the French-Israeli Jewish chaos maker “Bernard-Henry Levy” globally to form...
The 38th ASEAN Summit Meeting: Agenda and Outcomes
The 38th ASEAN summit meeting is held from October 26-28th and the list of areas to concentrate for the ASEAN would be far too many which includes...
International Law4 days ago
The End of the West in Self-annihilation (Intentionality, Directionality and Outcome)
International Law3 days ago
Debunking the Sovereignty: From Foucault to Agamben
Defense4 days ago
To Prevent a Nuclear War: America’s Overriding Policy Imperative
Intelligence3 days ago
The impact of the joint security coordination between Israel and Turkey in Afghanistan
New Social Compact4 days ago
Women in leadership ‘must be the norm’
Economy3 days ago
United World of Job Seekers and Job Creators Will Boost Recovery
Energy4 days ago
Maximizing Nickel as Renewable Energy Resource and Strengthening Diplomacy Role
South Asia3 days ago
Did India invade Kashmir?