Chapter 1: Introduction
2.2 Literature Review
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
institutions, Sino-Indian relations could become more stable and tend towards cooperation rather than conflictual relations.
As such, research questions are as follows:
How do international institutions impact Sino-Indian relations? How could international institutions shape the foreign policies of India and China toward each other? How could BRICS and SCO improve Sino-Indian intra-institutional and extra-institutional relations?
As the resolution of the Doklam dispute has shown, BRICS is promoting peace among its members. The SCO has also focused on other regional issues, such as non-traditional security. The recent admission of India into the SCO could mean more joint cooperation between India and China. This will be a prospective study based on the BRICS experience and findings.
Hence, this academic research will shed light on Sino-Indian relations from a neoliberal institutionalist perspective.
2.2 Literature Review
Literature Review on Sino-Indian Relations
There is an abundance of realist literature on Sino-Indian Relations. The pessimistic and the competition-based ideas regarding the rise of China and India with the Asia-Pacific region and the world stage are very common.
Chietigj Bajpaee (2010), who works for Control Risk (a political-risk-analysis company) as a senior analyst and used to work for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), belongs to this school of thought. He claims that despite their recent cooperation, China and India will always see each other as competitors and will feel threatened by each other. To him, the coming years will increase tensions between the two
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
countries. As their economic and political capabilities increase, so will their resources for competition. Their rivalry will then be projected on the world stage. He also declares that their relations have a low chance of improvement because there remains some significant obstacles to complete trust, such as long-standing territorial dispute, trade imbalances, the role of third parties, and the competition for influence within Asia. However, he also explains that there is a propensity for misunderstanding because of limited people to people contact. The author disagrees with this statement because the latest BRICS summit led India and China to ease tensions concerning the Doklam borders dispute. The fact that this article was written in 2010 also contributes to this pessimistic perspective, even using the term “Soft Cold War” to describe Sino-India relations. Although he considers conflict inevitable, he did acknowledge the fact that the two countries will push for further cooperation, such as military or diplomatic joint projects. They will even collaborate on Indian Ocean issues to protect the transportation of energy and resources against traditional security threats. Regarding economic policy, India and China will strengthen their cooperation and integration to build stronger bilateral relations. He even mentions strengthened cooperation through the BRICS economies.
However, he thinks that economic interdependence will not be enough to overcome all challenges. Mutual interests will coexist with mutual mistrust on regional issues. He also recommends that China and India strengthen people to people contact and deepen mutual projects where interests are shared. This last statement is open to more optimistic scenarios as the contact between China and India has increased through institutions. (Bajpaee 2010b)
In this way, this research on Sino-Indian relations within institutions will provide useful mechanisms for understanding the different obstacles that remain between the two countries, from the geopolitical to the economic. Realist perceptions on the issue will help the author to understand the challenges that China and India still have to face and how we can respond to these criticisms through research and within the liberal institutionalist framework.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The strength of this article is the complete analysis of these issues, but it failed to provide concrete political recommendations.
Amb Saurabh Kumar (2014), an Indian scholar working at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore and the former Ambassador of India to the United Nations, wrote an analysis of Sino-Indian Relations. His work differs from others as he provides an insight into the Indian perspective of these relations. Overall, his reflection is highly negative about the development of Sino-Indian relations since their declaration of war in 1962. He first highlights the extreme volatility of this relationship over the years and the creation of instability in Asia. Moreover, he argues the mistakes and dysfunctions of this relationship until now. According to him, the Chinese diplomatic template has not been successful until recently. This is part of the global issue between the two countries. According to him, China is imposing its design to India. He described this as : "Design disposed towards generalities and formulations long on lofty rhetoric and abstraction, that invariably lend themselves to conflicting interpretation and short on unambiguous specifics." (Kumar Amb 2014, p. 1) The second part of this article focuses on two agreements, both of which the author considers useless. The Panchsheel signed in 1954 and the Strategic and Cooperative partnership of 2005 did not help China and India to develop further their cooperation on concrete actions. He is very skeptical as he said that these agreements serve China’s interests and not India’s. He criticizes the Five Principle as follows: "The Five Principles continue to be paid obeisance together with China, as if the nation's territorial integrity had never been violated."(Kumar Amb 2014, p. 12) To him, these agreements, such as the Strategic Partnership, are all about symbolism, but have no real content and concrete actions. He claims that Chinese strategists are satisfied as they were “locking India in a diplomatic embrace” to retard the emergence of India. However, he is also accusing the Indian government of failing to assume a proper position against China and establish a better partnership intensively and internally. Moreover,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
he is calling for a legitimate border dispute resolution to appease tensions. As a former ambassador, he strongly disapproves of Sino-Pakistan regarding Sino-Indian Relations.
Lastly, he criticizes the lack of balance in Sino-Indian relations and calls for new policies to counter this trend. He also provides solutions to the framework between the two countries concerning the “boundary talks” and the “three stage road map”. He says that the top-down approach has to be reversed and that a bottom-up approach would be more suitable. To sum up his argument, the last agreements China and India signed, as well as their partnership, is an
“empty shell.”
The article of Amb Saurabh Kumar is relevant for understanding Sino-Indian relations, as it shows us their relationship from a more skeptical and critical point of view. He does not claim to assume a realist or liberalist point of view, but he has relevant field experience which provides a different perspective. However, this introspection does not discuss recent agreement and cooperation development between India and China within the non-traditional security or economic fields. The two agreements he chose to discuss, the Panchsheel and the
“Strategic and Cooperative Partnership” were signed sixty-two years and eleven years ago respectively. The fact that he criticizes the templates applied and denounces the imbalance in their partnership is relevant for this research.
On the contrary, neoliberalist scholars such as B.M. Jain are responding to realists’
analysis on Sino-Indian Relations. In his article, “India-China: issues, trends and emerging scenarios”, B.M. Jain (2003) analyses the improvements the two countries have made since 1950. Despite the fact that this analysis was written in 2003, his thoughts are still relevant to my research. B.M. Jain is Professor and Research scientist in Political Science at the South Asia Studies Centre in Jaipur. His historical analysis leads to the same conclusion as the other authors: the extreme volatility of the relations between the two countries. His study is based on neoliberalist theory as it suggests different scenarios for the “future” which is related to the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
interdependence theory. He also mentions new fields where China and India can cooperate according to their mutual interests. He denounces the instability of the Sino-Indian relations, but acknowledges differing opinions on the issues and the trends of scholars to turn toward
“rivalry analysis”. However, he claims that despite their divergent interests in security and the competition that still occurs, China and India can still establish a strategic partnership. To him, their primary mutual interests are countering terrorism, promoting a non-discriminatory trade regime, and having a greater voice in international politics. (Jain 2003)
Furthermore, he explains the issues at stakes in contemporary Sino-Indian relations, such as the balance of power in Asia, the problem of third parties, such as India and China’s involvement in Asia, the Tibet issue, or the Sino-Pakistan partnership. However, he highlights the fact that this ambiguous partnership was never intended to be a threat to India, but rather as a Chinese strategy to help resolve issues between India and Pakistan. According to B.M.
Jain, it is not necessary to have a complete convergence of perspectives on every global or regional issue. Despite these differences, China and India can promote sustainable bilateral cooperation. He also supports his arguments with the example of agriculture-based countries.
Therefore, cooperating on food security would be a great solution to increasing industrial and economic growth. Additionally, India and China have common concerns and mutual interests in the energy sector of Central Asia. As an assessment, he is providing an interesting neoliberal analysis on this complex issue. He is also providing policy recommendations on important issues to improve Indian and Chinese relations. He acknowledges their competitive behavior, but he also believes that competition and cooperation can be inclusive (Jain 2003).
In addition to B.M Jain, the articles written by Zhang Li (2010 a) “China and India Relations: Strategic Engagement and Challenges” and “India China Relations: How can they be Improved” show similarities on the neoliberalist perspective. This piece of literature provides an analysis of the progress toward cooperation as well as their remaining discords
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
inherited from the past. In this article, Zhang Li expresses a very important argument, explaining that Beijing and New Delhi lead their policies in a “global politico-economic structure”. He also highlights that both countries are supportive of a new international order based on equal status and a multipolar world. China and India want to prioritize economic growth in order to achieve social development (Zhang 2010a, p. 10). He belongs to the liberalist, and therefore optimistic, view on the subject. In fact, he emphasizes that neither of them will consider the other as a threat. According to him, even though there is plenty of disagreement and that they are still divided on many issues, such as the economics, their political will to cooperate is stronger. Furthermore, the author sees the military interaction to nurture mutual trust and this will facilitate mutual security concerns as well as the joint combat against terrorism. As a policy recommendation, he firstly calls for a border settlement in order to develop further and ease their bilateral relations. Secondly, both countries have to agree on their regional strategies to build trust. More dialogue between the two countries is necessary. He emphasizes the need for an “institutionalized regime of strategic engagement and cooperation”. (Zhang 2010a) (Zhang 2010b)
As an assessment of the neoliberalist literature, the scholars agree on the fact that past and present issues between India and China are playing a minor role in their ties. Indeed, these authors all argue that the willingness for a further partnership is stronger. Therefore, as they all call for more dialogue, we can suggest that international institutions, such as the BRICS or the SCO, can be a platform for better dialogue and lead to deepened cooperation.
This neoliberalist literature is relevant to this research as scholars are not discussing Sino-India relations within international institutions.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Litterature on the BRICS
The literature on the BRICS focuses mainly on the different positions of its members and how these members react to internal challenges. The growing leadership role of China is one of the main topics of scholarship. Additionally, the BRICS’s goals to balance power and give voice to emerging countries, is often analyzed.
In the article, “The Role of China and India in the G20 and BRICS: Commonalities or Competitive Behavior,” Andrew F. Cooper and Asif B. Farooq (2016) analyze the respective role of China and India and how they react to each other’s’ foreign policies. This article has a skeptical view on Sino-Indian cooperation within the BRICS and other institutional contexts, such as the G20. It explains that even though China and India successfully cooperated to institutionalize the creation of the New Development Bank and to improve non-traditional security, their cooperation is based on public rhetoric to satisfy the audience. Analyzing their behavior within both BRICS and G20, these authors explain that China and India have to be seen as both cooperation partners and competitors. Their approaches have some similarities, but also have a lot of differences on a number of concerns which lead to a lack of influence in the international sphere. However, Cooper and Farooq explain that the BRICS institution is promoting partnership between the two countries despite their rivalry. He finds that China behaves according to the West, especially in regards to US foreign policy. On the contrary, India reacts to China’s foreign policies. India has a defensive position against China within institutions. China has a leadership position in the BRICS and the G20. In addition, its position at the United Nations Security Council makes China a more powerful country in the international arena. Indian commitments to the BRICS and the G20 are weaker. Moreover, they explain how China is using the BRICS to counterbalance the power of the US. India fears that the BRICS could become like other institutions and that more powerful countries
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
will undermine the opinion of smaller members. As China is willing to take the lead within these institutions, this seems to be a valid possibility.(Cooper, Farooq 2016)
This article will be useful for this research as it directly targets Sino-Indian relations within institutions. As an assessment, the growing power of China favors India’s defensive and rival policies. However, this article does not provide a deep insight of the evolution of the Sino-Indian ties since the BRICS was created. It only analyzes their behaviors toward each other within the institutions. This research will correlate their behavior within BRICS institutions but more importantly the evolution of their external relations since then.
While learning about the BRICS, it is important to understand the growing leadership role of China and its purposes. The article of Michael A. Glosny, “China and the BRICS: A real (but limited) Partnership in a Unipolar World” enables us to better understand the objectives of the BRICS and the China’s goals towards it. According to Glosny, the BRICS cooperation should not be seen as a new institution that seeks a new international order but rather as an institution which aims to stabilize economic and political relations within emerging powers. More precisely, China wants to encourage the development of countries and strengthen its identity as the leader of the emerging block to avoid negative attention.
Other than overthrowing the current international order, the BRICS and especially China wants to use the openness of western countries to develop their own economies. As he highlights, the BRICS goal is not to overthrow the international order but rather improve it.
On the other hand, having China as a partner has raised the status and profile of the other BRICS countries. Glosny also emphasizes that participating in the BRICS building is risky and costly. BRICS is a way for China to control Russia and India’s emergence. Therefore, it helps China to stabilize the international environment. Moreover, since the BRICS have known and will face similar experiences, they can share solutions and ideas. They can also face problems together by cooperating and expanding South-South Cooperation. Thanks to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the BRICS, these nations can improve their bargaining position with Western Countries. The development of a unified vision is essential and leads to opportunities. Coordination of position then leads to an increase in leverage. He also claims that the unipolarity of the world is a constraint for developing cooperation. As such, they will try to limit their dependence on the dollar or to give more funds to the IMF to help other developing countries and break the traditional North/South flow. There is plenty of limitation to BRICS cooperation. First, their difference among institutions, such as political and economic systems, and different perspectives on global issues, such as free trade or energy pricing, is an obstacle to cooperation. Moreover, Glosny explains the importance of the US position and how risky it is to the BRICS to oppose this hegemony, as their economy and development could suffer.
Additionally, he also talks about China and India’s challenging behavior within the institution. The intra-BRICS behavior is mostly about mistrust and competition. The fact that they still see each other as a threat is blocking them from efficient cooperation. Glosny explicitly expands his opinion by citing the Sino-Indian case. On top of the remaining issue from their past relations or the Sino-Pakistan partnership, India is also afraid of an encirclement policy from China. The Indian “Look East” foreign policy is a threat to China’s interests. Therefore, mistrust and competition still envenoms the institution and will impose a limit on cooperation.
Glosny also shares the pessimistic perspective on the BRICS countries behavior within the institutions. However, it is also essential to understand why countries with such hostile attitudes toward each other are also willing to try to cooperate together.
In the article, “How the BRICS got here” from Alyssa Ayres (2017), the Sino-Indian relations and its meaning for the BRICS cooperation is somewhat evaluated. It mentions the recent territorial disputes between China and India and explains the difficulties that these disputes pose for the BRICS. Therefore, it is hard for the institution to formulate a unified
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
agenda beyond noncontroversial subjects. Indeed, the long-standing dispute between China and India occasionally disturbs it. The common governance of these two countries has some
agenda beyond noncontroversial subjects. Indeed, the long-standing dispute between China and India occasionally disturbs it. The common governance of these two countries has some