(This paper is based on the talk at the National Seminar on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its Impact on Indian Foreign Policy at the Department of Political Science, Government Brennen College, Thalassery, Kerala, in collaboration with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute for Asian Studies, Kolkata, on 13-14 February 2020).
Abstract : In international relations, ideally, a nation[2] deals with a nation, not the governing ideology of the nation. But that, often, need not be the case. China today is a globally powerful nation thanks to the centralised governmental system it has been with since 1949. The achievement of China on date is that of the communist party of China (CPC) and not that of China the nation. The powerful CPC eclipses China, the nation. The students and scholars in political science and other related national security strategy topics mostly overlook this aspect while deciding the character of a nation under study. The centre of gravity of national power may dynamically shift between the nation and the ideology under which it is governed. This statement is debatable. But it is the view of the author that geostrategic conclusions and decisions can go off beam if this difference is not understood and balanced ab initio in geostrategy. This paper addresses the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China against this backdrop primarily from the Chinese perspective with brief afterthoughts on other countries, some associated and some not, with India as a referent. The main organisation in China’s international relations is the International Department of the Communist Party of China (ID-CPC). The Belt and Road Initiative is ab initio supervised by the ID-CPC. It has intensely established network at international level, which is a great achievement for the secretary of CPC, expected to remain for life[3], Xi Jinping. China has well established foreign relations based on various demands on its one-party regime through power projections and diffusions appropriate to the global scenario in a centralised decision making model. The power of China in international relations is evident in the Belt and Road Initiative too. There are also traces of history that are noticeable about the Chinese mindset. Though the initiative promises high economic and political advantages to its members and other beneficiaries, it is yet to be proven geostrategically beneficial to all unless it comes out of the choking feeling caused by the C19[4] virus among others. But he CPC and its arms across the globe seemingly have the sway to come out of the cold at least for now. As far as India is concerned, the author briefly concludes that the country has made responsible decisions and is on track to deal with the changing issues of geostrategic security without unduly eschewing China and its rights in international affairs, though the countries are poles apart in ideology and political preferences.
Introduction
The Belt and Road Initiative is a highly ambitious project of the Chinese government that has the potential to change the geostrategic context of the world in a major shift. The project may have been temporally slowed down by the C19 pandemic, which also decelerated the economic and social momentum of the entire world including China since end 2019. The global human system may remain on hold with shifts in priorities till 2023 hypothetically.[5] If that is so, back-to-the-future lifestyle similar to pre-covid days may re-commence mid 2023 in the desired swiftness. But, what is important in this paper, though strictly not as a part of the topic, but collateral to it, is that the slowdown of Belt and Road Initiative generates chance for China to counter any blame attributed to it for intentional release of virus causing the pandemonium as alleged in certain quarters. Chinese government would not envisage an act of such magnitude in the normal case knowing it would also slow down Belt and Road Initiative, its pet and cleverly architectured global initiative with a geostrategic edge, unless there are more allegedly concealed designs behind it.[6] That too when the initiative was moving forward with such an encouraging thrust. It is something China cannot afford. But, there could be errors and mistakes in a world that is generally cynical about tactics governments play.
China certainly has inclusive and astute geostrategic intentions since it established itself. It is evident from its geostrategic enhancement as on today. China would attempt every strategy the way the government feels apt to achieve the desired geostatus objectively. The Belt and Road Initiative is one of the initiatives that would give the government the much needed bargaining power in the political bourse domestically and internationally.
The country, People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1 October 1949, is under the exclusive political authority of the Communist Party of China (CPC), also expressed as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at times. There are eight other subordinate non-communist minor parties controlled by the CPC in China. Together, they rule as a united front. The government comprises executive, legislative, military, supervisory, judiciary and procuratorial branches all controlled by the party, the supreme centre of power in China. High degree of centralisation helps to make decisions fast, active and globally influential. Such a situation stands to the advantage of China in the Belt and Road Initiative scenario.
China was interrupted from the political uncertainties with a lead to the future end 1949. Since then, the country moved to an era of assured stability and dominion dynamics[7] that led to new economic reforms and opening up. The country was ready to enter the geostrategic world. China was never insular. This can be seen by rummaging the history of the Chinese travelers and traders in the past over land and sea. But the post communist China was more determined than its past rulers. Many other entities missed this determination and system centric approach in their governance that became lackadaisical and self-seeking in the continuum. They took sides and subsisted subserviently and haplessly swaying since the last World War and through the Cold War that followed. Today many nations and their leaders scramble for China’s attention. This is evident in Belt and Road Initiative and other initiatives of the Chinese government. This is more apparent in the geostrategic move of China to effortlessly mobilise around 126 countries and 29 international organisations geostrategically for the initiative with assured returns to them.[8] This is perhaps the first of a kind of universal geostrategic mobilisation of countries by a single country as the lead nation, that too under a regime whose political ideology of communism and human rights records are not well accepted by the global majority. The only mismatch in advanced sapien governance is that the nation became secondary to the party unless that is a trend for things to come. However, it was not a fly-by-night operation for China but a persistent and definitive transformation under centrally focused geostrategic awareness.
The reforms that began in 1978 by the then paramount leader Den Xiaoping (1904-1997) brought in phenomenal economic growth on a fast track not normally witnessed in other parts of the world barring some exceptions attributed to oil finds and subsequent energy shots elsewhere. The continuum span of the country began and progressed remarkably well with fast moving rate of socio-economic change unlike in many other countries under Dengism[9], the philosophy behind Deng’s opening up of China. This made China gain bearing over many others in geostrategic manoeuvre. Of course, every entity in the global patchwork will have own reasons or incoherently rationlaised views for its present stasis based on individual appreciation of the situation.
Intensification of China
China’s evolution has a long historical perspective with many unique features that can see nearly 6000 years of life in form and shape. But it is with the Xia dynasty (2070-1600) China came of age as a human system from the prehistoric time mould.[10] These features impact political decisions along with the carried forward decisions of the past and ambitions of the future. This is an outwardly similar process of coming of every other geostrategic entity as a different nation system. But in the case of China, the skew is a bit different. Historians will be able to anlayse it better, though their views may differ simply because of the complexity in estimating and partitioned thinking. The views expressed in this paper are laced with the author’s own appreciation derived from exploratory observations and phenomenology of today’s national security concept applicable to a geostrategic entity.
The spatial expands of China in an examination like this could be seen from the stretch of the present perimeter of the entity as a human system which actually was more or less a micro nation of not so much in area. China’s macronisation[11] started with addition of areas from neighbourhood that began slowly post unification by Qin Shi Huang (259-210 BC). Qin got the warring independent human systems in China to surrender and form a unified nation. Macronisation by various means continued since then in China as a border strategy of succeeding governments. Expansion became an obsession after the major turn of events in governance under the communist party. China today has 16 neighbours[12] across its land border. It has claims on various geographical entities under disputes over land and ocean with other entities. Geographically things look fluid under such disputes, but that is more for the entities themselves and others who speak for them. In spite of the world opinions China moves zennishly,[13] with a “mind without mind,” sans any serious misgivings for itself and almost in assured geostrategic confidence. The Belt and Road Initiative initiative proves it. The geostrategic context of the Belt and Road Initiative covers the entire world. China leads it. In this prolonged process of spatial domination, China has seen it all (some will say, beset by problems)—warring, civil unrests, foreign occupation, epidemics, pandemics, famines and revolutions, all fiendishly obsessive situations that a population may face and experience. The experiences naturally casehardened the system in geostrategy.
Extending global outreach
The author believes that China subconsciously nurture a kind of geolocation claustrophobia more in relation to the ocean. The country is unable to get out in comfort, especially in the ocean even if the land borders expanded geophysically and contiguously. Japan too can face such mindset with Indian Ocean. That is one of the reasons both the countries look at the northern sea route around the Kamchatka peninsula of Russia into the Arctic and down if the ice melts. It will.
Whatever may be the cue, China aggressively focused on global outreach as a geostrategy since 1990. The country increased participation in international organisations to start with. The level China reached today is because of its continuing efforts in global outreach since then. But the interesting aspect is that China’s achievements belong to the communist party of China, not the nation by itself. This is an interesting find in this study. In a situation, when a government of a nation is closer to an ideology, it creates a conflicting scenario within the system to which it belongs as a part. More than the achievement of China as a nation, it is the achievement of the party that is controlling China, the nation. This can be better understood by students and scholars in political science. A nation can “belong” to an ideology generated by designer belief systems in politics, religion, family, majority culture and so on. Opposite is the system where the idea of nation is supreme. Binary nationalities[14] are visible in the lives of people in the global system. Here lies the difference in Chinese geostrategy. Any nation that links up with China in this bargain will also have to be through its ideology, not its national stasis to feel comfortable. If not, the mismatch will be wider and will be geostrategically heckled in the long run. This is for the respective governments to decide and apply corrections.
The basic principle of geostrategy is the identity of mind in jointness. Therefore the Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Myanmar, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Vietnam.consensus ad idem of the parties involved should be carefully evaluated in any decision making process, or bilateral or multilateral cooperative format. This is the reason why some of the members of the Belt and Road Initiative may find it later that they are involved in a picnic with slim customers in the group. Besides, China with its status of the leader and originator of Belt and Road Initiative will have controlling interests in the whole project and its output. This is an aspect that China and its companions may have to study and respond in a win-win situation. It is going to be difficult, under behindhand obligation. At least some of the partners may realise it in course of time. There are many examples in history for the formal human system mismatch in approach that at times resulted in wars. It is not likely in the present context for various reasons. It is not a topic for this paper. “War is over,” according to the author;[15] it will be replaced by conflicts as humans are disagreement oriented. An example was that of India-China relations through what has come to be known as the panchsheel[16]policy which, according to the author, was one of the extreme absurdities in the history of international relations that ultimately led to a deceptive war in 1962. The ongoing China–India military standoffs (2020) are also indications of mismatch in geostrategic incongruity.
Anatomy of the Belt and Road Initiative
The Belt and Road Initiative is said to be originated by the present paramount leader and secretary of the communist party of China, Xi Jinping. The Belt and Road Initiative is the central piece of foreign policy of the party. It was originally introduced in 2013 as One Belt One Road Initiative (OBORI).[17] It is a mega infrastructure project and a great evolution in contemporary geostrategy. It is expected to have far-reaching implications for trade, transport infrastructure, requirement of new transport policy framework, digitalisation and logistics according to partners in the scheme. However, the sustainability and the way forward of the initiative need further examination according to some of them. The TD-CPC is a regular partner in such conferences. For example, Sri Lanka is a partner who regularly holds conferences on Belt and Road Initiative. The 5th conference scheduled in 2020 was cancelled because of the C19 pandemic. It may be held when situation improves.
There are similarities with past premises of China in history and everything it has been doing for governing an extremely complex human system. The most important activity of the first emperor (Huángdì) of China, Qin Shi Huang was unifying the great wall by interconnecting the fortifications of the warring states unified by him to protect the new found country from the invading Huns around 221BC. It was a domestic and insular requirement. The Belt and Road Initiative is typical of Qin’s country centric mega policy of the Great Wall from the author’s point of view except that the former is globe centric apropos the period. It has all the ingredients of a country that has a mindset of its own (without a mind as mentioned earlier) with tremendous determination that is not easy to break. It is such mindsets in governance that makes the uppermost human system, a nation in today’s parlance, determined and assertive in the geostrategic context. Commenting on a nation and its human system calls for scholarly regression into the past of the entity without prejudice.
The Belt and Road Initiative is associated with China’s rise in geostrategic context in today’s times. It is getting global attention and is critically evaluated all over. It connects Africa, South America, Asia and Europe through infrastructural projects. The stakeholders are far too many—from governments to international organisations to private entrepreneurs to individuals. Undoubtedly, it is a grand vision of geostrategy (a kind of ashwamedh yagya in today’s parlance)[18] totally written to rule under Chinese characteristics. The budget is equally massive. It is over $900 billion. Only a small part of it (around 5 percent) is invested so far. The project promises vast opportunities to all involved. Uncertainties in global future can play truants, though. The Great Wall too went into many mishaps during construction. Nearly 400,000 people are said to have died during the construction of the wall. Most of them were buried, in situ.[19] Still, the impenetrable titanic wall was breached by the Mongol, Genghis Khan (1162-1127) more than once.[20]
Hidden agenda and authoritarian diffusion
Though the Belt and Road Initiative is awesomely global and promises economic and other opportunities to the participants and associates, there are many who are weary of possible Chinese agenda. The problem is trust deficit. Some view China’s strategy is generally associated with deception and sleaze, the worst ingredients in any geostrategic interaction. Suspicion is raised by scholars, leaders, officials and supporting media about China’s intentions behind the initiative. They believe China may attempt to change international order through covert, coercive and corrupt practices by controlling power centres in international organisations and nations to gain and establish command and control across borders. Therefore, gains and losses, according to them have to be verified and arrived at in exactitude. There are domestic, international and inter and intra political debates on the BRI. Perceptions and responses to Belt and Road Initiative cover major parts of discussions before it came to a halt, though temporarily, because of the C19 conundrum.
The Belt and Road Initiative is one of the means of power diffusion for China. China knows, it has tremendous power within its continuum that it can diffuse across borders to the edge and accrue benefits. This power diffusion is for its own benefits and has become the mantra for CPC’s geostrategy. Other nations find it infuriatingly difficult to meet the force of Chinese power diffusion on the terrains where it plays the game of geostrategy. With the Belt and Road Initiative China covers both land and the ocean. Those who do not want to antagonise China or want to please it and accrue benefits join the team; it is the only geostrategy they can play against a more forceful one. More confident others may decide to play against.
Chinese originators have introduced many theories in political structure and science. Sun Tzu had his art of war with a framework of obliging expletives. Among them one is the famous “know your enemy, know yourself; you can win a thousand wars,” in support of war. The question is not whether there was a man called Sun Tzu or not, but whatever written in the name of Sun Tzu still sticks around in new wraps. Cut the scene to the communist regime when Mao Zedong (1893-1976) wisely uttered “seek truth from facts”[21] to lead the revolution as the bottom-line of research especially in social sciences. Zhou Enlai (1898-1976) mentioned panchsheel[22] to Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) picking the term from Sukarno’s (1901-1970) Bahasa Indonesia, and geostrategically trapped India. “All’s well and fair” in the end justifies means Chinese geostrategy. Den Xiaoping (1904-1997) had his directives when he uttered “hide and bide” for people to follow. For Xi Jinping it is about the “new era,” a very confident projection of china rising and shining with a strategic vision that will extend to the edge of the world. The most important in his statement during the 19th party Congress in 20017 was the determination of China in turning the rest of the nations into one party rule by showing and sharing its experience. It is outright marketing of China’s political model. The Belt and Road Initiative will help China to attempt this aim. Xi’s assertion of promoting China’s economic model in extra-investment compared to intra-investment which Deng promoted was, probably, with a Dengistic premonition of things to come. It is possible if China remains relatively focused singularly when all other political systems vacillate through change of governments. China is hopeful its models will spread similar to C19, though a bit slowly.
Presently ID-CPC is most active in Asia. It has made serious inroads into Europe and Africa. The Belt and Road Initiative will take the model to South America and, subsequently, target the US at the opportune moment that, perhaps, is nearing.
China and India—an after thought
India cannot agree with China on Belt and Road Initiative for obvious reasons.[23] It is a matter the government has given serious thoughts. The situation and conditions are not conducive for India to link itself with the Belt and Road Initiative. It will deny India its eligible space in responsible geostrategy. It is not that China is an ideology that rules a nation whereas India is a nation where ideologies are within. It is also not that China has devoured a big chunk of India’s border since independence besides the frequent and rough-edged clashes on the Himalayas. It is also not that party to party relations is one of the interactive global approaches of ID-CPC to establish the Chinese new era. The tie up of India’s Congress party with CPC was a natural outcome of the new era policy of China.[24] This has raised much ado about soemthing in Indian political scenario. The something is that though it was a party-to-party interactive matrix that looks externally very much normal within international law, especially when domestic law is absent on such intense orgasmic politics, there are certain anomalies in such relationship especially when India and China are different in the principles of a nation. Congress party belongs to India the nation, whereas CPC, the party, is larger than China, the nation. This is the hidden abnormality in such a trans-relation between strange bedfellows. For china, it is continuum thinking, whereas for India, which is a continuum nation, it is staccato thinking prejudicial to national security. This is one of the jinxes in the paradigm of the great wall in India-China relations.
Conclusion
The Belt and Road Initiative is massive, but that doesn’t make it an exclusive or standalone economic strategy of China. Analysing the Belt and Road Initiative and its impact on the geostrategic context has to be seen in the overall perspective of the grand strategy of China for authoritative diffusion across the globe. The Belt and Road Initiative is one of the means to the end. China has the power for it and it needs to be dissipated across its border. It is also one of the ways of extending the border geostrategically. The present strategy of China for authority diffusion across the world is likely to last progressively for a long time. It is a part of the grand strategy of the Chinese new era. The architect of the new era is Xi Jinping, an astute leader perfectly placed in a single party system, with sufficient freedom of movement.
The exploratory research shows that any relationship with china is not with the state but the party that “owns” the state. In any kind of relationship with China, a nation will face a system where the ideology (the CPC in China) is larger than the state. But supremacy of ideology is not only in China. There are other nations or states where ideology rules the entity in varying degrees. This can create imbalances if the allowances to dynamically balance the relationship are not incorporated in the agreements ab initio. China can exercise domino as well as dominion policies on the partners in an imbalanced geostrategic relationship.
Geostrategy needs to be charted carefully in a world where ideologies of nation systems are not universal. In such cases, companionship will be among strange bedfellows. The world, thereby, becomes a conglomeration of differentialities. This can also impact the enforcement of international law among nations. The differentiality is not new. This has existed in the human systems of yore. It is not a suitable model for the post Westpahlian world where the concept of sovereignty makes nations larger than the systems they contain under geoproperty rights. The governments and the people need to be aware of it for uniformity in human systems. It helps for better governance nationally and internationally.
China has substantially and purposefully intensified its global outreach since the early 2000s.In this expansion scheme an interesting note is that the CPC is more in tandem with political parties across the world and not the states per se.This is a trend that may shock many nation states in future who tango with an ideology that rule the country and not with the country and its people. None of the interactive principles which China follows are new to China. It is experienced in the format of its creative geostrategic techniques, but many nations in the world are not familiar with it. For those countries the problem is the lack of transparency in the Chinese approach. The approach is powerful but outdated. This scenario existed in the past. History had witnessed many such scenarios in human system relations. That gives the law of invariance a firm stand in geopolitics.[25]
India may face this problem. There are vast differences in Indian and Chinese status as nation states even if India comes under a single party rule one day. Ideologically it is impossible for India to become less than a nation as a nation, rather from what it is now. The ideologies of India will remain pluralistic especially in modern times. The system will be conflict ridden as the world’s most populated state. The multiple system profile of India will remain. India needs to know this difference while dealing with China. India has just one choice—applying duality of purpose under inclusive multilateralism.
Simply put, it means not allowing differences to become disputes and conflicts, and relentlessly promoting accepted practices for mutual benefit.
[1] Dr. Prabhakaran Paleri is a former director general of Indian Coast Guard. He is presently a researcher, academician and author in corporate governance and national security studies.
[2] A nation in this reference and further in this paper is a geopolitical as well as a geostrategic entity, whose governance is aimed at maximising national security, which is about the overall wellbeing of its people and not limited to physical security of its geoproperty or people.
[3] “China’s Xi allowed to remain ‘president for life” as term limits removed.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276. Accessed 12 February 2020. This is also evidence that China the nation is inferior to imperial outlook even if “imperialism” is removed as a term in the political lexicon.
[4] Author’s term for Covid-19.
[5] According to author.
[6] Not substantiated.
[7] Ability to command and control.
[8] “126 countries, 29 international organizations are now part of China’s BRI.” 29 April 2019. https://newsin.asia/ 126-countries-29-international-organizations-are-now-part-of-chinas-bri/. Accessed 18 July 2019.
[9] Econo-political ideologies underlined by the productive force determinism of the 20th century Marxism. Deng imitated the theory.
[10] Xia (2070BC-1600BC) is known as the pre-imperial dynasty along with and followed by Shang (1600BC-1046BC) and Zhou (1046BC-221) dynasties.
[11] Macronisation is a term used by the author to avoid the word disintegration or similar aberrations to explain the fall or fragmentation of a national entity unless it is totally vanished. Nations are dynamic entities and may enlarge by addition (macronise) or shrink by separation (micronise) under various forces that include demographic movements and political shifts. The forces of micronisation are stronger than macronisation in the present scenario. Usage of these terms in communication explains the fall and rise in geographical area of the entities keeping the dignity of such nations and its people. Paleri. P. (2018). Human investment management: raise the level by capitalising human. Springer. Footnote 32. p.47.
[12] Afghanistan, Bhutan, Hong Kong, India, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Russian federation, Tajikistan, Vietnam. Hong Kong and Macau belongs to one country two systems principle of the Chinese government as special administrative regions (SAR).
[13] An adverb for the occasion to explain a zen-like attitude and concentration (author).
[14] By binary nationalities, the author means bipolar systems that are different from unipolar and multipolar assumptions. A human system will balance only when it is bipolar and the system tends to hunt like a gyro pointer and settle in bipolarity from anarchy or chaos. Multipolarity when exist will be in binary axes with bipolarity. The world today is binary bipolar with power and belief system as the binary factors in a bipolar design. At any given time there will be occupants at select poles. That will make the system dynamic and bring changes in geostrategic polarity. This is not further explained in this paper. China, according to the author, is not at any of the poles in the binary system but can become a change driver in international polarity of the global human system. It will make an interesting study in political science. As quoted in the draft of a forthcoming book by the author.
[15] As quoted in the draft of a forthcoming book by the author.
[16] It may also be known that the term panchsheel was much publicised as an Indian word introduced by Nehru. But it was actually a word from Bahasa Indonesia introduced by Zhou en Lai, the then Chinese premier. Paleri, P. (2007). National security: imperatives and challenges. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. p. 258-59
[17] Also known as “Silk Road Economic Belt” and the “21st-Century Maritime Silk Road.”
[18] Author’s term. A strategy laced with a challenge by emperors and kings during the early periods in India.
[19] There are scholars who argue that the grapevine of death of construction workers and burying their bodies inside the Great Wall is a myth. Hence, used the term “in situ nearby.”
[20] In his lifetime, Genghis Khan broke through the Great Wall several times. He overthrew the Jin Dynasty (1115 – 1234 AD) and founded the Yuan Dynasty (1271 – 1368 AD).
[21] “Seek truth from facts” first appeared in the Book of Han as an expression describing an attitude toward study and research.
[22] It has been suggested that the five principles had partly originated as the five principles of the Indonesian state. In June 1945 Sukarno, the Indonesian nationalist leader, had proclaimed five general principles, or pancasila, on which future institutions were to be founded. Indonesia became independent in 1949.[5] The Five Principles as they had been adopted in Colombo and elsewhere formed the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement, established in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1961. Paleri, P. (2007). National security: imperatives and challenges. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. p. 258-59. (Also see n.16).
[23] Not elaborated here being outside the topic.
[24] IndiaToday. (7 August 2008). “Congress, Chinese Communist Party sign MoU.” https:// www.indiatoday.in/ latest-headlines/story/congress-chinese-communist-party-sign-mou-28102-2008-08-07. Accessed 2 February 2020.
[25] The law of invariance has been a perceptional idea introduced by the author in a research on national security studies that commenced in 2002. It has been further explained in his book National Security: imperatives and Challenges. Tata McGraw-Hill, Publishing Company Limited, 2008, p. 8. The law of invariance states that the changes in the core behaviour of a human system, while a reality, is too negligible to notice and, therefore, for a psychosomatic system application relative to humans, it is sufficient to presume the model applicable today will be constant in time whether it is past or future.
