Containment of China

A false concept

Conventional wisdom suggests that India has been designated by the West as a pivotal link in the containment of China. As explained in this space last week, projection of India as a rising global power and a dependable strategic ally are integral to promoting India as counterweight to China’s growing presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

In the Western strategic vernacular, these two countries are traditionally projected in strictly competitive if not adversarial terms. As Asia’s two pre-eminent powers and militarily significant states a relationship of irreconcilable rivalry is deemed natural and irreversible. India’s democratic credentials and growing economic might has made it an ally of choice in the contain China policy.

In order to analyse this hypothesis, a look at the doctrine of containment in its historical context and its application to the present day realities would be helpful. The Truman doctrine enunciated in 1947 constituted the ideological premise and the rhetorical idiom for containment. The establishment of Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, Soviet refusal to the timely withdrawal of its forces from Iran and its alleged support for the communist insurrection in Greece were seen as unmistakable signs of Soviet expansionism. George Kennan, the US envoy in Moscow in his now famous Long Telegram underscored the imminent threat of Soviet expansionism warranting a muscular response.

The West responded with the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Marshall Plan. The former constituted the military arm of containment whereas the latter was conceived as an insurance against communist takeover of economically ravaged Europe. This system of alliances strengthened subsequently by Cento which included Iran, Pakistan and Turkey is largely credited by Western analysts for preventing Soviet expansion into Europe and South and West Asia.

Containment was, thus, a geographical concept aimed at containing the physical expansion of a supposedly predatory state. The prevalence of completely opposite political and economic systems added further justification for this approach. Not only the expansionist designs of the Soviets had to be contained but the virus of a fascist brand of government underpinned by a controlled economy also needed to be countered.

How does any of this apply to China? Since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949, China has not demonstrated any proclivity for expansionism. The two border skirmishes with India and Vietnam, the second more out of folly than anything else, were not actuated by territorial aggrandisement. The Chinese minorities in South East Asia are agents of stability and progress and no longer seen by local populations as a Chinese Trojan Horse. Also these states enjoy excellent relations with China having forged strong economic ties with the People’s Republic.

Admittedly differences exist over the delineation of maritime boundaries in the South China Sea, an area reputed to be rich in mineral and fossil resources. Nevertheless China has never threatened to go to war on this issue, negotiations being its stated preference. Similarly on Taiwan, forcibly and unjustly separated from the mainland, China has never threatened its annexation by force. In fact, Taiwan is amongst China’s largest foreign investor.

So how do you contain a state which does not seek physical expansion and has exhibited no interest whatsoever in annexation of foreign lands. In Pakistan’s long standing relationship with China, one would be hard put to recall a single occasion when China used the power differential between the two countries to coerce us into a certain course of action. The operating principle of Pakistan-China relations has been mutual benefit and respect.

True, China faces gigantic challenges of growth to lift vast segments of its population still caught in the debilitating grip of poverty. The demands of a fast growing economy necessitate assured access to raw materials from around the world. China has gone about this through cooperative arrangements and negotiated agreements with all its economic partners. Unlike the erstwhile Soviet Union, it has scrupulously avoided any perception of unfair advantage due to its size or strength.

True also that China is allocating more funds for the modernisation of its armed forces but so are others including India as underscored by its recent military purchases. China has a vast shoreline and extensive land borders. Upgradation of its defence forces for external security and protection of the sea lanes through which its commerce flows is as unexceptional as similar efforts by other powers. To project these as signs of imperial intent is self serving if not fictitious.

China is no longer a command economy on the pattern of the Soviet Union. It is an integral member of the global community with the US being its largest economic partner. China owns nearly ten percent of America’s national debt and holds close to a trillion units of US currency in reserve. How can the doctrine of containment apply to a country which is essentially preoccupied with internal development, believes in stable and peaceful borders, eschews force as an instrument of policy and enjoys a hugely productive economic partnership with the rest of the world including those who seem determined to contain it? Surely, India should know.

The writer is Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the United Nations and European Union. He can be contacted at [email protected]