Missing statecraft in the Chinese theatre

On a rain-swept holiday morning in Singapore on January 10, I woke up to see two headlines on the Bloomberg news wire: ?India, China need to cooperate on energy, Aiyar says? and ?Indian software companies risk edge by training Chinese rivals.? To any Indian with vivid memories of Chinese backstabbing in 1962, dealings with this nation, that has grand ambitions and makes little effort to hide these, would be a matter of deliberation, caution and circumspection. But, political parties?across the divide?have bent over backwards to appease China in the incredibly naive hope that this would make China reciprocate. China does reciprocate, and how?

? It has, together with Pakistan, worked systematically over the past two years to block India?s attempt to win a permanent seat at the UN Security Council

? It has refused to unequivocally recognise the accession of Sikkim to India

? It has made inroads into South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation while preventing India?s entry into the East Asian Summit

? It has stirred the pot on India?s nuclear deal with the US by attempting to strike a similar deal with Pakistan so that non-proliferation zealots in the US would drive a stake through the heart of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Internationally, it has paid little heed to concerns about terrorism and nuclear proliferation by continuously supplying nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and North Korea and by propping unsavoury regimes in the world by purchasing their energy assets.

In an article, ?A rise that is not so win-win?, published in the International Herald Tribune on November 15, 2005, the award-winning author of the book, The River Runs Black, that shone a spotlight on China?s alarmingly rapid environmental deterioration, and the director of Asian Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations in the US, had this to say about China?s peaceful rise: ?…But if you look more carefully, here is what you see: a rising power exploiting other countries? natural resources, spoiling the global environment, making economic deals but looking away from serious government mistreatment of its citizens and not delivering on promises.?

Brazil has expressed regret, explicitly, for rushing to embrace China as a market economy. It has seen dumping of Chinese manufactured goods in return for export of precious raw materials from Brazil, while promised investments from China have failed to materialise.

It is in this milieu and context that India?s minister for petroleum is calling for cooperation with China. It is not a gracious concession of the victorious but a cry of the vanquished. China has been outbidding India in most foreign countries where petroleum reserves are available to be exploited. China has, therefore, no reason to collaborate with India. The Indian minister has charged that Goldman Sachs, that managed the sale of PetroKazakhstan assets, had changed the rules of bidding in Kazakhstan after the bidding started, which led to India?s bid being rejected.

Is it too much to expect his ministry to inform the honourable minister that the country-head of Goldman Sachs China is the daughter of Jiang Zemin? Fortune magazine, in its December 26, 2005 issue, profiles a Texas-based billionaire, Richard Rainwater. This gentleman worries that ?a coalition of Communist and Islamic States might decide to stop selling their precious crude to Americans any day now.? It is this instinct for self-preservation that has made them rich and it is this very instinct that India so willingly barters away for nothing. In fact, India expects this very coalition of communists and Islamic states to help meet its present and future energy needs!

India needs a coherent China strategy. India?s response to China has simply ranged from fear to adulation to capitulation, tinged all the time with naive hopes of a simpleton. Governance internally and statecraft externally are the urgent need of the hour. Of course, it is not going to be easy for the Prime Minister, who is running a coalition government whose constituents fight battles with each other in states while co-existing at the Centre. They are not accountable. Further, the previous government had set a bad precedent for the Prime Minister. It gave away its trump card (Tibet) in return for nothing and encouraged terrorism on Indian soil with its exchange of terrorists for hostages in Kandahar. Consequently, terrorists strike at will and at civilians everywhere and we celebrate our ability to wipe the attacks off our memories faster.

His communist allies are not going to help either. Jerry Rao, a columnist in this newspaper?s sister publication, The Indian Express, alleges that Indian communists are on the payrolls of Chinese capitalists (?Year of Inflexion?, IE, January 2, 2006). They return from a trip to China and start demanding unionisation of IT-enabled services. Yet, if this Prime Minister cannot put India first, both in domestic economic and in foreign policies, future Prime Ministers are neither likely to be willing nor able to do anything about it. The two major parties, by current reckoning, are unlikely to muster a combined majority in the next Parliament. A government led by a motley crowd of parties would be focused on self-preservation and self-aggrandisement, more than the present one.

A safe and secure state is a minimum requirement for its citizens to pursue gainful economic activity without insecurity. That is the least governments in India could do for its citizens, who are probably the most resourceful on earth. Otherwise, 8% growth rates would be unsustainable. It is what our enemies are seeking and that is what our governments are busy delivering to them, for now.

The writer is the founder-director of Libran Asset Management (Pte) Ltd, Singapore. These are his personal views