jaibi
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
- Reaction score
- 108
- Country
- Location
The new lens
As the two nations with a billion population each encircle each other with hostile intent and the rest of the world braces for a possible impact it seems that things have changed. Indeed, imagine if this were the case a decade or so ago by this time we would have the great powers of the world step in by now but that’s not the case. Therefore, it is imperative we discuss how these changes have arrived and what do they mean.
Old notions no more?
In the field that studies these phenomena, International Relations, we have two key concepts that would have been important to analyze the situation before: balance of power and power category of a nation-state. The balance of power essentially refers to the maintenance of status-quo; each region has a power distribution amongst nation-states that holds a precarious balance of status-quo and each nation tries to tilt that balance to its advantage but the overall system fights to keep that in check. This is why, if you would read history; you would see shifting alliances, a favorite of mine is to see the European intervention in the Ottoman-Russian affairs: if they would see any one state overpower the other they would switch sides to contain the winner and keep them in perpetual hostility in order to balance them out and maintain the status-quo. The British were masters of this concept.
That brings us to the second concept of power categories: each nation-state is compared to others on various terms such as economics, military prowess, geography etc., and given a rating. The most common one that people are familiar with is the term ‘superpower’, the Cold War saw us having two: the USA and USSR each nation so powerful that it would dominate any other nation except each other and the world was carved up between their spheres of influences.
Thus, it begs the question? Where are they now? Why don’t they intervene in the China-India debacle? Is that not what they do? Where is the USA? Where is NATO?
Are these terminologies gone?
Game changers
India and China for a large part have expanded heavily economically, each in their own manner but are often seen as competitors. Indeed, the impressive growth of these nations in mere decades is quite impressive. However, these two nations are certainly powers but like I stated before, something has changed.
India has always been challenged by its much smaller rival: Pakistan in active as well as cold conflicts and has never been able to dominate its rival. This is why Pakistan has been dubbed a ‘middle power’ or more recently, a challenger state. China to a much lesser extent has been challenged by its rival of Taiwan but never to the extent of India. As China made it a policy of not going to war; indeed, China has never gone to a full scale war with any nation state, therefore, its policy is much more subtle. This is something that India has never truly learnt and therefore, it is my opinion, that we see a military and diplomatic confusion on their part on how to handle the latest debacle.
New age upon us?
The old arbitrators of conflict for various reasons do not wish to engage in conflict management anymore. The Belt and Road Initiative of China is certainly a move that traditionally has been reserved for a superpower but China made sure of not projecting hard power such as military interventions and strong arm diplomatic tactics before it was able to ensure to lay the foundation of the program. Essentially, in a world where military challenges to traditional powers of the Western alliances (US and NATO) has been costly to everyone we see a new trend: active geo-strategic shifts amongst rising powers such as India and China and middle powers such as Turkey and Egypt. It is especially worth noting the recent challenges to Russian might by Turkey but that is for another analysis.
The path to power and leadership of world affairs has a new player which has washed away the conventions of old. China rises on its tactful handling of the diplomatic arena and economic strength.
What can this strategy be called? In my view, it’s ruthless pragmatism. China does not engage in ideological balance of power nor does it view economic growth solely from the lens of prosperity alone, all missing in its rival India. It can and has been able to weaponize these two into the strategic level of affairs. For instance, China made heavy handed efforts to curtail corruption and inefficiency of bureaucracy, something that its rival India has not been able to do effectively. Secondly, China has kept its military machine, despite not engaged in any active conflict, well-oiled and adaptive, something that again India has not been able to do so far. Arguably, the next state working on those lines for now seems to be Russia under the Putin leadership.
Therefore, we are in the middle of a transition into a new age and the conventions of old would not help us understand, appreciate and analyze the upcoming geopolitics of the upcoming era.
Views presented are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those held by PDF management
Last edited:
