Guest Column
A River Flows Through It: China’s Policies toward the Brahmaputra River
by Selina Ho
The lack of a comprehensive framework between China and India for managing their shared water resources is a source of instability in Sino-Indian relations, and for the region as a whole. The nature of water, the water problems in both China and India, and climate change, set against the backdrop of historically tense relations between the two countries, increase the potential for conflict. However, the path to greater hydro cooperation between China and India is fraught with difficulties.
The benefits of cooperation to India are clear – as a lower riparian, it is in India’s interest to lay down water sharing and water usage principles with China. For China, the incentives are less obvious; from its perspective, there are substantial sovereignty and autonomy risks, and limited political and economic gains to be derived from cooperating with India. The World Bank’s Reaching Across the Waters listed five categories of risks that riparians have to bear when considering joint cooperation in international rivers. These include capacity and knowledge, accountability and voice, sovereignty and autonomy, equity and access, as well as stability and support risks. For China, the risks to sovereignty and autonomy, in terms of both territory and usage of resources, are most important. It does not want its sovereignty and freedom of action to be circumscribed by external parties. China’s historically acrimonious and currently uneasy relations with India shape its policies towards the Brahmaputra. As a result of historical factors and unresolved border issues, China’s relations with India suffer from a trust deficit and are often thorny. Not only do wars and border disputes mar their historical relations, both countries are now competitors for resources and global influence. They have among the world’s fastest growing economies and militaries. They also compete in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for influence and for resources to fuel their economies. There is also a lack of robust multilateral mechanisms in South Asia that engage China. The avenues of confidence-building are therefore missing, presenting a big obstacle to riparian cooperation.
Apart from the substantial risks involved in cooperating with India on the Brahmaputra, China also does not see significant advantages to establishing formal joint development and water sharing arrangements with India. While it does not want relations with India to deteriorate, it also does not expect a warm and substantive relationship to develop in the near future, given their historical baggage and India’s emergence as a competitor. China is thus unwilling to give up the strategic advantages its position as upstream riparian offers over India. It wants to maintain the status quo in the Brahmaputra, that is, to continue developing the water resources within its territory without interference and serious disruption to its ties with India. It seems that China will only consider any significant forward movement in cooperation with India on water management when there is substantial progress towards resolving the other outstanding issues between them, namely Tibet and territorial disputes. There are also limited economic gains from cooperating with Indian on joint hydroelectric projects. China’s infrastructure building skills, particularly in constructing dams, are superior to India’s, and its financial muscles are also stronger.
However, despite the obstacles to deepening cooperation in the form of joint development and water sharing arrangements, there are areas where China and India can work together to increase confidence and trust. At the present moment, China’s aims are to peacefully co-exist with India and keep ties with India on an even keel, so as to maintain stability along its border with India. India’s rising influence and alignment with the United States also explain Chinese motivations for maintaining equanimity with India. There are indications that China is beginning to reassess India’s strategic value and Chinese leaders have recently taken steps to place greater emphasis on China’s ties with India. For instance, Li Keqiang made India one of the first countries he visited as Premier in May 2013. For these larger political reasons, China takes into consideration Indian concerns in the Brahmaputra and has made attempts albeit limited ones to minimize conflict over water. This bodes well for stepping up cooperation in less sensitive areas, such as enhancing the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) on sharing hydrological data, strengthening dialogue on water pollution, flood control, and disaster management, and cooperating in research on the impact of global warming on the Himalayan glaciers.
The above is an adaptation taken from a chapter written by Selina Ho in Kanti Bajpai, Jing Huang and Kishore Mahbubani, eds., China-India Relations: Cooperation and Conflict (London: Routledge, 2016). Selina Ho is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. She can be contacted at decb64_c2VsaW5hLmhvQG51cy5lZHUuc2c=_decb64.
Kanti Bajpai is Wilmar Professor on Asian Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Jing Huang is Lee Foundation Professor on U.S.-China Relations and Director, Centre on Asia and Globalisation. Kishore Mahbubani is Dean and Professor in the Practice of Public Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
This book has been produced as part of the School’s on-going China-India Project.
Guest Column
China gets rattled by India in the South China Sea
by David Scott
The following Guest Column follows the previous discussion (Amrita Jash, “The Legitimacy of India’s South China Sea Concerns,” China-India Brief 68) on the South China Sea conflict.
On February 1, 2016, the Global Times carried an article by Shi Lancha, based at Tsinghua University, entitled “India-Vietnam Bond Brings Doubtful Payoff”. The Global Times is the populist-nationalist offshoot of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In dismissing these India-Vietnam links, the Chinese author revealed underlying Chinese concerns about growing Indian involvement in the South China Sea; most of which is claimed by China, but which cut across claims there by Vietnam.
Lin’s article was sparked by the announcement on January 25 by Indian officials that New Delhi was setting up a new satellite tracking and imaging station in southern Vietnam, a civilian project under the aegis of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The significance of this development had been quickly picked up in the Indian Media, the station seen as an “strategic asset” (Economic Times, January 4) for India in the South China Sea, enabling India to keep an “eye on China” (Business Standard, January 25).
In China, the government was officially non-committal about the station, but Lin accurately noted the dual purpose character of such satellite tracking/imagery; “the significance of the episode will go far beyond technology, especially given the geopolitical sensitivities of the region as well as the enormous military value of the high-resolution satellite images” provided by the station for India and also for Vietnam.
Geo-economically, Lin was ready to point out how energy issues remain an issue bringing India and Vietnam together against China, with India signing exploration deals in oil fields held by Vietnam but claimed by China; “the two countries’ energy cooperation mainly concerns offshore drilling in the South China Sea – and in disputed waters – where satellite images can be put in great use”.
Geopolitically, Lin profiled India as “as a rising giant” which “also shares a nervousness about China”, in which “in order to balance China’s” arrival in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, “New Delhi looked into East and Southeast Asia and developed a series of geostrategic policies … clearly directed at China”. Quite accurately Lin argued that “India plays the Vietnam card proactively in order to gain a counterweight against Beijing”, with the satellite station a “countermove to break into China’s backyard”.
Lin’s evaluation so far was accurate with regard to Indian motives and wider significance. However with regards to its strategic significance, India’s abilities, and Chinese motives, Lin’s evaluation was questionable.
With regard to the strategic importance of the station Lin argued that “although the satellite station can be a perfect move to serve both India and Vietnam’s short-term purposes, its strategic value is doubtful”. Such dismissal contradicted his own preceding words on the station’s “enormous military value”.
India-Vietnam links were also dismissed; “New Delhi may believe it has targeted Beijing’s weak spot, but actually Indo-Vietnamese relations are never a major concern for China”. It is true that relations with the US and Japan are of greater importance for China, but India has significantly increased in importance for China in recent years from a previous marginality for China. China’s own “anti-encirclement struggle” (Garver) remains a priority to stop restraining partnerships being established around it – of which the India-Japan linkage is important in its own right and even more important as part of a parallel India-Vietnam-Japan-US formation.
Finally, India’s significance for the South China Sea dynamics was dismissed, “after all, India is not a South China Sea country, nor does it have substantial interests in the region”. However this ignores the fact that India has a growing military (naval deployments), political (security partnerships with Vietnam and China) and economic (oil exploration) presence in the South China, and as such has growing interests in these waters.
With regard to India’s abilities; Lin was dismissive “India’s limited political and military strength can hardly manage long-distance power projection like the US” and “nor can Indian science and economic standing qualify it as an appealing sponsor”. Certainly India does not have long distance power projection like the US, but then neither does China, and India’s “extended neighbourhood” projection is bringing it outside South Asia; in particular across the Indo-Pacific reaches of the Indian Ocean-South China Sea-Western Pacific waters.
Lin’s final strand concerned Indian perceptions of China; “New Delhi’s calculation is largely based on the presupposition that China deliberately contains India”. This is indeed an accurate summary of Indian perceptions of China; a palpable fear of “encirclement” by China through its direct military presence northwards along the Himalayas and southwards in the Indian Ocean, and indirectly through its partnership with Pakistan and other South Asian neighbours of India, as well as Indian Ocean microstates in the so-called String of Pearls scenario. This does not involve bases as such, but does involve growing Chinese political, military and economic presence across the Indo-Pacific, which in the case of the South China Sea is turning into direct exertion of control over claimed waters. This unease over China’s growing presence is why the Indian government has been notably unwilling to endorse China’s Maritime Silk Road (MSR) initiative that was pushed by Beijing throughout 2015.
Having pinpointed Indian fears of such Chinese penetration quite accurately, Lin went on to dismiss their validity, India’s “assumption is groundless”. However, this general unease in India is not groundless. After all, Lin did not deny China’s growing presence around India, but pitched them in benign economic terms; “the Chinese presences in India’s neighboring countries are more of a consequence of Beijing’s intense economic ties with countries in the region, rather than a plot to deploy “a string of pearls” to check India”. For India, talk of China’s “intense” economic ties with its neighbours undermine its sense of its own natural pre-eminence in its own strategic backyard; the Indian subcontinent as “India’s subcontinent”, the Indian Ocean as “India’s Ocean”. Thus, Lin’s reassurance that “after all, China’s enormous energy import and manufactured goods export go round India continuously” is as troublesome as it is reassuring for India, given the ongoing encirclement worries felt in India.
David Scott is an ongoing consultant-analyst and prolific writer on India and China foreign policy, having retired from teaching at Brunel University in 2015. He can be contacted at decb64_ZGF2aWRzY290dDM2NkBvdXRsb29rLmNvbQ==_decb64.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy or the National University of Singapore.
News Reports
China and India in the Regions
Economic fundamentals of BRICS unchanged: Chinese official
Xinhua, February 15
Despite the current difficulties of BRICS economies, their economic fundamentals remain unchanged and better cooperation will help them tackle global challenges, said Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao. In an article in Monday’s “Economic Daily,” Zhu acknowledged that downward pressure on the global economy and fluctuating capital flows are negatively affecting the bloc of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. However, these nations will not lose their appeal, Zhu pointed out, citing a string of factors including economic scale and cooperation within the bloc.” Emerging economies, especially BRICS, represent the upward power on the global stage,” he wrote.
Blockade lifted on Indo-Nepal border: How it happened
The Indian Express, February 16
The movement led by the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) and the related blockade of the Raxaul-Birgunj checkpost which accounts for up to 70 per cent of supplies to land-locked Nepal from India, concluded as mysteriously, as they had begun 135 days ago. Last week, the largely sympathetic crowds from Raxaul in Bihar turned unexpectedly hostile- they burnt down the tents erected along the no-man’s land between the two countries and removed Front activists who had been on dharna there all this while. Then, gradually the vehicles loaded with goods began their journey into Nepal.
Will bring back jobs from countries like China, India: Donald Trump
The Economic Times, February 22
Controversial Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has alleged that countries like China and India are taking away jobs from the US and vowed to bring them back for Americans. Trump made the remarks while predicting that he will earn a “tremendous amount” of support from African-Americans. “You are seeing the stories when African-American leaders are saying, ‘my people really like Trump’ because I am going to bring jobs back from China, from Mexico, Japan and Vietnam and India…and all these places that are taking our jobs and I am going to bring back jobs,” he told CNN.
China signals it will not back down over South China Sea deployments as foreign minister heads to US
South China Morning Post, February 22
China’s South China Sea military deployments are no different from US deployments on Hawaii, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Monday, striking a combative tone ahead of a visit by foreign minister Wang Yi to the United States. The United States accused China of raising tensions in the South China Sea by its apparent deployment of surface-to-air missiles on a disputed island, a move China has neither confirmed nor denied. Asked whether the South China Sea, and the missiles, would come up when Wang is in the United States to meet secretary of state John Kerry, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Washington should not use the issue of military facilities on the islands as a “pretext to make a fuss”.
Playing India and China card not a viable policy: Nepal PM K P Sharma Oli
The Economic Times, February 23
Nepalese Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli on Monday tried to clear air over his government’s attempts to reach out to China and claimed that his country does not play India or China “card” and there is “no question” of favouring one over the other as it is not a viable “policy option”. “Misunderstandings” between India and Nepal “do not” persist anymore, Oli said during a public address, terming it as the “most important” outcome of his first visit to India after assuming office last October. However, on the day when Oli turned 65, he defended the country’s constitution which had earlier irked India as it lacks inclusiveness which led to prolonged agitation by the Madhesis in the Himalayan State. Both PM and Foreign Minister have extended greetings to Oli on his birthday which fell during his maiden visit abroad as PM.
News Reports
Economy and Trade
Belt and Road to save Chinese financial institutions 9.6 bln yuan in taxes
Xinhua, February 11
Tax treaties with countries along the “Belt and Road” will save financial institutions in China 9.6 billion yuan (about 1.5 billion U.S. dollars) in taxes, according to the State Administration of Taxation. In 2015, China conducted a number of tax treaty negotiations and modifications with countries along the “Belt and Road” including Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Romania and Russia. Besides the tax agreements, the administration also negotiated with India, Indonesia and Tajikistan on tax disputes and saved domestic enterprises 270 million yuan in taxes last year.
India economic data ‘manipulated’, Chinese scholars write
The Wall Street Journal, February 16
India’s latest output figures have provoked head-scratching from many quarters for showing the country leapfrogging China as the world’s fastest-growing economy despite widespread signs that demand is shaky and companies aren’t making big investments. Now, an op-ed in the Global Times, a Chinese state-backed newspaper, describes it as a “myth” that India’s economy has caught up with China’s, and argues that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is risking his country’s future by working to attract investment.
TPP has slight negative impact on China: U.S. think tank
Xinhua, February 16
The U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was signed by 12 countries accounting for 40 percent of the global GDP, will only have a slight negative impact on China, according to an authoritative U.S. think tank. There is no denying that the multi-national free trade deal can bring hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars in revenues to the signatories every year, said Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), an American nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute. But the TPP’s negative impact on China is insignificant, which is negligible before 2025 and can cause China to lose between 9 billion and 20 billion U.S. dollars a year by 2030, which accounts for less than 0.1 percent of its GDP at the time, the PIIE said.
OECD downgrades forecast of 2016 global growth to 3 pct
Xinhua, February 18
The Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD) announced in its latest study published Thursday that it lowered its forecast of global growth in 2016 by 0.3 percentage point to 3 percent. In its Interim Economic Outlook Forecasts, the OECD trimmed the gross domestic product (GDP) forecast of the United States in 2016 by 0.5 percentage point to 2 percent , the forecast of euro area by 0.4 percentage point to 1.4 percent, and Japan by 0.2 percentage point to 0.8 percent. For emerging economies, the GDP forecast of Brazil has been lowered by 2.8 percentage point to -4.0 percent, but the forecast of China has been kept in the pace of 6.5 percent,and the forecast of India has been upgraded by 0.1 percentage point to 7.4 percent.
Nestle regards China as its important growth driver
Xinhua, February 19
Paul Bulcke, CEO of the Swiss food and beverage giant Nestle, said that China has been and remains its important growth driver. “Nestle has never stopped growing in China, even in the last few years of slow growth,” said Bulcke during a press conference held at the company’s headquarters in Vevey. Nestle announced on Thursday a full-year organic growth of 4.2 percent in 2015, falling short of its long-term target of 5-6 percent growth. Its performance in the Asian market was seriously impacted by the Maggi noodles issue in India. However, the annual report noted that China has shown increased momentum towards the end of last year. “China’s GDP remains robust. And it’s moving from investment-driven expansions towards private consumption,” said Bulcke, adding that “we are confident in our ability to accelerate our growth progressively with sustainability” in Chinese market.
India studying impact of market economy status for China
The Hindu, February 21
India’s Commerce Ministry is assessing the implications of the likelihood of China being granted “Market Economy Status” (MES) from December this year under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) norms. This comes against the backdrop of instances of India’s manufacturers in steel, chemicals, electrical and electronics sectors being “severely hurt” by “unfairly low-priced” imports from China, and the extensive usage of anti-dumping duty by India to offset the losses caused to the local manufacturers due to dumping. Of the 535 cases where anti-dumping duties were imposed by India from 1994-2014, a maximum of 134 has been on goods from China.
News Reports
Energy and Environment
India and China have most deaths from pollution
The Wall Street Journal, February 16
More than half of the 5.5 million deaths related to air pollution in 2013 happened in India and China, according to a new study. About 1.4 million people in the South Asian nation and 1.6 million in its northern neighbor died of illnesses related to air pollution in 2013, researchers at the University of British Columbia in Canada said. The Indian and Chinese fatalities accounted for 55% of such deaths worldwide, the study said.
The country with the worst air pollution is not the one you’re thinking of
The Washington Post, February 22
It’s a never-ending debate in Asia — whose air quality is worse, China’s or India’s? A new study by Greenpeace is trying to answer that question. Analysts looked at NASA satellite images and found that measurements of particulate matter — the microscopic particles that invade your lungs and can cause cancer and heart disease — improved impressively in China over the past few years while air quality in India has worsened, with 2015 ranking as India’s most polluted year on record. For the first time, Greenpeace found, the average Indian citizen was exposed to more particulate matter than the average Chinese.
India set to seal major power deal in Bangladesh, beating China
The Economic Times, February 22
State-run Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) is poised to seal a contract to build a $1.6 billion power plant in Bangladesh, beating out a Chinese competitor in the latest commercial tussle between the region’s two dominant powers. After China’s recent success in pushing development projects in Sri Lanka, a breakthrough in Bangladesh would be welcome news for Indian officials who have long fretted over Beijing’s encroachment on to territory it considers its own back yard. India believes Bangladesh is a part of a “String of Pearls” China is building across the Indian Ocean that stretches from Gwadar port in Pakistan to Djibouti on the African coast where it is building a naval base.
Obama wants India, China to use clean coal
Business Standard, February 23
Calling climate change a real problem, President Barack Obama would like India and China to know how to use clean coal to ensure they are not emitting huge amount of carbon. “Number one, climate change is real,” he said speaking at a national governors association reception at the White House. “Point number two is, in order to grow the economy, we got to have energy,” he said. “And every president, whoever takes my place, they’re going to want to grow the economy. And, by the way, that’s true internationally.” “In fact, there are countries like India where it’s even more desperate. They don’t have electricity. They’ve got to produce electricity in order to develop,” Obama said.
Analyses and Commentaries
Modi’s growth push casts shadow on chances of long-term success
Global Times, February 14
At the time when India is becoming the rotating presiding country of the BRICS group, the myth that India’s economy has successfully caught up with China’s also resonates. Indeed, behind Prime Minister Narendra Modi is his management experience in Gujarat, but this doesn’t prepare him for successfully governing a large country, nor can his manipulated economic data be used to prove the arrival of a “catch up with the US and surpass China” era. It can be fairly safe to say that there is still a long way to go before India can actually lead the other BRICS countries. Of course, Modi has been leading India to search for ways to inject strong momentum into the Indian economy, but at the same time has caused potential problems to India’s future. First, “the paper growth” of the Indian economy has caused some increasingly serious social problems. Furthermore, Modi’s economic policy is also questionable. Currently, India is seeking an investment-oriented growth pattern. Modi’s “recipe” is nothing more than efforts to attract investment, with the heat of capital to push development in India.
Will U.S.-ASEAN summit yield anything substantial?
Xinhua, February 15
U.S. President Barack Obama will host a two-day summit with ASEAN leaders on Monday at the Sunnylands Center in California. The meeting, the first of its kind in the United States, is expected to be part of Obama’s Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy. However, U.S. media and experts believe that the free-of-protocol meeting is doomed to yield nothing substantial due to differences between the United States and Southeast Asian countries. Asia-Pacific rebalance is one of the priorities of Obama’s foreign policy. The U.S. government regards it as a long-term strategy, Daniel Russel, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said last month. However, Obama is running out of time during his presidential term, and it is hard to tell whether the next administration will continue Obama’s policy.
No proof required: Believe it, GDP data is right
The Indian Express, February 22
Ever since the new GDP data was released in January 2015, most economists, in the government and outside it, have been more than sceptical. With the release of the advance estimates of the GDP for fiscal year 2015-16 (FY 2016), which showed the GDP growing at 7.6 per cent, the crescendo of criticism has reached new heights. There are four reasons that explain the presence of the doubting Thomases. First, India’s growth could not be just inches below China’s; it had to be several feet below. Second, India couldn’t, by definition, grow faster than China. There has been a rapid decline in China’s GDP growth rate, from double-digit levels that prevailed for 32 years (1980-2011) to a sudden drop since FY12. The new GDP numbers for India are 6.6 per cent in FY14 (below China’s 7.3 per cent) and 7.2 per cent in FY15 (way above China’s 6.9 per cent). Hence, the only safe conclusion was that the data was not telling the truth.
For the sake of humanity, China, India and others must stick to Paris deal on climate change
South China Morning Post, February 22
China and India, as developing nations with the two biggest populations in the world, unsurprisingly suffer more than other countries when it comes to the ill-effects of air pollution. What is astounding, though, is just how severely their citizens are affected. A recent global study found that of the 5.5 million people who died prematurely in 2013 as a result of toxic emissions, 55 per cent were from the two Asian giants. It is shocking proof of just how much work remains for their governments to eliminate hazardous pollutants. The task is daunting. Scientists from China, India, the US and Canada, presenting their findings at the annual meeting in Washington of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, determined that conditions caused by air pollution killed 1.6 million Chinese and 1.4 million Indians in 2013. Hundreds of thousands in both countries died from afflictions associated with the burning of coal for electricity and heating.
Retrieving the momentum
The Indian Express, February 23
The ongoing visit of Nepal’s Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli may not have resolved all of New Delhi’s current differences with Kathmandu. But it has done enough to defuse the recent crisis in bilateral relations. The visit also underlines the renewed energy in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s neighbourhood diplomacy. Delhi’s careful recalibration of regional policy since then is based on a set of sensible principles. One is the need for a sustained dialogue with the neighbours — under all circumstances. While “acting tough” may play well in India for a while, there is no alternative to patient engagement.
Books and Journals
China-India Relations: Cooperation and Conflict
Routledge Contemporary Asia Series, 2016
The question of whether China and India can cooperate is at the core of global geopolitics. As the two countries grow their economies, the potential for conflict is no longer simply a geopolitical one based on relative power, influence and traditional quarrels over land boundaries. This book, edited by Kanti Bajpai, Jing Huang and Kishore Mahbubani, assesses the varying interests of China and India in economics, environment, energy, and water and addresses the possibility of cooperation in these domains. Containing analyses by leading authorities on China and India, it analyses the nature of existing and emerging conflict, describes the extent of cooperation, and suggests possibilities for collaboration in the future. While it is often suggested that conflict between the giants of Asia is the norm, there are a number of opportunities for cooperation in trade, international and regional financial institutions, renewable energy development and climate change, and shared rivers. This book will be of interest to researchers in the fields of Asian Studies, International Relations, and Asian Politics.