The more power China has accumulated, the more it has attempted to achieve its foreign-policy objectives with bluff, bluster, and bullying. But, as its Himalayan border standoff with India’s military continues, the limits of this approach are becoming increasingly apparent.
The current standoff began in mid-June, when Bhutan, a close ally of India, discovered the People’s Liberation Army trying to extend a road through Doklam, a high-altitude plateau in the Himalayas that belongs to Bhutan, but is claimed by China. India, which guarantees tiny Bhutan’s security, quickly sent troops and equipment to halt the construction, asserting that the road – which would overlook the point where Tibet, Bhutan, and the Indian state of Sikkim meet – threatened its own security.
Since then, China’s leaders have been warning India almost daily to back down or face military reprisals. China’s defense ministry has threatened to teach India a “bitter lesson,” vowing that any conflict would inflict “greater losses” than the Sino-Indian War of 1962, when China invaded India during a Himalayan border dispute and inflicted major damage within a few weeks. Likewise, China’s Foreign Ministry has unleashed a torrent of vitriol intended to intimidate India into submission.
Despite all of this, India’s government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has kept its cool, refusing to respond to any Chinese threat, much less withdraw its forces. As China’s warmongering has continued, its true colors have become increasingly vivid. It is now clear that China is attempting to use psychological warfare (“psywar”) to advance its strategic objectives – to “win without fighting,” as the ancient Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu recommended.
China has waged its psywar against India largely through disinformation campaigns and media manipulation, aimed at presenting India – a raucous democracy with poor public diplomacy – as the aggressor and China as the aggrieved party. Chinese state media have been engaged in eager India-bashing for weeks. China has also employed “lawfare,” selectively invoking a colonial-era accord, while ignoring its own violations – cited by Bhutan and India – of more recent bilateral agreements.
For the first few days of the standoff, China’s psywar blitz helped it dominate the narrative. But, as China’s claims and tactics have come under growing scrutiny, its approach has faced diminishing returns. In fact, from a domestic perspective, China’s attempts to portray itself as the victim – claiming that Indian troops had illegally entered Chinese territory, where they remain – has been distinctly damaging, provoking a nationalist backlash over the failure to evict the intruders.
As a result, President Xi Jinping’s image as a commanding leader, along with the presumption of China’s regional dominance, is coming under strain, just months before the critical 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And it is difficult to see how Xi could turn the situation around.
Despite China’s overall military superiority, it is scarcely in a position to defeat India decisively in a Himalayan war, given India’s fortified defenses along the border. Even localized hostilities at the tri-border area would be beyond China’s capacity to dominate, because the Indian army controls higher terrain and has greater troop density. If such military clashes left China with so much as a bloodied nose, as happened in the same area in 1967, it could spell serious trouble for Xi at the upcoming National Congress.
But, even without actual conflict, China stands to lose. Its confrontational approach could drive India, Asia’s most important geopolitical “swing state,” firmly into the camp of the United States, China’s main global rival. It could also undermine its own commercial interests in the world’s fastest-growing major economy, which sits astride China’s energy-import lifeline.
Already, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj has tacitly warned of economic sanctions if China, which is running an annual trade surplus of nearly $60 billion with India, continues to disturb border peace. More broadly, as China has declared unconditional Indian troop withdrawal to be a “prerequisite” for ending the standoff, India, facing recurrent Chinese incursions over the last decade, has insisted that border peace is a “prerequisite” for developing bilateral ties.
Against this background, the smartest move for Xi would be to attempt to secure India’s help in finding a face-saving compromise to end the crisis. The longer the standoff lasts, the more likely it is to sully Xi’s carefully cultivated image as a powerful leader, and that of China as Asia’s hegemon, which would undermine popular support for the regime at home and severely weaken China’s influence over its neighbors.
Already, the standoff is offering important lessons to other Asian countries seeking to cope with China’s bullying. For example, China recently threatened to launch military action against Vietnam’s outposts in the disputed Spratly Islands, forcing the Vietnamese government to stop drilling for gas at the edge of China’s exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea.
China does not yet appear ready to change its approach. Some experts even predict that it will soon move forward with a “small-scale military operation” to expel the Indian troops currently in its claimed territory. But such an attack is unlikely to do China any good, much less change the territorial status quo in the tri-border area. It certainly won’t make it possible for China to resume work on the road it wanted to build. That dream most likely died when India called the Chinese bully’s bluff.
Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of nine books, including Asian Juggernaut, Water: Asia’s New Battleground, and Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017.
www.project-syndicate.org
Chellaney is just a CIA hack and betraying India. He always lies blatantly in his articles.
hello china did nothing to india so far except defeat india in 1962 after india entry china territory like now
Karthik Sunder i can imaging u r a cleaner in the university of edinburgh
india admit thet go into china territory and talk about the tri junction but the tri junction is 2 km away
Karthik Sunder unfoutually india enter the area is delimited and sign with the british long before india was independent . that’s the fact don’t try to ignore the fact by diverse the topic.
it is quite obivious india is afraid lossing both napal and bhutan and building the dam there to cut off india water…..
Jo Snow Offcourse china should collect compensation for land dispute with central asia,it should sue USA for saying it is currency manipulator,it should sue tibetians for occupying their land without paying rent,then it should sue phillipines & vietnam for wars with china,then it should collect compensation from russia for border wars…..then india should surrender its claim on aksai chin & border war…..then with Japan…only china is correct okay
That tells you the quality of Indian elite and the recklessness to lie and distort in front of world.
Good idea, Vijay, Chinese should take India to ICC and suit the sucker.
Not really. Bhutan hates India with passion.
Read Wangcha Sangey’s blog. Bhutan would not allow Indian Army on to their soil.India use Dong Long as pretext, invaded Bhutan. Read wangchasangey(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2017/08/the-status-of-doklam-and-other-disputed(dot)html
India need to get out Bhutan or been kicked out. Indian has squatted on Nepal since 1062 and refusing to leave.
India has nicely brought forth this Chinese bluff. Most of the Indians are still astonished as to what courage does China have to threaten India with war?
Exactly Kevin, this stupid act of China has set back 45 years of cultivated diplomacy.
As one of the other articles had to say – even if this were resolved – India and China’s camps are split. China has just managed to mess-up what could have been a Century-defining relationship.
Eh? What are we talking about?
I think you should read the article properly before commenting here. Talking out of context doesn’t reflect well on your sanity.
If history tells us something, take a look at this: morden China has been involved in 3 major conflicts – Indo China war, Korean war, and Vietnam war.
In all occasions, Chinese troops withdrew immediately after the perceived threat was eliminated.
China has never been an aggressor, never. Just think about it.
Well that is the problem here is it not?
India and Bhutan claim the place is disputed, and China claims it is not. With a small country like Bhutan, China would have bullied its way into building a road. The fact here is that India stood up to the bully in DISPUTED territory – And that is what is causing so much indigestion to the Dragon ;).
If India were to intrude into territory that has been established and accepted by India as China’s – China has my vote to get mad and upset with India. THAT IS NOT THE CASE here regardless of the quantity of froth you see on Globaltimes’ mouth.
Globaltime’s foaming and frothing in anger is actually getting to be quite funny. Amazing what frustration can do to a bully used to getting his/her way.
China has not compensated India for 1962 war….the war happenned because of illegal occupation of tibet however the chinese massaged some australian journalist to falsify that story.Also current standoff is because of that tibet problem if tibet had been a free country there would have been no standoff
Also china betrayed even the russians in 1969 & they have still not tendered apology for that……morally it was wrong for china to do that because it was a peasant country & russians gave them technology,foreign aid etc etc in 1950 but china betrayed them also & still now they have not compensated russia for that or given apology
Like this the chinese keep betraying country after country because their education system is not fully evolved…..if they had asked the simple question who had helped us when we were poor in 1950 they would have sorted their moral dilemma long back & would have acted responsibly
India, Asia’s most important geopolitical “swing state,”
Doesn’t it say it all? The whole scenario is nothing but India’s attempt to please it’s master in the West in exchange for a pat on the back. The government has betrayed it’s people.
Chinese diplomats are known for their cautious approach. But since the stand off started, Chinese government has barely given any face saving opportunity to the Indian government. That is in itself quite telling – this is going to come sooner or later, sooner it is.
"Swinging " can give you momentum – if you have the weight.
india goverment make a big mistake by tranpass into China border instead of in the border between Buthan and China…u seem don’t have the knowledge to debating
the indian troop should be in the bhutan border to confront China not tranpass into china territory. as simple as that
Exactly, that is way it is unconditionally for Indian squatters to move out or being clean out. If it dare to fire a shot, there will be war take the bully squatters out. I hope Bhutan will be able to take uninvited Indian invading army out of its territory too. The squatter army has been refusing to leave Nepal land since 1962. Indian squatters are cancer of the neighborhood. They annex Sikkim with same tactic.
In the end we are just human beings who make mistakes—some small—some big. Hopefully the Chinese leadership will learn a lesson from this screw up——nobody likes to be bullied!
As I mentioned in another chat group, its the pot calling the kettle black. India has just been triumphant in claiming victory in forcing Nepal to change its constitution by blockading their border. So much that Nepal is asking China to please build a road from China. And for a Professor, he is using rather choice words. Saying the area belongs to Bhutan but claimed by China. Then there was no mention of India in fact invading that disputed land. Just a sleigh of hand in saying China is asking India to back down. Its this kind of articles who play to the gallery and ensuring a war.