Indo-Sino Relations: A New Age?

This whole Indian security council thing is making the rounds in the popular national media outlets, as well as on college campuses.  One particularly interesting take on the debate can be found in the Cornell Daily Sun, where a student writer relates Indian emergence in world politics to Cornell's increased interest in recruiting Indian students.

On the question of Indian emergence, there is no doubt that India has rapidly become a leading competitor in the world economy and a desired region for foreign investment.
With several individuals on the Forbe's billionaires list, India has certainly become a lucrative playing ground for corporations and individuals alike.

What's not so clear however, is the reception India will receive from other states.  For example, although China has not opposed India's bid for permanent status on the security council, it has also not outwardly supported it. In my opinion, China will probably use India's bid as a bargaining chip for other issues that have plagued Indo-Sino relations for some time.

With that said, it would be nice to see the South Asian giant take a leading role in world politics, particularly after its leadership in the Doha Free Trade Negotiations and international economic development.

What are your thoughts?

Related Articles

Comments

  1. While China's indirect assent for India's SC bid turned quite a few heads in the international arena, it might be beneficial to observe a few sobering facts about the Security Council reform process:
    First, the language of both the United State's support bid and China's indirect assent for it, indicated that both countries regard India's ascent to the SC as a indefinite concept to be implemented in the deep future. Neither country expects India on the SC within the next 25-30 years, which in geopolitical time is an eon (just think back to the state of the world 25 years ago).
    Second, many in Indian academia place less importance on a half-fledged 'permanent' SC seat. Half-fledged because in no SC reform scheme, is the option of giving any new members the veto power, considered. So the Original Five would still have the upper-hand regardless which new yuppie countries gained membership.
    This politically out-of-vogue sentiment is apparent in this NYT article (http://www.cnas.org/node/5221) which was edited before it went to press to remove the politically incorrect sentiments. Both China and India, regard the more nascent groups such as the G20 meeting, as more instrumental in shaping their foreign policy and the UN, as an impending colossal relic of a non-existent Europe-centric world. Whether that is beneficial or detrimental to the world is a separate question altogether.

    Yet another interesting facet of China's support for India's bid is its equally firm insistence against a Japanese bid. Given geopolitical realities, it almost seems insensible. India, a rising self-confident power on China's doorstep with a population and economy to match, even threaten, China's dominance in a future China-dominated world that CCP leaders envision vs. Japan, a resource-poor island that is past its economic peak and increasingly insecure about China's growing clout in
    its region. This scenario almost begs China to even support Japan as an 'Asian representative' on the SC, instead of India.
    One explanation would be Japan's traditional subordination to China in terms of cultural and regional supremacy, and China's chafing at having fallen behind Japan for a century.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment