The unprecedented growth of China in recent years is unquestionable. Whether in terms of production or relative military power, it has surpassed our expectations. As a result, the Chinese government is focusing on its goal of becoming a “superpower” or “hegemon” in the world more than ever.
The Centre held a distinguished lecture for International Relations and Strategic Studies (CIRSS), IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, to highlight the same. The lecture was under The State of International Affairs – #DiplomacyDialogue. A Distinguished Lecture by Dr Rafiq Dossani on China’s Grand Strategy.
Starting, Dr Simi Mehta, the moderator of the session, stated that as China continues in its quest for establishing its geopolitical might and influence, the elements of its grand strategy need to be looked upon.
Whether it is over strategic thinking articulated by the military or includes Beijing’s diplomatic manoeuvres, she questions the reasons for shaping this grand strategy, its goals over the next two decades, and the response required by other major powers like the United States.
What Is Grand Strategy And Its Functions?
The lecture started with a brief introduction to the topic, followed by defining the term “Grand Strategy”, a national plan to convert a country’s priorities and interests into actions. These grand strategies have some critical characteristics like advanced national security, continually evolving the policies running for a long term, and concentrating on developing the state’s military, diplomatic and economic resources. Then, he illustrated how the grand strategy plays a vital role in the nation’s development. He explained this via various case studies of Japan and the USA.
He mentioned that the Grand strategy’s key determinant is the degree of strategic autonomy. The small and middle powers may not have much autonomy, and their grand strategy must be set in reaction to the big power grand strategy. However, even big power autonomy is never absolute.
He stated the cases of high and low strategy autonomy giving examples of Japan’s quest for regional eminence 1960-85 through infrastructure, trade, and aid strategies, and South Korea’s quest for unification with North Korea after the Korean war 1953.
The various manifestations of grand strategy occur through institutions and initiatives, resources deployed, and National security objects achieved. Rather, he also discussed how and what dominant factors could shape our grand strategy.
There are various features like multilateral or regional institutions like the United Nations or European Union. They could be based on diplomatic or economic resources like the belt and road initiative. Finally, they could have a common objective that could be diplomatic or military-centric.
USA’s Grand Strategy
At First, he divided the Strategy of the United States into parts. The first one was based on the time of the Cold War (1945-1991), which explicitly mentioned that the United States promoted various global institutions along with America’s soft belief in the market economy and respect for human rights. The UN and its other agencies were in most United States institutions for diplomatic and economic relevance.
USA’s Grand Strategy and China started during the Vietnam war when China switched sides and supported the USA rather than the communist USSR for UNSC’s permanent membership and derecognition of Taiwan. Before this, it was considered that China maintained a low profile in global politics.
After entering the UNSC, it is believed that China had a spur of influential leaders with ambitious goals for the nation. Moreover, China did not impact the USA’s policies and plans, but this changed in 2012.
The second part of the USA’s grand strategy from 1992 to 2012 was the USA’s sole superpower. They used their dominance in full power not only by invading nations and intercepting conflicts and by having the burden of the global saviour. He also showed the change in pattern in the use of the Veto in the security council.
He further concluded this part of how and what factors changed the US’s perspective towards China. With the assertiveness of China in the South China sea and the economic growth held by China and Russia in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the unexpected growth of China at an unprecedented rate is one of the significant factors along with many infrastructure development plans.
In the third part of the USA’s grand strategy, from 2012 to 2021, the USA invested more in specific regions like Asia – Pacific and others on the basics of bilateral treaties and agreements. But, on the other hand, it lowered its investments in multilateral organisations, where China has grown substantially.
China’s Grand Strategy – The Ultimate Changemaker
First, he focused on the Belt and Road initiative, which he believes is an especially important strategic and diplomatic challenge to Asia-pacific. He further explains various infrastructure projects in the BRI, including highways, ports, airports, rail links, etc.
Not only that, he highlighted how the completed projects are benefiting China and its trade. Various nations thought the projects were more than happy, as not only does it help their infrastructure growth but also collects carriage fees on a large scale.
Reflecting on the USA and China’s trends based on various issues and sectors, trade and economic cooperation have already been a basis of the relationship between both. Still, competition and security are an issue which is evident between the two. After the Xi Jinping era, the difficulties between the two have grown, and it has been a battle between both in various areas.
But what made the change in China’s conception of the United States? Because of some of the partnerships that the United States made under which China has a direct threat, in 2017, Trump explicitly mentioned China as a chief rival, the whole Trade-war between the nations could also be one of the factors.
Comparing the USA’s strategy with China’s then, we find China depending on various multilateral arrangements and existing organisations, the USA is moving towards a bilateral connection.
China is also trying to exploit the areas strategically where the USA is weak, like Korea and Europe. In contrast, the USA is trying to focus on areas of importance for China but has weak spots like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand.
Overall, China’s strategy has moved from an institution-based, socio-economic strategy to institutional and non-institutional diplomatic and military strategies. In contrast, the US has moved to less formal strategies. This has made China’s actions more predictable and less flexible.
Discussion
Hard and Relative power of Nation: A Realist Grand Strategy
Maj. Gen. (Dr) P. K. Chakravorty, VSM (Retd.) Strategic Thinker on Security Issues K. Chakravorty started the discussion. He started with the importance of the Grand Strategy, and in the current status quo, how could or should India go ahead and formulate one and implement it.
Instead, he believes that a grand strategy should be based on implementing the programs in action. These should be based on a realistic perspective. He also talks about autonomy and how the nations cannot violate it and bomb or stack nations on their choice.
War is never led by a single nation but by a group of nations supporting one side. This support could be based on donations or support.
He also spoke about the power and importance of hard power in diplomacy. He believes that keeping a soft tone has not worked best in diplomacy. Instead, he believes that it should be based on the complex and relative power of the nation to present a better image and achieve greater things.
He highlights the grand military strategy of China, with its various partners like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, and how China is taking advantage of its strategic location and position. He believes that the USA needs to amend its military strategy.
There are notable failed examples of the United States, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which speak out for change in their policy. He challenges the capabilities of soft power restrictions like sanctions and their negative implications. It makes the nation firm, but it also gives them ways to reach out for essentials.
Dr Prashant Kumar Singh Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi
Dr Prashant Kumar Singh took the stage to discuss the lecture. At first, he liked how the lecture was framed, and the chronology was a very affluent way of understanding this vital issue. He also acknowledged various points that the lecturer presented. He highlighted how the USA and its work towards China have helped make China a superpower, like being part of the various multilateral and inter-governmental organisations.
He presented a different view of Asia-Pacific as a strategic region via the lenses of India. He also asked for clarification on assorted topics like the view of other countries in Latin America and the African region, what are their previews, and their perspective on China’s growth.
Pertinent Questions
Answering the first, “how should the developing nations in South Asia move ahead in these changing scenarios.” He answered that China’s growth and the recent activity in the middle east might make China’s intentions difficult due to the more significant challenge of the Taliban. He believes that in a nation like Afghanistan in the recent Taliban regime, proper governance would be a more challenging task, rather than spreading terrorism.
After which, it was asked what the benefits for India are if it aligns with China or USA. India has decided to align with the USA, and he thinks that will sustain due to India’s border issues with China. Next, the question was regarding the declining power of the USA, he said that it is pretty overrated, but it is not as weak as it has been said. It is still the centre of the world with the tech and capital, but it is slightly blurring and could change differently if the USA does not give up.
At last, he answered the question of nationalism in India and the USA, but they are not seen as a threat. Then why is China’s nationalism being? He questioned the intent of nationalism not in China, his view was against it, and how it could bring danger to the entire world.
Acknowledgement: Ayush Aggarwal is a research intern at IMPRI. Written by Nishi Verma.
