K C Singh
The Beijing Winter Olympics kicked off on February 4. The diplomatic boycott by the US and its Five-Eyes allies, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, was already known.
They justified their action citing China's human rights abuses against its Uyghur minority. The rest of the world has adopted a variegated stance. The intermingling of sport and geopolitics needs a closer look. Of the 21 world leaders expected to attend, using the Freedom House rankings, 12 could be called authoritarian or hybrid and eight democratic, besides Monaco.
The European Union presents a mixed picture. Some like Austria, Netherlands, Sweden etc. simply pleaded Covid for their absence. Germany and Denmark will also be absent, though France is sending a delegation. European consensus to join the US perception of China as an existential threat is missing. Europeans are beginning to be wary of China as a competitor in global trade and cutting-edge technologies.
But for them China's assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific is a distant distraction. Most noticeably, Russian President Vladimir Putin would stand alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping at the old Olympic stadium in Beijing. The geopolitical significance of that is obvious. Russia has been sabre-rattling all across the Ukrainian periphery, raising the fear of an attack.
US President Joe Biden has been forced to deploy extra troops to the NATO theatre to counter the Russian pressure. China is happy that the US has been distracted by Ukraine, dividing its attention and resources. Otherwise, the Biden doctrine was for diverting US resources to the Indo-Pacific. Unsurprisingly Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, Crown Princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE respectively, as well as the Emir of Qatar will attend.
This reflects the Chinese diplomatic penetration of the Gulf nations, despite their closeness to the US. There are reports that China is clandestinely building the ballistic missile capabilities of the Saudis, to counter the Iranian advantage in that area. The Gulf nations are hedging their bets after their growing distrust of the US as the guarantor of their security.
The Ukrainian stand-off is important for China also because it could create a template for how it deals with Taiwan. If Russia uses military force against Ukraine, no analyst thinks Russians will fail. Ukraine is yet not a NATO member and in fact, one of the Russian preconditions for peaceful resolution is a commitment that Ukraine will never be admitted to that alliance. Thus, it is unlikely that the US or NATO forces would directly confront a Russian advance.
The policy seems to be to empower the Ukrainians by providing anti-tank missiles and other weapons. If the outcome were Russian military occupation of Ukraine, the Chinese would conclude that the US would not intervene if it was to likewise attack and annex Taiwan. Contrariwise, if Russia settles for peaceful resolution of the issue and de-escalates militarily, the Chinese may see the futility of playing the threats-and-win game. Interestingly, China obtained the participation of five Central Asian nations by offering $ 500 million aid and 50 million Covid vaccines. The Indian case is quite distinct from these examples.
India had decided to not join the US boycott. When the 14th round of military-to-military boundary talks persisted the deadlock, the assumption should have been of continuing Chinese obduracy. Meanwhile, reports have appeared in the international media about much greater Chinese loss of life in the Galwan hand-tohand combat than so far conceded by China. The image-conscious Chinese communist regime had to rectify this loss of face.
When it deployed Qi Fabao, a regimental commander injured badly in the Galwan encounter, as a torchbearer, the plot was setfor Indian retaliation. Within hours,the Indian government was forced to announce a diplomatic boycott. India's earlier pro-attendance posture was correct, as any boycott would have been seen as due to US pressure. Now it could be interpreted as standing up to China, despite seeking first the normalisation of relations. US State Department spokesman Ned Price immediately turned the new development into a useful diplomatic tool. He said the China always tries to “intimidate its neighbours” and the US stands with its partners and allies”. Extending support to India, he added that the US aims “to advance our shared prosperity, security and values in the Indo-Pacific”. The Chinese are not dimwitted enough to not have anticipated that by embarrassing India, they would actually push it deeper into the US corner.
The conclusion can be drawn that in their minds, after the QUAD summit of Australia,India, Japan and the US,India is seen as a US acolyte. It was being speculated since before the Indian visit of Russian President Putin that he was trying to create Sino-Indian understanding. India's abstention at the UN Security Council from the vote to decide the discussion of a military threat to Ukraine would have pleased the Russians. But China is not about to let its newfound partner Russia determine its strategic choices. The Indian government reacted angrily to Rahul Gandhi's allegation that its policies had created greater convergence between Pakistan and China.
They quoted the history of Sino-Pak relations, but in reality, what was covert and measured earlier is now overt and brazen. The Qi Fabao episode underscores it, as China, levelling the charge on the US, itself politicised the Olympics.
(The writer is former secretary, Ministry of External Affairs)
