Psychological warfare, media propaganda, narratives coupled with operations beyond diplomatic relations is what China is known for. Is the world listening?
Dr Amritpal Kaur
Prima Facie, diplomacy is a well-rehearsed hard bargain negotiation among countries to achieve the best possible outcomes for a nation without resorting to crude force.
What does not however meet the eye is that it is an incessant process to resolve outstanding issues lurking around the corners, brewing for years before the final settlement, if ever, is achieved.
With core interests at the heart of diplomatic deliberations, the high stakes make this complicated dance on eggshells all more crucial. It is assumed that deliberations conducted by diplomats are a standard process with similar training in negotiation processes and the parlance used in discussions.
In reality, diplomatic negotiation is a high-voltage tussle with deep and far-reaching consequences. Even more astounding is that it does not end on the negotiation table but runs like an undercurrent. In the era of Globalization or ‘Complex interdependence’ as much as the international community is reality of domestic national life, diplomacy and diplomatic signals become more significant for nations.
If diplomatic engagement is mired in psychological games with the intention of one-upmanship, bilateral engagements become complex and if one of the parties is contemporary China, it raises its own share of issues.
Conspicuous silence President Xi Jingping maintained when Prime Minister Modi assumed office for historic third consecutive term was marked by world leaders. This silence seems to have sent out an eloquent underlying message.
Though Chinese Premier Li Qiang joined top world leaders in congratulating Prime Minister Modi ahead of swearing in on June 9, 2024, President Xi’s silence was ostensibly aimed at mounting psychological pressure on India.
Post-second world war, China and its international relations give us glimpse into the country’s thinking on its relations with others including India. Beginning with Zhau Enlai, average Chinese have relentlessly pursued overt and covert ways to achieve its desired bilateral outcomes with an astonishing disregard for international treaties and modus operandi.
Indo-Chinese agreement of 1993, intermittent border skirmishes and war (1962) since 1948 reiterates the point that it’s not over, until the last bell rang. Border dispute with India and People’s Liberation Army operations on Indo-Chinese border comes at crucial junctures.
Former National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon recounted in his book Choices (2016) that in 2014 when the first Modi government took office and President Xi came to India, PLA engaged in border skirmishes with India. Similarly, during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to China, a similar tactic unfolded. Probable explanation to such acts, according to Menon is to create psychological pressure on the newly elected Indian prime Minister as to who is the sheriff in town.
Richard Solomon, former diplomat in US and former Foreign Secretary of India Vijay Gokhale have written respectively about the Chinese style of diplomacy which is remarkably different from diplomacy of democratic countries. Chinese engage in psychological warfare even in diplomacy at various levels.
From setting agenda to building narratives, Chinese are adept at controlling the whole process and go beyond closed doors of diplomatic negotiations. One pattern is to engage in crude coercion and use of force while the other is to leverage media to create narratives. Two examples can be cited here, one is that of 1950s when Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru was called the ‘Bourgeoise Imperialist’ by Chinese media. Earlier this month, the state-sponsored Chinese media and related ecosystem described Prime Minister Modi as ‘weakened’ leader. These reports also suggested possible use of counter measures by China if India maintains policy status quo.
Why is it that Chinese takes recourse to multi-pronged games in strategic and diplomatic relations with other countries eventually leading to disturbing regional peace and tranquility? Nature of Chinese state perhaps necessitates such behaviour. To begin with, Henry Kissinger in On China argued that since antiquity China has believed in ‘Middle Kingdom’ phenomenon which places the Chinese state over rest of the world and only beneath the heaven.
This perceived middle Kingdom phenomenon has percolated to Communist China as well and hence they believe that other countries can only be vassals to the dragon power. There have been suggestions to the effect that Chinese communist expansionists harbor the idea that bilateral relations cannot be between equal sovereigns. These relations should centre on ‘superior’ China and ‘inferior’ other nations.
With regards to Bharat, Chinese terminology includes ‘legalized hegemony’ and perceives India as an inferior state given that it does not have a permanent seat in United Nations Security Council. Chinese may have effortlessly used this aspect to tip balance of power in their favour, as former NSA Shiv Shankar Menon calls it. Former foreign secretary Gokhale argued that Chinese engage in such tactics to keep power equation in their favour.
Communist Party of China is the state itself and officials are appointed by the Party and not the state. Hence, their allegiance is with the Party and not the state per se. Menon sums the Chinese position succinctly when he argues that China is a lonely state rising in a crowded neighbourhood with an acute need for regime survival and internal harmony. Hence, its no wonder that being adventurous in foreign relations was to offset domestic attention from key issues.
Since China is viewed as a formidable power, there is critical need to find a mutually beneficial bilateral mechanism. But, there’s no letup in tricky Chinese games loaded with psychological operations that have implications for outstanding bilateral issues. China experts, time and again, underscore that if we had to deal with China, understanding its game is more important.
Only then can we find favourable outcomes in diplomatic negotiations. Jiang Zemin was famous for saying in English that it takes two to tango and it is true in this case well. For bilateral relations to succeed, it takes two to clap and a possible egalitarian approach in Chinese diplomacy.
(Author is Assistant Professor in Political Sciences, Dayal Singh College, Delhi University, New Delhi)
About The Author
