July 12, 2008 ☼ Asia ☼ China ☼ Foreign Affairs ☼ foreign policy ☼ India ☼ international relations ☼ Realism ☼ realpolitik
This is an archived blog post from The Acorn.
Dilip D’Souza is so unmoved by “realpolitik” that he has published another post on the topic to register his inertia. His post lightens up the Sunday. It is a must-read post for those who are interested to study the fine art of buffet-debating: just the the bits you like, ignore the bits you don’t, and enjoy your meal.
Dilip selectively quotes from two posts, and one comment, to declare that Realist prescriptions for a policy towards China leave him confused. He could have saved himself the trouble, and the confusion, if only he had looked at what was on the a la carte menu: the old post on One China Policy (there isn’t one) was even re-published in April this year as it was ‘pertinent to the current situation’.
If he had done that, he would not have had to, buffet-style, take some bits and drop others from the paragraphs he decided to quote. (the bits he dropped are in italics)
India’s accumulation of power and influence in Asia will be perceived as a threat by China to the extent that it relatively diminishes Beijing’s own influence. And vice versa. There’s no reason to feel apologetic about this. Aggression and intimidation, like diplomacy and negotiations are parts of a composite toolkit. An offhand rejection of one or more of them is not prudent. [No apologies expected]
India must refrain from going overboard in its support for the Tibetan protests lest this issue upset broader relations with China. But Mr Bhadrakumar defies imagination by holding the Indian government guilty of doing too much already. [John 8:7 does not apply to international relations]
If you would like to share or comment on this, please discuss it on my GitHub
Previous © Copyright 2003-2024. Nitin Pai. All Rights Reserved.