Malafide Intention of China during Covid-19


This article has been written by Sudhanshu Upadhyay, pursuing B.B.A.,LLB. (H) from Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh

While the world is dealing and fighting with the pandemic COVID-19, which is also alleged that it is spread throughout the globe by china or china is being alleged to failed to prevent the spreading of virus from china to the whole of globe. Between all these acts of china as a nation seriously arises question about the intention of china while the whole world is battling COVID-19, and there is economic fall down across the globe. President of china issues a statement to People Liberation Army (PLA) to be prepared for war without recognizing the enemy. Also, there are certain more acts which clearly states that the intention of the Chinese government is malafide and is harmful for maintaining peace in the region, the concerned acts of the china are
1. China Standoff with India across LAC (Line of Actual Control)
2. Approval of the Hong Kong National Security Bill by the Chinese Parliament
3. China stand on Taiwan with Reference to “One China Policy”

We will discuss the above mentioned three concerned issues individually to understand the gravity of the situation and also to ascertain the intention of china during COVID-19.

1.China Standoff with India across LAC:

On 5th of May 2020 there were incident of Non-lethal combat between Indian and Chinese soldiers at Pangong lake in Ladakh region and at the very same day in Nathu la pass at Sikkim. This was taken as a normal border clash between the two armies as the border between India and China is disputed over twenty locations. It quite happens that soldier from both the sides during border patrolling unknowingly enter to each other’s region as there is no proper demarcation of borders from both the sides. But the situation started to become tense when this time the Chinese soldiers refuse to back off and started to built their temporary shelter not far from the Indian bases near Galwan valley and Pangong Lake. On 21st of may satellite images of the region were released, it was noticed that the Chinese troops entered the Indian territory at the Galwan river valley and also objecting to the road construction within (undisputed) Indian territory. The road under construction is said to branch off from the Dabru- Shyok DBO Road and lead into Galwan valley. The Chinese have moved troops to the area, parked 70-80 heavy vehicles and searching equipments.
The Chinese communists party run newspaper Global Times alleges India for standoff claiming that India has illegally developed defence facilities across border in Chinese territory near Galwan valley. The newspaper further stated that the India was clearly aware that the Galwan valley is region of Chinese territory and constructing defence facilities across the region is illegal.

To understand this situation, we need to analyze a research paper written by current Army chief M.M. Naravane on the topic of Doctrine of War Zone Campaign. This doctrine is a set of guidelines under which the people’s liberation army intends to fight the future war, which are likely to be limited. Limited in terms of geographical area it can also be interpreted as a term used to describe a region where a military campaign will be conducted as those opposed to the operations of the PLA. The term ‘Limited war’ is a familiar one. War can be limited in terms of time, force levels or geographical spaces/ objectives. In its present form, the context of geographical space seems to be more applicable. Even in the Indian context, it is quite possible that only one military region is designated as suggested by inter-military region boundaries. The last major conflict, the Sino Vietnam war, involved some 30 divisions and lasted some three weeks; the next war might be radically different with force multiplier replacing brute force. We should always be prepared for the unforeseen circumstances.
Also, we should not stop the construction of defence infrastructure across the LAC, as it is strategically important from the point of supply route for the troops deployed in the LAC.

2. Approval of the Hong Kong National Security Bill by the Chinese Parliament :

Chinese Parliament on 28th may approved the decision to pass the Hong Kong National Security bill which critics believes that the bill will seriously affect the autonomy of the Hong Kong. China says the new law will be aimed at tackling secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference in the city but the plan, unveiled in Beijing last week, triggered the first big protests in Hong Kong for months.

It will alter the territory’s mini-constitution, or Basic Law, to require its government to enforce measures to be decided later by Chinese leaders. The plans have prompted widespread condemnation and strained China’s relations with the United States and Britain. The national security legislation is the latest issue to fuel fears in Hong Kong that Beijing is imposing its authority and eroding the high degree of autonomy the former British colony has enjoyed under a “one country, two systems” formula since it returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Hong Kong’s political framework doesn’t offer much relief from the new law. The framework, specified in city’s basic law and the bill of rights, provides broad protections for civil liberties. But a big exemption exists for the sort of national security legislation that Beijing is now drafting.

The process for drafting and enacting the new law is the major concern. The standing committee of China’s legislature is writing the new rules on its own, without consulting Hong Kong experts. Once the legislation is written, the Beijing appointed leadership of Hong Kong is required to put it into law immediately. Some pro-democracy lawyers have questioned whether Beijing’s process for issuing the law is constitutional. But Hong Kong designates the Chinese government as final arbiter on constitutional questions in territory. Also, if the United states or any foreign nations took string action against China, it would reinforce Beijing’s concern that the foreign powers were using the city to undermine the China’s National Security. And then Beijing can take the possible actions which is about to be framed by the Standing Committee.

3.China’s stand on Taiwan with Reference to “One China Policy”:

The controversy regarding the political status of Taiwan, sometimes referred to as the Taiwan issue is a result of Chinese Civil War and the subsequent split of China into the two present day self-governing entities of the People’s Republic of China commonly known as China and the Republic of china commonly known as Taiwan. The controversy also concerns whether the existence and legal status as a sovereign state of both the ROC and the PRC is legitimate as a matter of international law.

“One China Policy” is the diplomatic acknowledgment of China’s position that there is only one Chinese government under the policy, the one china policy is a key cornerstone of Sino-US relations. It is also a fundamental bedrock of Chinese policy making and diplomacy. The US policy is not an endorsement of Beijing’s position and indeed as a part of the policy. Washington maintains a robust unofficial relationship with Taiwan, including continued armed sales so that it can defend itself.

India stands on One China Policy
In the shadow of the Soviet Union’s collapse and a painful economic crisis, Delhi adopted a new “Look East” policy in 1991 designed to strengthen engagement with East Asia. A diplomatic breakthrough with Taiwan followed in 1995 when Delhi and Taipei established complementary representative offices. The ensuing 15 years witnessed a series of modest diplomatic achievements.

In 2002 India and Taiwan signed a Bilateral Investment Agreement.
In 2003 airlines begin direct flights between Delhi and Taipei.
In 2004 former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes attended a trilateral India-Japan-Taiwan conference in Taipei.
In 2005 and 2006 Delhi hosted separate delegations of Taiwanese legislators and party officials for meetings with their Indian counterparts.
In 2006 Taipei established the Taiwan-India Cooperation Council (TICC), a private organization designed to “act as a bridge to promote economic exchanges and broader cooperation on bilateral interests between Taiwan and India.”
In 2007 Ma Ying-jeou, then the head of Taiwan’s Kuomintang party, made an unofficial visit to India to give an address at the Indian Council on World Affairs.
In 2007 Taipei and Delhi signed an MoU on Science and Technology cooperation.
After the 2010 visa incident and India’s shift on the OCP, the pace of engagement accelerated further.

In 2010 Taiwan hosted former Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam.
In 2010 India and Taiwan signed a deal on degree-recognition in higher education.
In 2010 the two agreed to ease visa rules and requirements for each other’s citizens.
In 2011, India was visited by Taiwan’s Education Minister, Planning and Development Minister, and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as Taiwan’s Deputy Defense Minister and Vice Minister of Economic Affairs.
Ironically, Tsai Ing-Wen also paid a visit to Delhi in 2011, then as the former Chairperson of the Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
In 2011 India consented to Taiwan opening a second Representative Office in Chennai.
In 2011 India and Taiwan signed a Customs Agreement, a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and a Cultural Cooperation Agreement.
In 2011 Delhi signaled it was exploring the potential for a Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan. Notably, the announcement was made by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs; not the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
In separate visits in 2012 and 2014, India permitted former Taiwanese President Ma Ying Jeou and former Vice President Wu Den-yih transit stopovers in Mumbai and Delhi, respectively.
Recently, speaking at Beijing’s Great Hall of the people on the 15th anniversary of the Anti-secession law, Li Zuocheng, chief of the Joint Staff Department and the member of the central military commission said that “Attack on Taiwan an option to stop Independence of Taiwan”
The above-mentioned acts of the Chinese government clearly show that there is some Malafide intention behind all these acts, also the timing of these acts is very much crucial as whole world is fighting with COVID-19 there is hardly any Nation to oppose these autocrat acts of china.

Also Read:  Case Summary: Vishaka & Others vs. State of Rajasthan





Leave A Reply

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free!