China has warned India against collaborating with Vietnam over oil and gas exploration in the disputed South China Sea. The warning comes as reports suggest an Indian state-owned oil producer is about to start joint exploration of gas resources despite protests from Beijing, the official Global Times has reported.
It’s a reminder of the dangers that still exist in the Sino-Indian relationship.
Global Times quoted Jiang Yu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, as stating that ‘as for oil and gas exploration…we are opposed to any country engaged in the waters under China’s jurisdiction. We hope foreign countries do not get involved in the South China Sea dispute.’
The finger is clearly being pointed towards India. The paper also said that the oil reserves in the South China Sea were a not insignificant 28 billion barrels. Understandably, this homily from the Chinese, although vaguely worded, has received widespread coverage in the Indian media. ONGC has an about $225 million investment in Vietnam.
The question in the minds of most Indians is how we should react to this piece of bluster? Should we just ignore this gratuitous ‘advice’ and go ahead with exploration in collaboration with Vietnam, or should we listen to China and stay out of disputes in the South China Sea?
The Chinese media, quoting well known analysts from domestic university think tanks, suggest Delhi is being pushed into this with the active support of the United States. While the Global Times columnist avoided attributing any malevolence to Vietnamese intentions, the piece pointedly referred to the existence since June this year of a bilateral agreement between China and Vietnam to settle all such disputes, ‘through negotiations and consultations.’
It goes without saying that the most popular reaction in India would be to simply ignore the Chinese and go ahead with the bilateral arrangement with Vietnam. After all, if India is considering an agreement with Vietnam, it would automatically follow that India considers these waters to be within Vietnamese jurisdiction. That seemed to be the position adopted by the Indian government when Foreign Minister Krishna told his Vietnamese counterpart Pham Binh Minh that India would ‘go-ahead’ and that India’s position was based on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Seas.
However, the real test would be if the rest of the countries involved in the South China Sea disputes, such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei or even Taiwan, also considered these waters to be Vietnamese. If none of them have protested to either India or to Vietnam over the proposed agreement, then China’s case becomes that much weaker and would be pure bluster. And what is the legal position of the United States, Japan and perhaps South Korea? Little has been said publicly. Still, we can’t simply dismiss China’s protests as irrelevant, for the implications for India–China relations are rather disturbing, including over the security of our borders.
Of course, when China protests, we should always pay very close attention. But in this case, we should also keep in mind the options available should China decide to take its protests to the next stage, thereby triggering a confrontation. In the past, China has demonstrated that when it comes to its own backyard, particularly the South China Sea, it’s very sensitive, sometimes to the point of being aggressive. For example, Chinese fishing vessels have taken to harassing the ‘offending’ party, while cables where work is in progress have been deliberately cut.
So what would the Indian government do if ONGC-Videsh, the contracting party in this case, suffered a similar fate? It’s questionable whether the Indian Navy could project sufficient power in the South China Sea to ward off the Chinese Navy. Nor are the Vietnamese in any position to do so. Yet to fold our tent after the Chinese have taken action would be a serious blow to our prestige.
Yet we would also do well to keep in mind that we have a long unsettled border with China, one that it’s simply not possible to fully police. As a result, the Chinese have the option, if they do wish to exercise it, of intruding several kilometres across the ‘Line of Actual Control.’ As the LOAC isn’t demarcated on the ground, both India and China have different perceptions as to its actual alignment. There’s clearly room for creating mischief.
As a result, what happens next could hinge on the role and attitude of the United States, which is the only force capable of thwarting the Chinese in the South China Sea. The US has generally been ambivalent over Sino-Indian tensions. Such ambivalence dates back at least as far as 1962, when Robert Komer, an influential National Security Council staff member, wrote a memo for President Kennedy that stated:
‘That it is as much in our strategic interest to keep up a high degree of Sino-Indian friction as it is to prevent from spilling over into a large scale war.’
Complicating the US position is the fact that it is currently faced with significant economic, while China remains one of the biggest holders of US debt. This at a time when wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars.
With all this in mind, Indian policy planners would do well to be particularly cautious when dealing with the potentially explosive situation in the South China Seas. There’s no point in bravado when we don’t have the necessary military capacity to take on the Chinese.
In the South China Sea, India should beware.
Ambassador R S Kalha is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and a former Member of the National Human Rights Commission. This is an edited and abridged version of an article that was originally published by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) here.

nirvana
India can not use ONGC Videsh commercial business with Vietnam as a bargaining chip with China. You can not sit at a negotiation table with an interlocutor to which you have conceded your inferiority. If India is militarily weak, use the rule of law.
If India accepts to play a game according to China’s rules, then indeed India should expect no friend. Because “according to China’s rules” means no rule today. So, if India is not prepared to side with the rule of law and at the same time is not ready for the China’s no-rule fight in the region, it is preferable for India to swallow its pride now and retreat before it is too late.
Mark
India should not back down from its exploratory efforts with Viet Nam. China can’t lay claim to the entire Chinese sea. This posturing is only a precursor to efforts to intimidate anyone infringing on perceived Chinese interests.
Bharateeya
Mr Ambassador is right in his assessment about our limited capability to defend our interests on the high seas. I believe that ONGC may well be operating in legitimate Vietnamese waters, but it’s treading on China’s national pride here. China is the self appointed Lord over the South China Seas and is sure to react sensitively if India decides to declare it’s presence here. Our best hope lies in effectively demonstrating to the World that ONGC is indeed operating exclusively in Vietnamese waters.
As rightly pointed out by other bloggers here, this act can only be used as a bargaining chip, and ought to be deftly handled. Shoddy diplomacy coupled with ambiguous military capability have let down Indian interests on many previous occasions. If a conflict were to break out, I doubt if any Nation will extend help other than mouthing disapprovals over Chinese actions.
nirvana
Some suggestions to ONGC Videsh
DO:
==
Bring equipment in those blocks and do what you have to do.
Advertize largely where you operate (website, maps etc…).
Bring in surveillance planes and ships to record Chinese activities in the vicinity, be it patrollers, trawlers, submarines or other military activity.
If there is an act of sabotage, record it unequivocally, estimate the damages accurately, publicize it largely (e.g. Youtube).
DON’T:
=====
Retreat in front of intimidations, except when human lives are in danger.
Oppose act of sabotage.
Fall in the trap of a “Tonkin Gulf incident”.
nirvana
@Joseph,
Thank you for your comment to my earlier post. I think I should clarify my thought a bit more.
The Ambassador has analyzed many reasons for India to act cautiously. He was right. But, India HAS acted so what was India’s rationale is the key question. India did not/should not:
- act by bravado. No, we do not need another “Tonkin Gulf incident”.
- act in retaliation. No, we do not need another “Cuba Missile” confrontation.
- act to seek military bases, a military alliance. This would not be good for peace.
This was the Ambassador’s message that I dare to paraphrase in my clumsy English.
In my humble opinion, there is only one plausible answer. That is India believed that it was the right thing to do. India has chosen to take a historical opportunity to show that it will take a major role in building a better Asia, a responsible Asia, a multicultural and multilateral Asia. In front of a calculated ambiguity, the risk is difficult to judge. In front of a strong and growing military apparatus, the cost may be high. India may feel lonely, for the time being. But that is why the honor is immense and the benefits long lasting in people’s hearts.
The Superior man always acts according to what he thinks is right. The Inferior man acts to seek advantage. (Confucius, 2500 BC)
Tom Tran
What should the world do? surrender everything to China? John Chan has a better answer I do, but he will give you nothing more than a “this is a traditional Chinese water”, who cares? The sea belongs to all countries around it, why give me a 9-dot line even without its coordinate, you can fool nobody, huh? you know what, this is the high sea, you won’t ever be able to even pinpoint where you are, needless to say the exact location of your claimed territory hundred years ago. That brings the whole argument to a unwinnable solution for China, should it want to face the world as a responsible and trustful, not a bullying nation. Unfortunately they won’t learn something until they were taught a painful lesson.
Kol
Knowing how convoluted chess steps Indians like playing I would be more concerned about their private diplomatic efforts with North Korea.
Kabeer Khan
If the Chinese continue supporting Pakistan – why’re they so worried about India’s support to Vietnam… If the continue working in Disputed Territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, why’re the so worried about India drilling in South China Sea… However, the United States, has historically played up tensions between India and China, time India and China understand this.
The Americans tend to mess up by interfering everywhere… I’m happy they’re stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. May they be stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 10 years :-)
Leonard R.
What should India do? Contract the drilling out to American companies. Let the PLA attack Americans.
In fact, that would work for the Philippines in their area of the Spratlys too.
It’s a in-win. Once again, the hotheaded xenophobes in the PRC have dropped a plum into America’s lap.
Xie xie Comrade Hu.
John Chan
No body is asking India acting as a coward again; all Yang zi said India should not make fool of itself for no good reason. It is about making money, there is no point for India to be foolish acting as a Vietnamese canon fodder while Vietnamese is watching the play of “How to kick India’s bottom” in an armchair and laughs its head off on the Vietnam beach.
yang tsup
are you saying that china’s claim in SCS is a rightous and not an aggresive act driven by oil and gas greed? or the real motivation is to control the entire SCS in preparation to invade taiwan..
John Chan
@nirvana:
Your argument is flawed and bias in favour of Vietnam. In a dispute, the opposing sides both feel they are on the right side, the only way to resolve the dispute peacefully is via negotiation. Insisting Vietnam is the only one on the right side demonstrates hostile intent. Taking unilateral action in a disputed are is a demonstration of aggression. Citing the name of UNCLOS but violate the intent of UNCLOS is despicable, illegal and illegitimate, this is what Vietnam is doing.
Joseph
@nirvana
The fact that India took up this venture itself proves that it is not hiding from its role in Asia. As per my knoweldge many western companies fearing the Chinese anger did not sign the deal.
But as the article says India is in a difficult situation now, dont forget its
not Indian ocean. If the issue flares up India will not be able to protect its
assets. A face off with the Chinese in S China sea is beyond India’s capabilities right now.
So it should not let the situation go out of control. I think the next couple of
months is going to be interesting. Lets see how far India will go.
It’s time for our diplomats to work hard and gather support.
Nikhil
The Ambassador come from a bygone era.The India of today is much more strong and confident.No matter what happens ONGC should go ahead with its work in the South China Sea.According to you we should be careful about the Chinese core interest,and what about the Chinese who disregard India’s core interest(Kashmir)as their ‘infrastructure building effort’ continues unabated.
This isnt just about a oil exploration bid,this is about India’s national pride,and if it aspires to be a superpower in the near future should stand up to this bully no matter what.
rajat
If china is so upset with india for interfering in south china sea then why r they making roads in pok which is also a disputed area. If china does something it is always right. But if india takes acountermeasure it is interference. Our people always suggest that if china will be angry what will happen but do not realize what dirty game china had started years back is being paid in the same coin now.
nirvana
His excellency,
You are right to ask: is an investment of $225 million worth the risk of an armed conflict with China? I think the answer is no.
You are also right to ask: are the Vietnamese concession blocks in a multilateral disputed area? This is an interesting question because if these blocks are in an area disputed only by Vietnam and China, then it means between a clearly-defined, UNCLOS-regime claim, on one side and an ambiguous, non-UNCLOS, claim (the so-called undisputable historic rights), on the other side.
So what if, indeed, the crux of the problem is a question of rule-of-law versus unilateralism? What if the problem is wider than “oil and gas”? What if its nature is the same as the question asked in Feb 2003 at the UN Security Council? i.e. should the International Community allows the US to invade Iraq. As you know, Mr Ambassador, France announced it would use its veto should the US motion be presented to the UNSC. Here is an extract of FM DeVillepin’s speech, representing France:
—-
“In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace. This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows it owes everything to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet, France has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.”
—-
Righteousness, Mr Ambassador, will always win. Whether India would share the onerous responsibility and the immense honor to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind, to build a better world? That question, Mr Ambassador you didn’t ask.
PeaceMessi
@ Yang zi:
China’ nine-dotted line is not supported by international law. This line was drawn arbitrarily in the 1940s. A large portion of this line is located well within EEZs of several countries, such as Vietnam, the Philippines…. Until now China has not clarified what this nine-dotted line means. If the Chinese bring this line to an international court, it will be rejected.
How can you prove the legitimacy of this map by facts and international law?
hsu jin tao
Hell with china!!!! Any confrontations will only send china back to stone age. We need cheap chinese goods but when it comes to trust, no ones side with arrogant red china. Any tough talks and threats will only jeopardize the livelihood of ethnic chinese living oversea. Let’s not let what happened to chinese two decades ago in Indonesia recur again.
Salem
China historical prove is a faked map. We had never heard of it before and all of the suden, they found oil then drew a map. The only countries who can claim historical facts of the ocean are the Dutch, English, France, they were there for trades, drew navigation maps and gave names to the islands in South East Asian sea.
ATT
The Chinese Nany is not up to date and unexperienced. It’s the best time to take on them now and don’t let Chinese buying time until their navy gets stronger. The oil exploratio with Vietnam is with 200 miles from the coast and therefore it’s within Vietnam jurisdiction. Agree with China is like India let China being her boss.
yang tsup
vietnam and india must continue in its collaboration dont let the coward and cunning nation interfere, why should they listen to this irritating warning..
zhongnanhai
Good grief! you mean India should act like a coward again. 1962 is history. both Indian and China have changed. India can defend its interests without US’ backing. it is coward mentalities like these that China is playing the bully all over Asia.
Yang zi
There are some press report in China saying 2 blocks are partly overlap 9 dotted line.
India of course should proceed cooperation with Vietnam, but should not work on these blocks or don’t move over 9 dotted line. If it does, should expect cable cutting or confiscation of equipment. That would be a real embrassment for India.
Soul Speek
You mean India should hide in its hole. Right?
JJJackxon
The author is apparently a diplomat but possibly not a strategic analyst. “Winning” is not simply a matter of “my weapons are bigger than yours.” It is a combination of strategy, psychological operations, guile and a true appreciation for each other’s strengths. India is sending a message to China that China’s aggressive posture in Pak Occupied Kashmir will be offset by India making similar arrangements with Vietnam. The author may not but the Chinese understand that message and appreciate its appropriateness. India needs to press on, strengthen alliances with other South East Asian powers, Japan, Australia and the US on the basis of “freedom of navigation” and “peaceful resolution of all disputes.” China will definitely push here and there along the border and India should push back too but with an understanding that this is mere shadow boxing. China understands that India was forced to respond by Chinese actions. India now simply needs to keep doing what it is doing.