The Great Game
Geopolitics, 13:1–26, 2008
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1465-0045 print / 1557-3028 online
DOI: 10.1080/14650040701783243
The Great Power ‘Great Game’ between India and China: ‘The Logic of Geography’
Geopolitics
Geopolitics,
1557-3028
1465-0045 Vol. 13, No. 1, Dec 2008: pp. 0–0
-FGEO
David Scott
India and China ‘The Logic of Geography’
DAVID SCOTT
Downloaded By: [Ministerio De Defensa] At: 12:11 4 October 2010
Department of Politics and History, Brunel University, London, UK
The simultaneous rise of China and now India is a fundamental factor for understanding the twenty-first century. In rising as
Great Powers, a relative term, they are coming up against each other across Asia and its surrounding waters. Traditional geopolitical models, Mackinder, Spykman and Mahan point to their spatial politics around Central Asia, South Asia, Pacific Asia and the
Indian Ocean. Actual spatial settings are combined with perceived spatial outlooks. These powerful neighbouring states seek to continue rising, and constrain the other where necessary through mutual encirclement and alliances/proxies. This type of ‘Great
Game’ is evident in the military-security, diplomatic and economic areas. Globalisation has not replaced regionalism, nor has geoeconomics replaced geopolitics. The stakes are high as is their need for securing access to energy resources for their economicsled rise to Great Power status. Some cooperation is evident, in line with IR liberalism-functionalism. However, geopolitical IR realism and security dilemma perceptions still shape much of their actions.
In recent years, the ‘rise of China’ has become a frequently evoked term of reference, as has the ‘rise of India’.1 There may still be debate over exactly how far they have risen, and about their precise Great Power status, but at the very least one can say that theirs is a significant relationship since they are both now significant powers. Both have
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1465-0045 print / 1557-3028 online
DOI: 10.1080/14650040701783243
The Great Power ‘Great Game’ between India and China: ‘The Logic of Geography’
Geopolitics
Geopolitics,
1557-3028
1465-0045 Vol. 13, No. 1, Dec 2008: pp. 0–0
-FGEO
David Scott
India and China ‘The Logic of Geography’
DAVID SCOTT
Downloaded By: [Ministerio De Defensa] At: 12:11 4 October 2010
Department of Politics and History, Brunel University, London, UK
The simultaneous rise of China and now India is a fundamental factor for understanding the twenty-first century. In rising as
Great Powers, a relative term, they are coming up against each other across Asia and its surrounding waters. Traditional geopolitical models, Mackinder, Spykman and Mahan point to their spatial politics around Central Asia, South Asia, Pacific Asia and the
Indian Ocean. Actual spatial settings are combined with perceived spatial outlooks. These powerful neighbouring states seek to continue rising, and constrain the other where necessary through mutual encirclement and alliances/proxies. This type of ‘Great
Game’ is evident in the military-security, diplomatic and economic areas. Globalisation has not replaced regionalism, nor has geoeconomics replaced geopolitics. The stakes are high as is their need for securing access to energy resources for their economicsled rise to Great Power status. Some cooperation is evident, in line with IR liberalism-functionalism. However, geopolitical IR realism and security dilemma perceptions still shape much of their actions.
In recent years, the ‘rise of China’ has become a frequently evoked term of reference, as has the ‘rise of India’.1 There may still be debate over exactly how far they have risen, and about their precise Great Power status, but at the very least one can say that theirs is a significant relationship since they are both now significant powers. Both have
Cited: Upholds Peace, Common Development’, 11 Jan. 2005, available at . 100. Y. Deng and T. Moore, ‘China Views Globalization. Toward a New Great-Power Politics?’, Washington Quarterly 27/3 (2004) pp 102. J. Hsuing, ‘Comprehensive Security: Challenge For Pacific Asia’, Oct. 2004, p. 5, available at . 103. V. Mamadouh, ‘Geopolitics in the Nineties: One Flag, Many Meanings’, GeoJournal 46/4 (1998) 237–53. 104. A. Sahgal and P. Palit, ‘The Singh Doctrine’, Armed Forces Journal (May 2005), available at 106. D. Xiaoping, ‘The Present Situation and the Tasks Before Us’, Jan. 1980, in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press 1984–94) 2.225. 108. ‘India, China Do Not Consider Each Other a Threat: Pranab’, The Hindu (14 June 2006). (July 2005), available at . 112. ‘Interview with External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh’, Economic Times (14 March 1999). 115. Vatikiotis, ‘China, India and the Land Between’ (note 95); S. Sengupta, ‘India’s Quest for Energy is Reshaping its Diplomacy’, International Herald Tribune (6 June 2005). 117. C. Bajpaee, ‘India, China Locked in Energy Game’, Asia Times (17 March 2005). 118. M. Kripalani , ‘India and China: Oil-patch Partners?, Business Week (7 Feb. 2005). Also P 119. K. Chaube, ‘India Loses Out to China in Oil’, India Daily (28 Aug. 2005). 123. M. Aiyar, ‘Asia’s Quest for Energy Security’, 13 Jan. 2006, rep. Frontline (11–24 Feb. 2006). 126. I. Storey, ‘China’s “Malacca Dilemma”’, China Brief 6/8 (2006) pp. 4–6. 127. D. Blumenthal and J. Lin, ‘China’s Oil Obsession. Energy Appetite Fuels Beijing’s Plans to Project Vital Sea Lanes’, Armed Forces Journal (June 2006), available at . 128. G. Khurana, ‘Securing the Maritime Silk Route: Is There a Sino-Indian confluence?’, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly 4/3 (2006) pp 130. B. Vaughn, ‘Indian Geopolitics, the United States and Evolving Correlates of Power in Asia’, Geopolitics 9/2 (2004) p 135. S. Mohan, ‘India and the Balance of Power’, Foreign Affairs 85/4 (2006) pp. 17–18. 137. Z. Lijun, ‘A Passage to South Asia’, Beijing Review (16 March 2006) p. 14. 138. D. Van Praagh, The Greater Game. India 's Race with Destiny and China (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press 2003). Mastanduno (eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press 2003) p