StrategyUnit:Foreign Policy & Security Issues Blog

“I must study politics and war that my sons many have liberty to study mathenatematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, navel architecture,navigation, commerce, and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” - John Adams from Letter to Abigail Adams

Year of Chinese-Indian Friendship…on Oil?

China and India - An Oil Friendship

Introduction: Chinese and Indian Energy Cooperation

India and China kicked off their “Year of Friendship” to a rather good start. Only a few days ago (Jan 9), China and India’s respective state-owned oil companies agreed on a joint venture on the purchase and development on oil assets in Syria. And now China and India agreed on sharing bid information on bidding on foreign hydrocarbon fuel (to avoid driving prices unnecesarrily) and to encourage joint ventures.

The document that China and India signed, the two most populous states, outlined “cooperation in upstream exploration and production, refining and marketing of petroleum products and petrochemicals, oil and gas pipelines, research and development, and promotion of environmentally friendly fuels.” (source) The document also included agreements on coopertion on the production of biofuels.

In a visit to China, the Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar stated:

“We look on China not as a strategic competitor but a strategic partner,” said Aiyar in an exclusive interview in Beijing. “It is clear to me that any imitation of the ‘Great Game’ between India and China is a danger to peace. We cannot endanger each other’s security in our quest for energy security.”

Aiyar also brought up the idea of joint pipeline connecting India and China, but this is something India has brought-up in the past as well without substantial response from China.

Motives and Benefits?

On the surface, this partnership is quite puzzling. This movement towards cooperation would benefit India far more than China:

  • India is more dependent on imported oil (China’s 30-40% to India’s 70%)
  • Indian oil companies have been repeatedly outbided by China, so why the need for China to cooperate?
  • China’s “Go-Out” oil strategy has been thus far successful with its connections in Central Asia, South American and from Sudan to Iran. So why would China cut a deal now?
  • China and India have gone through minor wars in the past and unresolved border disputes. How will these issues loom over China and India’s ability to cooperate?

However, China and India have cooperated in some major instances, such as China’s support of India for permanent membership in the Security Council and in the Russian-Chinese led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), India sits as an observer and a potential future member.

But in a larger context, Chinese would be foolish to stand-by as US and India continue to forge a closer tie, esp. with word last year about the Bush Administration wishing to “help India become a major world power in the 21st century”, which has mainly manifested itself in the US willingness to help India’s civilian nuclear energy program despite the nuclear testing in 1998.

Broad energy cooperation from China (successful so far in its “Go Out” strategy) would prove very significant for an equally energy hungry India. Indeed, one could say that using energy cooperation would present a more enticing carrot than what the US can offer India: military equipment and nuclear energy technology.

Additionally, engaging and building relationships with neighboring partners would fit into China’s strategy of “Raising Peacefully”. China is continuing to build regional institutions to project its power, such as through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the recent Easts Asia Summit.

Some would perhaps point out that any partnership would never work between India and China, as they are economic rivals. This is true in the area of energy resources, but when it comes to their economies, the two are very different. China is concentrating on manufacturing where as India moving ahead to high-tech software area and providing advances services, such in the financial industry.

Conclusion

With the exception of Japan (which even signed a $3 billion deal for Iranian oil), things are looking rather lonely for the U.S. in Asia. US must more vigorously appraoch India as natural partners, in its shared Anglo-heritage and as the world’s largest democracy. India can help share the burden as one of the pillars of security in the Middle East and Central Asia. And China too should be approach and incorporated under a new security framework in East Asia, with the United States and Japan.

The U.S. needs to lead in incorporating China, India and other emerging New Core powers into international organizations, as prescribed by Thomas Barnett. Else, these New Core states will look to seize the initiative and form their own alliances and institutions that will increasingly sideline the United States. We can help lead the future or sit back and watch as others make it for us.

PS: Why the lack of any coverage in this on New York Times, Washington Post etc? I am writing this on 1/13/2005 12:36AM, Pacific Time. Only the Financial Timeshas something major so far.

Activity

No comments, leave your comment or trackback.
  1. January 13th 2006

    Iran is widely connected. In a very interesting post, you mention that Japan signed a $3 billion energy deal with Iran. In addition to this, Iran also has a huge energy deal with China, possible deals with India; and the current presidency of the EU – Austria – wants the Union to reduce its dependence on Russia for gas and get some from elsewhere – Iran is mentioned as a possible supplier.

    On energy hungry India and China, Stratfor commented yesterday: “In the past six months, China has engaged several countries — including Vietnam, Turkmenistan and Iran — in cooperative energy projects that have yielded Beijing both natural resources and political gains. The India-China energy partnership, however, offers substantially less money, indicating China primarily seeks political gain from the arrangement amid growing Russian and American interest in India.”

    On regional rather than global alliances, India, China and other emerging New Core powers are already members of the United Nations system. These countries may think that the system fails to address their needs, as they interpret them. Their options are limited.

    IJ

  2. January 13th 2006

    Thanks for the excellent comment. I wanted to talk about Iran as well, but I wanted to make Iran gas deals as a seperate post.

    To add to your list, Ukraine also talked about engaging Iran for gas deals to lessen Russian dependency.

    As for China, the Foreign Minister is heading up a trip to Africa this week (or the next) centered mostly around securing energy resources in Africa.

    StrategyUnit

  3. January 13th 2006

    Thanks for the information – distributing vital resources to minimise warfare is not easy. I read that the US, not the UN, needs to recognise more the up-and-coming nations in international organizations where they are already members; nevertheless little is happening. As a result, these nations are fed up and forming their own alliances.

    But some international organisation should surely step in. Earlier this week, a leading official at the IMF complained of imbalances in trade around the world. The US, in particular has a colossal trade deficit and others have big surpluses. The official said: “Without a fundamental change in the factors driving savings and investment, a substantial revaluation [in the Chinese yuan] could merely alter who the U.S. imports from rather than how much it imports.”

    But who should rewrite the rules for global savings and investment? The G8?

    IJ

  4. January 13th 2006

    There should be a fundamental change in the factors that drive the flow of money around the world? This appears logical, but recommendations for financial stability globally may not be approved by the leading shareholders, currently, in the UN’s special economic agency – the International Monetary Fund.

    IJ


Leave a Reply


Search

The archives run deep. Feel free to search older content using topic keywords.