Skip to main content

India's Foreign Policy in South China Sea

 


Photo source: DD News

By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe Upfront

External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s five‑day tour of Singapore, the Philippines and Malaysia in March 2024 was part of India’s broader effort to deepen engagement with ASEAN. His visit came at a time when India’s relations with Southeast Asia have grown more slowly than with partners such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Yet the trip underscored India’s recognition that ASEAN remains central to its ‘Act East’ policy and Indo‑Pacific strategy.

In Singapore, Jaishankar met Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, with discussions focusing on digital cooperation, fintech, food security and skills development. Singapore has long been India’s strongest economic partner in ASEAN, and the visit reinforced the importance of building on this foundation.

In Manila, Jaishankar’s remarks were more strategic. He called for ‘staunch adherence to a rules‑based order’ and reaffirmed ‘India’s support to the Philippines for upholding its national sovereignty’. These words were widely interpreted as a signal to Beijing, given the Philippines’ disputes with China in the South China Sea. India’s support was not merely rhetorical: New Delhi has already supplied BrahMos missiles to the Philippines, marking one of its most significant defence exports. Analysts noted that India sees the Philippines as a partner in balancing China’s assertiveness in maritime Asia.

Critics argue that India’s invocation of the rules‑based order is selective, since it resists external mediation in its own border disputes. Yet India’s position on the South China Sea is consistent with its long‑standing emphasis on freedom of navigation and respect for international law under UNCLOS. The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling invalidated China’s expansive nine‑dash line claims, affirming the Philippines’ rights. India’s support therefore aligns with international legal precedent rather than simply provoking China.

China has accused the Philippines of encroaching on its sovereignty, but this claim is contested. Many ASEAN states prefer a cautious approach, avoiding direct confrontation with Beijing. Malaysia, for example, asserts its maritime claims but emphasises dialogue and cooperation. This diversity of approaches complicates ASEAN consensus, yet Singapore and others have encouraged India to play a larger role in regional affairs.

Commentators in Chinese media suggested that India risks appearing subservient to US strategy. However, independent analysts highlight that India’s Indo‑Pacific policy is driven by its own interests: balancing China, securing sea lanes, and diversifying partnerships. Unlike Japan, India is not a treaty ally of the US, and its cooperation with ASEAN is framed as part of its own ‘Act East’ policy.

Malaysia’s cautious diplomacy provides a contrast. While it is a direct party to the South China Sea disputes, it continues to emphasise peaceful negotiations and friendly cooperation. This approach illustrates that regional stability depends on dialogue as much as deterrence. For India, the lesson is clear: closer economic and trade relations with ASEAN, alongside political trust, are essential to building durable partnerships.
Jaishankar’s tour was therefore not about stirring trouble but about consolidating India’s role in Southeast Asia. His support for the Philippines may irritate Beijing, but it reflects India’s broader Indo‑Pacific vision. The challenge lies in ASEAN’s internal divisions and the need for India to build trust through trade and diplomacy as well as security cooperation.

In conclusion, India’s March 2024 outreach to ASEAN was a strategic move to strengthen ties with Southeast Asia. While its support for the Philippines highlights security concerns, the long‑term success of India’s policy will depend on balancing strategic competition with economic cooperation and diplomatic engagement.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Advice from the Editor: Please refrain from slander, defamation or any kind of libel in the comments section.

Popular posts from this blog

String of Pearls

Photo source: Indian Express By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe UpFront For quite some time, China has been in the quest for political, military and economic espionage. This has been done through a network of installations known as the ‘String of Pearls’.  It is aimed to project a dominating presence in littoral South Asia. One such aim exhibited by the ‘String of Pearls’ strategy is the maritime dominance. By embarking on this approach, China wants to counter other superpowers such as the United States. There are some who support China’s geopolitical rise against American hegemony for a needful balance of power. In fact, what China wants to do, has been already done in the past by the British, Portuguese, Dutch and Spaniards, during the colonial times.   Indian strategists fear that Chinese economic buildup, due to the advent of ports in Colombo, Sri Lanka (Sri Lankan government leased Hambantota port for a 99-year lease to the Chinese, where the latter agre...
Post a Comment
Read more

Farewell Note by Editor

  In thirteen years of writing journey, Globe Upfront went on a crusade to disseminate long form writing on myriad global issues. Due to some circumstances, the writer of the blog won’t be able to write on the beat anymore. A farewell note from the writer is apt for a time like this. While writing for Globe Upfront, author Naveed Qazi was also praised by some in the local media. He mentions this blog as part of his fulfilment journey towards societal emancipation. He also acknowledges that it’s a journey that he would cherish in future as an intellectual nostalgia.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Asian Adventures of NATO

Photo source: Global Times By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe Upfront Seventy-five years after its founding, NATO stands at a moment of both continuity and strain. Established in 1949 to contain Soviet influence and anchor Western Europe to the United States, the alliance has survived the Cold War by adapting to new realities. Critics have long argued that it should have dissolved after the Soviet Union’s collapse, yet NATO has instead expanded its membership and redefined its purpose—at times acting as a military instrument of Western power, at others as a security framework for its members. In today’s geopolitical climate, however, NATO appears more contested than at any point in its history. With Russia once again cast as its principal adversary following the war in Ukraine, the alliance has refocused its mission on European security. At the same time, it has identified China as a ‘systemic challenge’, extending its strategic outlook far beyond the North Atlantic. This widening scop...
Post a Comment
Read more