Chinese Whispers 2.0 - The new naming game

For the third time in the last six years, Chinese authorities have released new names for geographical features in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. This ‘name game’ is a routinely used tactic of Beijing, commonly used for setting down a flimsy legal basis for subsequent expansionist territorial claims. The creation and publishing of such ‘imagined’ names for parts of India, in a region towards which China continues to covet, is a clear move to gain some imagined traction for their ambitions. The recent list for Arunachal Pradesh, was the third such installment, with the previous two iterations closely linked to security developments along the border. So the political compulsions driving this ridiculous enterprise are clear.

A few days back, however, China took its naming spree to another dimension as it named some undersea features in the central Indian Ocean with names of Chinese Instruments. If hypocrisy had a name then it would be China - A country that objected to the Indian Ocean being named after India despite its waters washing the entire Indian coastline finds it appropriate to give Chinese names to Indian Ocean features. 

While there is no sensible explanation for Chinese actions, it would not be a far-fetched thought that Beijing will, in some years, use these names to claim ‘historical ownership’ of the features. Can a late 21st-century version of the ‘9 dash line’ be put out by the mandarins in Beijing, laying a stake in the vast expanse of international waters in the central Indian Ocean?

If this speculation was raised concerning any other ‘responsible’ or ‘major’ power in the modern world, it would certainly be dismissed as nonsensical. With China’s present avatar, under Chairman Xi, however, even the most ‘balanced’ commentator would not completely rule out this possibility. We could at best say ‘it is not likely’, however, few would dare say ‘it is impossible’!

If, as one would expect, the above-mentioned premise is disregarded for the sake of continuing discussion, then why would China go on this naming spree? In the official version from the Chinese Navy (which was involved in the surveillance of these areas), the naming of the undersea features with names of traditional Chinese musical instruments is a demonstration of China’s growing soft power. Let’s just ponder this statement for a moment.

Firstly, the research agency undertaking surveillance and data collection operations over a multiple-year period in the international waters of the Indian Ocean was the Chinese Navy. While publicly, the effort was for marine research and exploration, it has also been a major source of strategic scientific data for China’s military planners. Anybody guesses that information gleaned from such data collection would invariably be used for future Chinese naval forays in the Indian Ocean, particularly their submarines. It may, therefore, be worth considering a set of international principles on data transparency and sharing, to minimise the ‘weaponization of data’ about the global commons. 

Secondly, the claim of ‘Chinese Soft Power’. As the CCP already runs the largest misinformation and propaganda establishment ever seen in the history of mankind (through the United Front Works Department), this bit of poor rationalising could have been better ‘packaged’. For starters, the choice of releasing the names of the features without giving their locations or their relevance to economic, scientific, or historical knowledge, left the global community at a loss as to ‘what soft power’ Beijing was alluding to! Moreover, the lack of any relevance of these names to the communities native to the Central IOR further underscores Beijing’s lack of concern with the aspirations and concerns of local populations anywhere! Similar in their outcome to wolf-warrior diplomacy, such moves may well work to further alienate Beijing from the world.

Having analysed the event itself, it would serve to try and analyse the ‘why’ for such a seemingly misguided act. Usually, at the core of any such action by any arm of the CCP government is the need to showcase the growing importance of China, under its Communist leadership, to the Chinese population. Within Xi’s empire, this news would be heralded as a new chapter in China’s heroic and pioneering efforts in science and technology to ‘go where no one else has gone before’. Simply put, a PR campaign aimed at consolidating the CCP’s stature internally. 

This PR campaign could also have other motivations. The most obvious one being that the Chinese Navy needed to make some ‘visible progress’ to justify the immense quantum of capital being invested into their expanding global footprint. With the decline of piracy off Somalia, this may have been a ‘low-hanging fruit’ to score some points with the bosses in Beijing. The aim may well be to showcase to Chairman Xi how China’s influence is spreading across the oceans!

Incidentally, such a move bears great similarities with the (recently rediscovered) voyages of Chinese Admiral Zheng He in the 15th century. Zheng He, who was a close confidant of the emperor, led a large fleet of massive treasure ships on multiple voyages to the Indian Ocean, to collect tribute from all under the heaven for the Chinese emperor. Interestingly enough, history scarcely remembers this Admiral, and all the nations which paid ‘tribute’ were largely mercantile nations that saw these as inexpensive transactions which avoided conflict. Zheng He continued to return with riches from these countries to assure his Emperor that ‘all under the heavens continued to serve his throne’. 

Notably, soon after this particular Chinese emperor was ‘replaced’ in a political coup (the 1430s), this entire fleet was burnt and destroyed as it was of no use to the Chinese empire! For the tribute-paying nations, the non-return of these ships was rarely a source of concern or discussion! 

The similarity of these far-flung claims of influence of the Chinese leadership, across centuries, may well be an indication of what lies ahead. China is presently undertaking the fastest military and naval expansion in recent history – which is certainly costing them a pretty penny. Soon China will possess a fleet of over 600 ships, across agencies, which will all have to make their relevance known to the CCP. In attempting to do so, more such underdeveloped and ill-conceived attempts at ‘soft power’ may well come to pass. 

Whatever may be the actual reason for the ‘name game’ being played by Beijing, the global community must recognise the truth that China is a revisionist power, which sees established international law and practices as inconveniences or hurdles in its growth trajectory. Beijing does not follow the rules that do not suit its designs, it simply ‘re-interprets’ them. It is imperative that any future ‘legalisation’ or lawfare through such ‘nomenclature’ be precluded by establishing clear limitations through international agencies which deal with the global commons (like the International Seabed Authority). 

Even though international scholars have long credited Beijing with playing the ‘long game’, events during Xi’s decade of rulership have been defined by greater urgency, immediacy, and near-term goals. A similar outlook could be attributed to the naming spree which we have seen recently. However, the actual truth or intent may never be known – it would simply be lost like many an original message in ‘Chinese whispers’!  

(Disclaimer: The writer is a Veteran of the Indian Navy. Views are his own.)