At the beginning of this year, a program article titled “China is heading for a“ new internationalism ”appeared on the pages of“ Huanqiu Zhibao ”, a subsidiary of the newspaper of the CPC“ Renmin Zhibao ”newspaper. Its author, Sun Zhu, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Relations, emphasized that he was considering this term as a new foreign policy doctrine. In essence, this doctrine is a real tool for interaction between China and the armed Maoist formations, which are increasingly operating in the countries of Southeast Asia and Central Eurasia.
“The essence of the“ new internationalism, ”writes Sun Zhu, is that China must assume greater international responsibility, fulfill even more obligations and strive to direct the development of international order in a fair and rational direction. At the same time, the transition to the policy of “new internationalism” means that in order to protect the common interests of all humanity, the Chinese people are ready to make possible sacrifices. ”
The appearance of such publications in the Chinese press at a time when the level of military-political tensions in the Asia-Pacific region is constantly increasing, cannot be considered an accident.
Just over a year ago, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger predicted the imminent start of a new world war. The clash between the two strongest superpowers of the 21st century - the United States and China - is only a matter of time. Both potential adversaries are currently at the stage of pre-war alignment of forces, forming their own military-political blocs and alliances. At the same time, ideology is one of the main tools for preparing for a future war. It was in the context of the ideological war that Wang Ywei's recently published article “The Chinese model destroys the hegemony of“ universal human values ”published by the press organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China" Renmin zhibao ". The author emphasizes: “Modern globalization is essentially the spread to the whole world of the Western system, the Western spiritual and material culture. For China, the only way out is reglobalization. ” Further, the Chinese ideologue deciphers the meaning of the term “reglobalization”: “to form a new universal civilization and, becoming the flagship of the new post-Western era, create the prerequisites for the eternal development of all humanity in the world, where China will be an assistant and mentor to everyone.” Thus, the doctrine of the “new internationalism” is both an ideological and military-political toolkit for the implementation of the counter-globalist strategy developed by Beijing aimed at intercepting world leadership from Washington.
The revival of Maoist ideology in the form of the doctrine of the “new internationalism” has good practical grounds. The global economic crisis, which began in 2008, created a very productive ground for a sharp increase in the activity of both political and Maoist armed formations in a number of states, which the PRC views as potential adversaries. In the wake of increasing political and economic instability, the so-called Coordination Committee of Maoist parties and organizations in South Asia declared the declaration as follows: “The Coordination Committee decides to combine its efforts and launch a revolutionary struggle to fan the flames of a prolonged popular war in the region and beyond in conjunction with a long People's War in the Philippines, Peru and Turkey. We announce our principled unity and conscious determination to raise the red banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and communism in all its splendor on the silver peaks of the Himalayas and throughout the region. We accept this responsibility as our international duty and contribution to the destruction of the system of imperialism through a protracted popular war. ” And all this is not an empty threat.
Maoists or terrorists?
28 May 2008, a “democratic” revolution took place in Nepal, as a result of which the Maoists concentrated their power in their hands. Since the time of the Sino-Indian 1962 conflict, this Himalayan country has served as a kind of political buffer between the two great Asian powers. But just two weeks after the Communist Maoist party came to power, in early June 2008, Beijing hosted a meeting with the head of the international relations department of the CPC Central Committee, Wang Jiaguya, with Krishna Mahadara, a member of the secretariat of the Communist Party of Nepal. According to official Xinhua news agency, a representative of the Nepalese Maoists assured the Chinese government that his party firmly supported China’s position on the issue related to Tibet and would never allow any forces to conduct anti-Chinese activities from Nepalese territory. De facto, this meant a sharp shift in the balance of power in the border region in favor of the PRC. 30 April 2011 years in Kathmandu delegation from 15 senior Chinese military, headed by Chief of General Staff of the PLA Chen Bin De, who met with President of Nepal Ram Baran Yadav, Prime Minister of the Maoist government Khanalom, commander of the Nepal Army Chantry Man Singh Gurung and other military leaders. The delegation reported that 30 had allocated RMB million in military aid to the Nepalese Maoist army. At the same time, General Chen Bin De made a demonstrative statement that China would not tolerate third-party interference in friendly Nepalese-Chinese relations. The addressee of this statement was completely obvious.
The success of the Maoists in Nepal caused an immediate aggravation of the situation in the adjacent territories, primarily in Bhutan. Back in February, 2006, at the so-called First National Conference of the Maoist Communist Party of Bhutan, its leaders announced the start of a “popular war” against royal power. Constant internal political instability in yet another “buffer” state - Bangladesh creates optimal conditions for the intensification of the activities of Maoist groups there. This means that China, within the framework of the doctrine of the “new internationalism”, is capable of solving at any necessary moment the task of creating the most important strategic bridgehead in Central Eurasia.
Of particular military and political importance for China is the growing armed Maoist movement in the Philippines. Recall that in April last year, in the area of the Spratly archipelago, there was a large-scale armed incident between Chinese and Philippine warships, after which official Manila entered into a new agreement with the United States to expand the US military presence on its territory. The Philippine military estimates that currently more than a hundred guerrilla fronts of the Maoist New People’s Army (NNA) are operating in 69 from the 80 Philippine provinces. The total number of the NNA reaches 20 of thousands of well-armed militants who have experience in conducting a long guerrilla war. As a graphic example of their combat capabilities, we can recall the successful large-scale attack on the military base of the Philippine army on the island of Mindanao in March 2009.
It should be emphasized that in the jungles of Mindanao there is an even more numerous army of "Islamic rebels" of the Moro tribe, who interact with the NNA fighters. So, 15 of February of this year, the Philippine Islamists landed troops on Malaysian-owned part of Kalimantan Island and declared the captured territory "part of the historic state of Sulu", including the southern part of the Philippines and Kalimantan. It can be assumed that in the course of a future war in the Asia-Pacific region, China will be interested in provoking territorial conflicts between US allies by using Maoist and Islamist gangs to solve this task.
Goal number one
On December 5, 2012, the Chief of the General Staff of the Indian Navy, Admiral Devendra Kumar Joshi, said that if necessary, he was ready to issue an order to send warships to the South China Sea to protect the national interests of his country. At the same time, Admiral Joshi emphasized that China’s buildup of naval power is the main cause for concern for India. According to him, the Indian naval forces are constantly watching the development of Chinese fleet and develop their own strategy options. Recall that the cause of the conflict between India and China was Beijing's claims for oil and gas fields in the South China Sea, which are controlled by Vietnam, and are being developed by the Indian state company Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC). To protect its economic interests, the official New Delhi defiantly announced its intention to send warships to the disputed area. In response to the Indian demarche, the Chinese authorities announced that on January 1, 2013, the Chinese Navy would gain the right to forcibly inspect foreign ships in the South China Sea. Taking into account all the existing Sino-Indian contradictions - territorial, political, economic, it should be noted that a military conflict between the two great Asian powers will occur in the future for the next decade.
Maoist armed forces are quite capable of playing a decisive role in a future war. The Coordinating Committee of the Maoist parties and organizations of South Asia, in its declaration, identified India as the main adversary. The seizure of power by the Maoists in Nepal and the possibility of Maoist revolutions in Bhutan and Bangladesh will potentially create a situation in the strategic ticks of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which has been the subject of long-standing foreign policy differences between India and the PRC. Possessing such advantageous positions, the PLA can, in a matter of days, seize the entire East Indian territory, known in the terminology of Chinese geopolitical experts under the name of South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Assam, Nagaland) with a single blow to the converging directions.
Bhutan Maoists have long been preparing for war with India, as evidenced by a statement made five years ago by Central Committee member of the Communist Maoist Party of Bhutan comrade Gaurav: “It’s easy to start an armed struggle in Bhutan because its government is very weak. But then we will have to face the military force of India. ” At the same time, the Maoists of Bhutan maintain links with terrorist organizations - the United Front of the Liberation of Assam, the National Democratic Front of Bodoland, the Kamapur Liberation Organization and other armed separatist groups operating in eastern India. Sporadic fighting continues along the perimeter of the borders of the eastern Indian states for almost a decade. For example, in February 2003, Indian troops, along with units of the Royal Bhutanese army, conducted combat operations in border provinces, where Maoist gangs deployed their activities from strongholds in southern Bhutan (a year earlier, overthrown King Gyanendra also sanctioned Indian forces against Maoist insurgents in Nepal).
Of particular danger to India is the interaction of the Nepalese and Bhutanese Maoists with the Naxalite armed formations that are ideologically close to them and which operate in the so-called red corridor, which covers vast territories of north-eastern India.
War in the "red corridor"
24 November 2011 of the year on one of the Maoist websites on the Internet the following message appeared: “Comrade Kishendzhi, a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the head of military operations of the Partisan Liberation Army, was brutally murdered in West Bengal. This carefully planned execution, before which Comrade Kisendzhi was subjected to cruel torture, is being presented by the Indian government as an accidental murder during an armed clash. In the same way, the cold-blooded murders of comrade Azad and many other Naxalite leaders were previously ignored. The reluctance of the government of India to negotiate and the destruction of members of the leadership of the KPI (Maoist) proves that this is a planned campaign of state terror. ”
The so-called red corridor, where armed Maoist-Naxalit groups operate, stretches from the southern state of Andhra Pradesh to the central state of Chhattisgarh. In general, Maoist gangs operate in 20 from 29 Indian states. Back in 2008, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared them the most serious threat to India’s national security. And this threat is permanently increasing. It is enough to consider only some episodes of military operations of the Naxalites, in order to judge its true scale.
12 July 2009, a squad of Naxalites attacked a police convoy in the state of Chhattisgarh, killing 22 police officers. In total, only in the first six months of 2009 of the year, Maoist militants carried out 1128 armed attacks.
6 on April 2010, in the state of Chhattisgarh, the Naxalites attacked a police unit, and about 60 police were killed during the battle.
27 March 2012, 15 police officers were killed by Maoist militants in the state of Maharashtra in western India.
In the "red corridor" is a full-scale war. Moreover, the Naxalites control a whole range of territories, which their leaders declare "liberated." Thus, in June 2009, the Maoist militants proclaimed the “liberated” vast territory of the Lalgarh district in the Indian state of West Bengal and established their own “revolutionary” authorities there. The situation is aggravated by the hesitant actions of the Indian authorities: to defeat the 25-thousandth army of the Naxalites requires the use of not regular police units, but regular troops, which de facto would mean official recognition of bandit groups as a party to military conflict. For this reason, the armed forces of the Naxalites continue to increase, they set themselves increasingly ambitious tasks. In 2010, the Naxalite warlords openly declared an intention to create a “red corridor” from the borders of Nepal to South India. It can be assumed that in the event of a war with China, Maoist gangs will pave the way for the PLA through the “red corridor” from the Nepal border and will greatly facilitate the invading army to solve the problem of a deep operational breakthrough with cutting the territory of India into two isolated parts.
It should be noted that, through the involvement of the Naxalites, the General Staff of the PLA can count on the collapse of India as a single state. As a factual justification of this argument, we present a fragment from the analytical report that 8 August 2009 of the year was posted on the official website of the Chinese International Institute for Strategic Studies. The author of the report, one Zhan Liue, emphasized: “In order to split India, China can subordinate such countries as Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, support the United Front of the Liberation of Assam (ULFA) in achieving its goals of providing independence to Assam, like Tamils and Nagas, encourage Bangladesh to push for independence of West Bengal and finally return 90 thousands of square kilometers of Southern Tibet. ” It is noteworthy that this publication appeared at the time of the 14-th round of Sino-Indian negotiations to resolve border conflicts.
In an objective analysis of the report, Zhan Liue should recognize that the possibility of the collapse of India really exists. The country has been torn apart from the inside by a whole complex of interethnic, inter-ethnic and interfaith conflicts. For example, in July 2012, the top political leadership of India had to take emergency measures in connection with the large-scale escalation of tensions in Assam, where mass clashes took place between indigenous Bodo people and Muslim migrants from neighboring Bangladesh. The separatists immediately intervened in the conflict. The leaders of the terrorist organization, the National Democratic Front of Bodoland, announced that they would fight for the creation of their own state at any cost. In addition, armed separatists operate in Ladakh, Kashmir, West Bengal and a number of other states. If they receive sufficient financial and military support from outside, they will be able to plunge India into a continuous chaos of interethnic conflicts, which will lead to the complete collapse of the rear of the Indian army.
Drawing parallels between the domestic political situation in Russia and India, it is easy to notice the obvious similarity: in both countries, the main threat is various kinds of extremism, separatism and terrorism, which potential opponents from outside seek to take advantage of. Therefore, Moscow and New Delhi today are faced with the need to unite efforts to counter these threats and create collective security structures. A number of Russian politicians and experts are calling for the formation of a military-political alliance with India, which has long been Russia's largest partner in military-technical cooperation. Such a union of the two largest Eurasian powers is objectively necessary.