Arms Control and Sino-Indian Relations

  • Rosemary Foot


South Asia has long been recognised as an unstable strategic environ-ment. Regional cooperation is minimal, borders and territories are in dispute, and populations not fully integrated.1 The two major states in the region, India and Pakistan, have fought three major conventional wars against each other, and their conflict has fuelled massive military programmes, extending to the nuclear level. Such factors have, in turn, provided opportunities for major power involvement in the area. Given South Asia’s geographical position between the Gulf states, Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean, the states of the subcontinent are likely to continue to experience the effects of major power pressures and rivalry. For South Asian leaders, security issues, therefore, have received priority in their policy agendas and are likely to remain central.


Nuclear Weapon Major Power Deterrence Strategy Beijing Review Border Dispute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stephen P. Cohen, ‘Toward a Great State in Asia?’ in O. Marwah and J. D. Pollack (eds), Military Power and Policy in Asian States: China, India, Japan, (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1980) pp. 21–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Timothy George, ‘India and the Great Powers’ in T. George, R. Litwak and S. Chubin (eds), Security in Southern Asia (Aldershot: Gower, 1984) pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bill Sweetman, ‘Air Forces’ in G. Segal and W. T. Tow (eds), Chinese Defence Policy (London: Macmillan, 1984) p. 73.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yaacov Vertzberger, ‘The Political Economy of Sino-Pakistani Relations: Trade and Aid, 1963–1982’, Asian Survey, May 1983, p. 647.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onkar Marwah, ‘India’s Military Power and Policy’ in Marwah and Pollack (eds), Military Power and Policy, p. 128.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Hindu, 25 Oct. 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jack Anderson, The Anderson Papers (New York: Random House, 1973) pp. 260–2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Onkar Marwah, India’s Nuclear Program: Decisions, Intent and Policy, 1950–1976’ in W. H. Overholt (ed.), Asia’s Nuclear Future (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press 1977) P. 165.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richard K. Betts, ‘Incentives for Nuclear Weapons: India, Pakistan, Iran’, Asian Survey, Nov. 1979. p. 1056.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vertzberger, ‘Political Economy’, p. 648. China has constantly denied this; see, for example, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Far East. (SWB, FE), no. 8102, 7 Nov. 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    Rajan Menon, ‘India and the Soviet Union: a New Stage of Relations’, Asian Survey, July 1978, p. 140.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robert C. Horn, Soviet-Indian Relations: Issues and Influence (New York: Praegar, 1982) p. 8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menon, ‘India and the Soviet Union’, p. 140.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SIPRI Yearbook (London: Taylor and Francis, 1984) p. 201; Horn, Soviet-Indian Relations, p. 189.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen S. Whiting and General Sheng Shih-ts’ai, Sinkiang: Pawn or Pivot? (Michigan State University Press, 1958) p. 144; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Far East, (SWB,FE), no. 5022, 26 Sept. 1975.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    John Gittings, Survey of the Sino-Soviet Dispute (London: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1968) p. 160.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    As note 7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibid., pp.260–2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marwah, ‘India’s Military Power’, p. 101.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. George, ‘India and the Great Powers’, p.33. The Chengdu military region is shortly to be combined with Kunming, contributing to a reductionGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marwah, ‘India’s Military Power’, p. 126. in China’s 11 military regions to 7. See The Military Balance, 1985–86 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1985) p. 111.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foreign Broadcast Information Service, (FBIS), Daily Report, China, 27 May, 1983, F4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    For example, see Beijing Review, no. 34, 23 Aug. 1982 and no. 22, 3 June 1985; SWB, FE, no. 7234, 18 Jan. 1983; G. Segal, ‘Sino-Soviet Relations After Mao’, Adelphi Paper, no. 202 (London: IISS, 1985) pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strategic Survey, 1983–1984 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies), p. 90.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    For example, see Beijing Review, no. 7, 15 Feb. 1982 and no. 48, 29 Nov. 1982.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horn, ‘The Soviet Union in Sino-Indian Relations’, Orbis, 26, Winter 1983, p. 894.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Colin Gray, ‘National Style in Strategy: the American Example’, Inter-national Security, vol. 6, no. 2, autumn 1981, p. 22.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    John Wilson Lewis, ‘China’s Military Doctrine and Force Posture’ in T. Fingar (ed.), China’s Quest for Independence (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. 1980) D. 188.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gerald Segal, ‘China and Arms Control’, The World Today, vol. 41, Aug./ Sept. 1985, p. 163.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid., p. 163.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., footnote 9, p. 166.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pollack, ‘China as a Nuclear Power’, in Overholt (ea.), A sia’s nuclear Future, p.44.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Financial Times, 31 Oct. 1983; SWB, FE, no. 7483, 5 Nov. 1983; SWB, FE. no. 8132, 12 Dec. 1985.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Hindu, 3 June 1980, 14 July 1980.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beijing Review, no. 35, 1 Sept. 1980.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    SWB, FE, no. 6695, 8 Apr. 1981.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xinhua News Agency, 21 Feb. 1983; SWB, FE, no. 8100, 5 Nov. 1985.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Horn, ‘The Soviet Union’, p. 897.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ibid., p. 891.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    SWB, FE, no. 8074, 5 Oct. 1985; Ibid., no. 8092, 25 Oct. 1985; The Daily Telegraph, 5 Nov. 1984.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Horn, Soviet—Indian Relations, p. 165.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    The Hindu, 8 Sept. 1982.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dawn, 3 June 1981.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Horn, ‘The Soviet Union’, pp. 892–3.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Beijing Review, no. 45, 5 Nov. 1984.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid., no. 32, 12 Aug. 1985.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibid., no. 41, 11 Oct. 1982.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Current Digest of the Soviet Press, (CDSP), vol. 31, no. 24, 12 June 1979.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    For example, see CDSP, vol. 32, no. 50, Pravda and Izvestia, 12 Dec. 1980 on the conclusion of the Brezhnev visit.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beijing Review, no. 22, 3 June 1985.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    FBIS, Daily Report China, 8 Nov. 1984, F2, and Beijing Review, no. 46, 12 Nov. 1984.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Financial Times, 31 Oct. 1983.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    SWB, FE, no. 6695, 8 Apr. 1981.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Segal, ‘China and Arms Control’, passim. Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Guardian, 28 Oct. 1985. The two sides have now given assurances that neither will attack the other’s nuclear installations. See SWB, FE, no. 8138, 19 Dec. 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gerald Segal 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary Foot

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations