India’s Support Of The Philippines In Its Maritime Dispute With China Isn’t Related To The US

It’s predicated upon India’s support of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and influenced by its own unresolved border dispute with China in the Himalayas.

Indian External Affairs Minister (EAM) Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar expressed full support for the Philippines during his trip there on Tuesday amidst its worsening maritime dispute with China. Seeing as how that Southeast Asian country is a crucial component of the US’ AUKUS+ NATO-like Asian military alliance that it’s assembling to contain China, some among the Alt-Media Community (AMC) might be inclined to lend credence to the false claim that this proves that India is a “Trojan Horse” in BRICS.

The reality is that India’s support of the Philippines isn’t related to the US but its predicated upon Delhi’s support of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and influenced by its own unresolved border dispute with China in the Himalayas. Regarding the first, India believes that China’s refusal to recognize UNCLOS’ 2016 ruling in favor of the Philippines undermines international legal norms, while the second’s recent intensification could have pushed Delhi to take a strong stand in support of Manila.

China once again reaffirmed its claims to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh in late March, which Beijing claims as South Tibet despite having only indirectly exerted control over that region via its former imperial suzerainty over Tibet, after Prime Minister Modi paid a visit there earlier that month. India might therefore have been motivated to express strong support for the Philippines as an asymmetrical response to that development, which includes exploring more military-technical cooperation.

About that, Russia already approved India’s planned export of jointly produced supersonic cruise missiles to the Philippines in late January, the geostrategic rationale of which was explained in the preceding hyperlinked analysis. These three analyses here, here, here share more details about the complicated interplay between BRICS’ three core countries with an emphasis on the importance of the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership within them for accelerating multipolar trends in the global systemic transition.

The abovementioned analyses confirm that Russian policymakers pay no attention to the AMC’s false claim that India is the US’ “Trojan Horse” in BRICS, which is further discredited by the fact that Indian-US ties have been troubled since late November. The Department of Justice (DOJ) charged an unnamed Indian official with allegedly conspiring to assassinate a Delhi-designated terrorist-separatist with dual American citizenship on US soil, and their relations haven’t been the same since then.

These analyses here, here, and here elaborate more on that scandal, while this one here concerns the tongue-lashing that India just gave the US’ Deputy Chief of Mission after the State Department implied that a detained Chief Minister from the opposition won’t be treated fairly by the courts. Right after the latest development, the State Department doubled down by suggesting that the decision to freeze some of the opposition’s bank accounts on tax-related pretexts might influence the upcoming elections.

The rough patch that Indian-US ties have recently entered, which is due to America wanting to punish India for its conservative-nationalist domestic policies and truly multipolar foreign policy that saw it defy pressure to distance itself from Russia, debunks claims of India colluding with the US in the Philippines. Many among the AMC wouldn’t dare speculate that China’s recent comment about the DOJ’s charges is proof of alleged collusion with the US against India yet that same reluctance doesn’t extend to this issue.

The reason is that many of them have been so misled by top influencers in their community into believing that India really is the US’ “Trojan Horse” in BRICS that they can’t countenance that ties between those two have now become troubled precisely because India isn’t the US’ “junior partner”. If it was really doing the US’ geopolitical bidding, then EAM Jaishankar wouldn’t have explained in late February why India doubled down on its ties with Russia since the special operation began.

His country would have already dumped Russia long ago instead of comprehensively expanding their relations beyond their prior military-centricity into the connectivity and energy domains among others. Moreover, EAM Jaishankar also wouldn’t have just revealed this week that unnamed countries (presumably the US and Ukraine) rely on India to convey messages to Russia, which the latter accepts because they have no reason to doubt its motives or suspect it of manipulating these messages.

The facts cited in this analysis therefore debunk the AMC’s false claim that India is the US’ “Trojan Horse” in BRICS, which in turn discredits speculation that its support of the Philippines is related to the US. As President Putin himself said in early December, “I can’t imagine that Modi can be intimidated, threatened or forced in favor of taking any action or decision against the national interest of India”, and those AMC pundits who imply that they know India better than the Russian leader does are dishonest.