The Panchsheel or “Five Principles of Peaceful Existence” was a joint statement issued during Chinese premier Zhou Enlai’s visits to India in 1954. It was the period marking end of colonialism and emergence of new nations in Asia and Africa. These five principles were as follows:
- Mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Mutual non-aggression.
- Mutual non-interference in internal matters.
- Equality and mutual benefit Peaceful co-existence.
- Peaceful co-existence
Panchsheel principles resonated with India’s aspiration as India wanted to preserve her independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity. India focussed on establishing relations with other countries as equal footing and get protection from external invasions. In China, India saw an equal partner and reliable neighbour. India was one of the first countries to recognize China’s government.India not only supported the UNSC permanent seat for China but also invited China to take part in Bandung Conference.
Panchsheel is a framework of basic tenets of engagement between the two sovereign countries and withstands the test of the time. It is equally relevant for all times. So it is no surprise that first Asia-Africa conference at Bandung, Indonesia in 1955 adopted these principles.
The above principles reflected the common desires of the overall human society to seek independent survival and development since the ancient times, and were in line with the global trend of peaceful coexistence between or among nations which might have different ideological and social systems, and echoed the aspirations of the peoples across the world vis-á-vis development in a peaceful international environment while realizing prosperity via cooperation, and conformed to the common aspirations of the relevant countries to resolve the historical issues in a peaceful manner.
Meanwhile, the Five Principles were also widely acclaimed by the international community for their inclusiveness and openness, and were adopted through a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements, thus becoming the legal norms for the international community to address disputes or historical issues in a peaceful manner, and creating a legal platform for the relevant nations to develop friendly and cooperative relations.
The Five Principles were, essentially, in accordance with the spirit of the UN Charter, and stood for the interests and will of the developing countries. They were, therefore, recognised by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) soon after the three nations put forward the principles. They were further quoted and recognised by the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which was passed by the 25th UNGA in 1970, and by the Declaration on Establishing a New International Economic Order, passed by the 6th special UNGA in 1974. Meanwhile, the Five Principles were also widely accepted by the international community for their inclusiveness and openness, and were adopted by a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements.
The Five Principles have withstood the test of the changing international situation over the past 60 years, and demonstrated their vitality. During and after the Cold War, China and India, the two ancient civilisations, were both faced with some mind-boggling realities. Both had a huge population. Both needed to feed these hungry millions. Both were economically devastated through colonisation. Both had a glorious past, but a dismal present. And both wanted to revive the glorious years of the past.
The ever-changing international situation warranted the two countries to review and address our bilateral problems or disputes from the strategic perspective, and prevent them from becoming obstacles in terms of steady development of the bilateral relations. Despite the sad fact of the border conflicts in 1962, China and India reached out to each other, and addressed the disputes and differences via the diplomatic channel, and facilitated conditions for a chapter of a new kind of nation-to-nation relations.
It is based on the above strategic thinking that the two nations established the Strategic Cooperative and Partnership Relations in 2005, which were aimed at promoting the common interests and realizing the common prosperity, and opened a new chapter of our bilateral relations, with the characteristics of harmonious coexistence and common development. At the same time, China and India set up a series of bilateral dialogue mechanisms, including strategic dialogue, strategic economic dialogue, famous-person forum, and special representative dialogue for addressing the border issues, etc. All the said mechanisms were complementary to one another, and played key roles in reducing tension, addressing disputes and building mutual trust.
During the post financial crisis era, China and India are both destined to form the fate community. On the home front, China and India are both faced with the impacts resultant from the ever-changing international situation, are both faced with challenges from the on-going industrialisation and globalisation, both are under increasing pressure to maintain the momentum of economic growth, and are thus charged with the historical task of national rejuvenation.
Therefore, the above scenarios have warranted the two countries to address the historical and economic issues effectively, take stock of each other’s potential, push for closer political and economic cooperation based on the comparative advantages of each side, and realise a peaceful and cooperative development on the basis of the Panchsheel Treaty.
In the international arena, China and India, as emerging economies with ever-increasing global influence, are both destined to further join hands in terms of global governance.
Therefore, they are to jointly influence the orientation of globalization, and facilitate conditions for it to be more balanced, universally beneficial, lobby for all the countries to participate in the global governance on equal footing, call on all the counties to resolve their issues and disputes through consultations and negotiations, give full attention to the interests and aspirations of all the countries around the world, especially those of the developing counties, push forward further reforms of the current international governance institutions, expand the representation of the developing countries at the existing governance institutions accordingly.
India is engaged in nation building process, for which peaceful environment is need of the hour and Panchseel can be the instrument for that.
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.