Regarding the position and role of China and India in the international system, the first point could be relevant to their development vis-à-vis the systemic rules. The argument is that the rapid economic development of both countries cannot be separated from the basic stability of the international system—in other words, in terms of their economic development, they have benefited from the current system. Therefore, despite the fact that neither China nor India would agree with the unilateral behaviour of the United States in many instances, they do not have an oppositional position against the current international system, even though it is dominated by the United States. On the contrary, China and India stress the importance of integrating themselves into the system. This perhaps reflects, indirectly, a current preference to accept the system, and to distinguish between opposing unilateralism and objecting to the system.

Second, neither China nor India pursues a policy of breaking the current equilibrium as its priority because the consequences would bring about instability, even chaos, which could do enormous damage to their interests as they are in their respective economic take-off stages. As developing powers in the international system, they cannot be satisfied with the reality that they do not have much to say in nearly all the global institutions, but fundamentally changing the system is neither within their capacity nor in their interests. According to the principle of maximising one’s interests, China and India would prefer a stable system rather than risking the instability that might flow from challenging it.

Third, China and India are rising powers and they certainly want to have a more significant position in the international system. In other words, with the increase of their capabilities, their dissatisfaction with the reality could be expressed in ways that are not yet obvious. Whether it will change the structure of the international system remains unknown. Precisely because of this uncertainty, the dominant power in today’s world has to be ready to deal with any possible changes that could hurt its interests. In spite of the fact that neither China nor India really intends to challenge the international system, and that they both want to integrate themselves peacefully into it, the dominant power could determine its strategy on the basis of the ‘worst-case scenario’. That is logical, just as China and India do not start from the ‘best-case scenario’ when they think about their interactions with the international system. This type of interaction could easily lead to the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’. While there is no confrontational element in the situation, the issue is that the rise of developing powers could change the international system and hurt the interests of others, especially the dominant power.

Moreover, if the manner in which the developing powers can change the system is not clear, even less clear is how China and India will deal with each other in the years to come. Discussing the impact of Chindia on the world system, one could put both countries in a similar category as a common variable, but this does not mean that the two countries share the same view of the system, nor does it mean they have already accepted each other completely or have solved their bilateral problems. One therefore needs to look into the real implications of the simultaneous rise of the two countries, and what is the essence of Chindia in a bilateral sense.