Connect with us

East Asia

Europe and China in a Globalized World: The Geopolitical Impacts of Belt and Road

Published

on

Donald Trump’s rise to power, his “America first” policy and the announcement by Chinese President Xi Jinping of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), designed to revitalize the Silk Road, are the three mile- stones demonstrating a radical shift in globalization.

Our globalized world is in fact going through a decisive moment in its history, something that can be seen in the creation of the cult of personality surrounding the Chinese President, the introduction of China’s Social Credit System (SCS) and, finally, the crisis of confidence that has taken hold among the European Union’s (EU) member states,  resulting in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit), among other developments.

G-2, G-Zero and the Multipolar World

By putting in place protectionist measures, the world’s two superpowers, the United States and China, have begun a trade war. The announcement by the US that it would impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, among other goods, has prompted China to impose its own tariffs on more than 100 products from the US. By mid-July 2018, the value of the taxed products traded between China and the United States had reached US$100 billion. According to experts, this will reduce world trade by 0.5% and economic growth in China and the United States by between 0.1% and 0.3% (Le figaro and AFP Agence, 2018).

Caught between these two powers, the European Union is responding in a similar fashion, i.e. by imposing customs duties worth €2.8 billion on certain US products (Reuters, 2018). Less united than ever, the EU must contend with Brexit and its impacts throughout the Union. The dissatisfaction Europe’s citizens feel about the EU’s lack of effectiveness continues to grow. The future of Europe, the European identity and the Union’s role in today’s globalized world are all being called into question.

It seems we are living in a G-Zero world, a world in which no country, region or group is able to play a leading role on the international scene. On the contrary, G-Zero means a “free-for-all” in which multiple political strategies are being implemented. Each country or region is trying to find its own effective solutions to the challenges of globalization, very often putting others at a disadvantage.

Will this G-Zero world ultimately lead to a G-2 world in which all depends on how relations between the United States and China develop? More than ever, the EU must formulate common strategies vis-à-vis the two superpowers. Alternatively, will multipolarity prevail? A multipolarity characterized by peaceful cooperation among countries?

If so, the result could be a world in which the various players take action, certainly in competition with each other, but in a complementary manner. New international regulations and standards would provide a framework for this “cosmopolitical” (Nida-Rümelin, 2017) global govern- ance while avoiding military conflicts. This would be a world in which the EU, above all, could define its geopolitical strategy in a way that prevents it from finding itself at the mercy of China and the United States.

After reviewing the main characteristics of globalization, internationalization, the competition among nation-states and transnational forces (see the following Introduction section), this paper analyzes BRI   as a geopolitical instrument within China’s overall strategy, which is designed to manage developments and exert power (see the section BRI: A “China First” Strategy). It then explores the impacts of BRI and the “China first” strategy on Europe (see the section BRI and the EU: An Opportunity for Europe). Finally, it discusses the importance of bridging differences and cultivating an “identity of the heart” in keeping with the geopolitical vision of Jacques Ancel.

Introduction: Globalization, Deterritorialization and Transnationalization

Geopolitics — the study of territory and power — is at the heart of this paper. Globalization means the cross-border movement of people, goods, services, capital and information. It is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the increased interdependence between nation-states and the impact of various non-governmental actors (e.g. international companies, interest groups, NGOs) at the international level. In addition, there is greater competition between the national forces that arose from the old world order produced by the Treaty of Westphalia and the new trans- national forces resulting from globalization.

Political responses to globalization, i.e. internationalization, have been very varied, sometimes even conflicting. On the one hand, protectionist measures have been put in place, such as customs duties, border controls and, in Europe, a return to the logic of nation-states. On the other, measures promoting economic openness and expansion are being undertaken, from the re-conquest of the old Silk Roads to the harmonization of European trade and defense policies (e.g. the Common Security and Defence Policy, an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy).

The transnational forces resulting from de-territorialization are competing with traditional national forces, especially when it comes to securing natural resources. This is attributed to the Internet and networking; moreover people all around the world have much more knowledge at their disposal, particularly about globalization’s harmful effects. Indeed, there have been losers in addition to winners. Some countries or regions have massive international trade surpluses, while others are experiencing large deficits. In addition, cross-border economic crime, illicit transactions and money laundering are commonplace. There has been an accumulation of wealth in some regions, often controlled by political–economic elites. This injustice is increasingly fueling citizens’ mistrust of the prevailing political classes. This, in turn, is leading to an increase in social conflicts and protest movements, causing the effectiveness of the democratic system to be questioned.

There are shared challenges, however, that unite all the actors involved in this geopolitical issue: international terrorism; the effects of climate change including on food production; competition for natural resources; chronic economic, social and political crises, due, in particular, to the rise of an illegal and opaque global economy; widespread political apathy; and, finally, digitization, which is leading to a radical change in how people work. Current international institutions and organizations no longer offer effective solutions. The old world order, an after-effect of the Second World War, is in decline, while a new world order has yet to take shape.

BRI: A “China First” Strategy

Xi’s announcement in 2013 that China intended to revitalize the ancient Silk Roads marked a turning point in the country’s national policy.

Indeed, this vast project targeting infrastructure and commercial net- works will extend throughout Eurasia, an area of great geopolitical and commercial importance. The project is strengthening the links between China and countries all along the “belt”. It is, in fact, not a single project, since there is no master plan, but is comprised of a multitude of roads, railways and waterways. It includes the Pacific Silk Road, which passes through the Arctic Ocean, and the Digital Silk Road, which covers cyber- space (The Economist, 2018). BRI is also considered “the road of Xi Jinping” which only reinforces the cult of personality surrounding him. BRI focuses on major infrastructure projects (Figure 1). The 2015 action plan presented the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and the Maritime Silk Road Belt (MSR) with a total of six corridors. According to the initiative, roads and sea routes are to connect China to Central Asian countries, Russia and, ultimately, Europe — but especially to Africa, in order  to secure natural resources, particularly oil.  In Eurasia, BRI covers more than 65 countries with a population of more than three billion, in keeping with the leitmotif advanced by the Communist Party of China (CPC) of “developing the region’s wealth and preserving peace, friend- ship, trust and understanding”.

In order to ensure financing for this vast infrastructure project, China has established two institutions that are complementary to, as opposed to competitors of, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (World Bank) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB):

-The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): The Asian investment bank for infrastructure projects, with 57 member countries (in addition to European countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg).

-The Silk Road Fund: A Chinese sovereign fund.

Many political leaders in the countries along this belt are welcoming this vast project with open arms, since it will improve infrastructure, ensure connectivity and, subsequently, promote economic development. However, as with any Chinese investment, compliance with standards and regulations is not a priority for Beijing. The corruption and opacity relating to the investments flowing from China are likely to benefit political elites more than the populations of the respective countries.

Figure 1. Belt and Road Initiative.Source: Société de Stratégie

In addition, dependence on the investment flows generates an imbalance    in China’s favor, preventing recipient countries from maintaining their economic autonomy.

China’s meta-strategy

The driver behind this commercial project is, above all, a new ideology being advanced by the CPC. Indeed, the main purpose of BRI is to secure and control transport routes for natural resources, particularly oil and gas. This basically means the transport routes that connect African resource-producing countries to production sites in China. The most important corridor is the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This route connects the city of Kashgar in China to the port city of Gwadar in Pakistan and is an integral part of China’s overall strategy. Almost 80% of all Chinese imports of oil pass through the Strait of Malacca (Figure 2). As a result, CPEC will significantly reduce transport time. In addition, it will improve Pakistan’s infrastructure due to the massive Chinese investments it entails. Not only will this help develop Pakistan’s economy, reduce the country’s energy shortages and boost its productivity, it will also increase Pakistan’s dependence on China. At the same time, the infrastructure projects are being financed through concessional and commercial loans, which will fuel the corruption already prevalent in Pakistan (Luchnikava-Schorsch, 2018; Hussain, 2017).

Figure 2. China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).Source: South China Morning Post

It is therefore necessary to view BRI not only as an instrument for asserting China’s power but also as a global meta-strategy that proposes an alternative world order, at least at the commercial level, to the liberal order established by the West. It is also why geopolitical, strategic and military aspects should be considered more than economic aspects. New waterways and port construction serve more than just commercial ends. Ports can serve as military bases for the Chinese navy. For example, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) inaugurated its first overseas maritime naval base in Djibouti in 2017 (Lagneau, 2017). Dispatching 400 troops, the PLA stated that it wants to support  UN  peacekeeping operations and its own naval operations, particularly in the Indian Ocean. China’s military presence, however, is of concern not only to the United States but to India as well. China–India relations are already tense due to disagreements over territories in the Himalayas, among other issues. CPEC passes through high-risk areas such as the autonomous region of Xinjiang and the northwest Pakistan–Afghanistan border region. The Chinese army is therefore securing infrastructure construction sites, transport roads and ports all along the corridor. In this context, BRI is a strategy that primarily serves Chinese interests. Certainly, this new Silk Road offers business opportunities to companies both in Asia and in Europe. Nevertheless, two aspects are important here: BRI is an ideological tool designed to maintain China’s internal stability, i.e. control by the CPC, while also serving as a strategy that brings together civil and military interests under the rubric of “security”.

Ideology

While Europe tries to identify a new vision, China has provided its geopolitical strategy with a second wind. Capitalism got its start in modern China when the country opened to foreign investment in 1978 and when peasants were granted permission to keep their surplus production. By unleashing its citizens’ entrepreneurial spirit, the country hoped to overcome its technical and technological backwardness. Mobilization of the often-inactive Chinese population ensured national unity in keeping with the motto of “becoming rich”. After years of economic growth and accumulated wealth, the CPC is using BRI, among other activities, to give itself not only new justification for maintaining its power but also a new ideology capable of ensuring party unity, internal stability and national cohesion. President Xi is strengthening his position, supported by the Chinese people. The country’s authoritarian regime, moreover, is tightening its grip.  Internationally, the Chinese economy is an integral part of global production chains.  Remarkably, China is also increasingly becoming a source of innovation, especially digital innovation.

Externally, China is flexing its muscles in a number of locations, including in the South China Sea, transforming “a number of islets in the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos into military bases, where the government is building ports and airstrips” (RFI, 2017).

Assured by its strong position on the geopolitical  level,  the Chinese government is embarking on a more assertive foreign policy. Domestically, the country’s government manages the country as a global enterprise. Five-year plans are a  management  tool  used  to  set the economic strategies of Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), both internally and externally, to ensure  that  standards  of  living  increase  for the Chinese population. This legitimizes the CPC’s ongoing rule. The BRI vision thus mobilizes the nation, safeguarding the unity, stability and harmony of China as a whole. At the same time, however, the growing cult of personality means that China is increasingly becoming a revisionist power.

New security strategy

As mentioned above, BRI is above all a “geostrategic–military” initiative since it brings together civil and military interests under the rubric of “security”. Indeed, these interests are at the center of all decisions and actions on the political and economic levels. Using the term “security”, China’s political strategy aims to safeguard national interests both domestically and internationally. Several dimensions of “security” are differentiated: national sovereignty and national unification, along with military, economic, cultural, social, scientific and technological security, as well as the security of information, security of environment and resources and, finally, nuclear security (State of Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2015). The main objective of this major security strategy is to preserve the country’s unity, prevent social unrest and legitimize the power of President Xi and the CPC.

In conclusion, we can see that the countries interacting with the European Union are pursuing a strategy that places national interests at the center of their respective political actions. The United States and Trump’s “America first” vision, the strengthening of the authoritarian regime in China, the new cult of personality surrounding Xi Jinping, the return of Mao’s personality cult and BRI are all ultimately driven by national ideologies. On the international level, the global community could thus be dominated by superpowers such as China, the United States and Russia. Due to the weakness of international organizations, ideologies are prevailing, determining the world order. The failure of the European project could become a cruel reality if Europe does not quickly find a new vision while avoiding ideological tendencies — formulating its interests as it does so.

BRI and the EU: An Opportunity for Europe?

Diplomatic relations between Europe and China began in 1975. Since then, there have been regular ministerial meetings and Sino-European summits. More than 60 sectoral agreements have been concluded. China and the EU trade goods are worth more than €1.5 billion each day (Eurostat, 2018). The EU is China’s main trading partner; for Europe, China is second only to the United States.

For years, the EU’s trade balance (Figure 3) with China has been in deficit, with the shortfall reaching €176.4 billion in 2017. This has been a constant conflict between Europe and China. Despite numerous discussions between Beijing and Brussels, the imbalance persists for most member states, although not for Germany, Finland and Ireland (Eurostat, 2018).

Figure 3. The Trade Balance between the EU and China (2008–2017).Source: Eurostat 2018

In 2016, the EU adopted a new strategy on China that tries to respond more effectively to the scale of China’s economic power and its role as an increasingly important global player (Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council, 2016). The strategy complements the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation, which marked its 15th anniversary in 2018 (Press and information team  of the Delegation to CHINA, 2016). In addition, the EU is negotiating an investment agreement with China to ensure fair opportunities for both sides. The EU also wants to encourage China to give a greater role to market mechanisms and reduce state intervention. The 2020 agenda does not seem to be succeeding. China is not really interested in accepting European norms and standards and is pursuing a “divide and rule” strategy in Europe instead. Indeed, BRI further amplifies the 16+1 meetings, which China is using to negotiate with Eastern European countries. The 16+1 format risks are loosening the ties between Eastern Europe and Brussels. China is pursuing this tactic by negotiating on three levels: with European institutions, with individual member countries and with Eastern Europe as a whole (16+1). An examination of Chinese foreign investment shows that the government continues to invest massively in Europe, always to some extent in “freeloader” style. China’s preferred targets are the United Kingdom (financial sector), Germany (Mittelstand/machine-tool, automotive sector), France (tourism, cosmetics, leisure, wine), Greece (infrastructure) and Portugal (real estate). Trade is growing steadily and with it the interdependence between EU member states and China.

Investment flows into Europe from China amount to €10.2 billion (2016) with EU investments in China totaling €12.8 billion in 2016 (Eurostat, 2018). Yet even if China is investing more and more in Europe, the scope must be put into perspective: of China’s total FDI, only 5–6% has been made in Europe. The majority of Chinese investments still take place in Asia — notably Hong Kong (75.5%), Singapore (3.7%), Taiwan (3.6%), South Korea (2.8%) and Japan (2.5%). The United States accounts for 2.4% of total Chinese FDI, the Netherlands 1.7% and Germany 1.2% (Otte, 2018). In the Asian region, BRI infrastructure projects will have a very significant impact in coming years. Even if Europe is more or less at the end of this new Silk Road, Eastern European nations have become, since BRI, the center of China’s interest. Especially Poland and the Baltic countries can serve as a point of entry for goods transported via the      Silk Road. BRI can then serve as a catalyst to rebalance trade relations in favor of Europe as a whole, but only if the EU finds a common strategy for this initiative. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of intra-European competition, or to be divided by China. On the contrary, common European interests must be identified in order to protect key EU sectors and give priority to European actors.

Above all, closer cooperation with pro-European countries is necessary, as is monitoring and guiding  Chinese  investments  throughout  the European continent. BRI will change the foundations of world trade in the medium term, and the EU risks granting even greater access to European high technology. This poses a real threat since China, as discussed, links its civil and military interests. China’s influence and geopolitical–military power could thus have an impact in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. First and foremost, BRI is a Chinese ideology that is making it possible to pursue the Chinese dream, modernize state- owned companies and facilitate their financing by promoting access to international credit. Additionally, the increased prosperity of the countries along the BRI routes will ensure Chinese trade remains stable, a key aspect given that the Chinese economy is heavily dependent on exports.

Areas of action for the EU

In view of BRI, not only must European companies act, so must all EU institutions. A new vision for Europe must be articulated if Europe is      to avoid being taken hostage by Chinese interests. The strength of the European Union is directly linked to how it manages its diversity. In Europe, freedom of thought reinforces creativity, which is necessary for technological progress. The high quality of Europe’s companies is the result of their innovative power. Due to its democratic structures, respect for human rights, rule of law and  high  social  standards  and  norms,  the EU acts within a regulatory framework based on ethical and human values. On the commercial level, BRI offers many opportunities for European companies as investors, experts, consultants and managers. Potential activities include the following:

-Investing in infrastructure projects, such as construction of railways and roads.

-Supplying equipment, such as that needed for ports.

-Serving as partners in the areas of engineering, procurement and construction (EPC).

-Serving as consultants for project management, especially in the area of operational security and the application of international and local laws.

-Managing infrastructure operations (Wijeratne et al., 2018).

There are many opportunities and risks here. As with any transnational project of this magnitude, major differences in the relevant corporate cultures must be overcome. Above all, trust between the various international actors plays a crucial role.

In addition, different legal frameworks exist which can lead to conflicts between international and local laws. Moreover, the “time” factor should not be overlooked, since BRI is a massive project that will only be completed in the long term. In short, there are myriad factors which could hinder European companies from serving as partners within the framework of this initiative.

French President Macron — Hope for Europe?

The election of Emmanuel Macron as President of the French Republic gave, for a brief time, new momentum not only to France, but also to the EU. Macron’s visit to China was closely watched, especially by the French and German press. The French President was the first European leader   to welcome the initiative to create a “new Silk Road”. Yet a comparison  of the outcome of his visit to China with that of Chancellor Merkel’s in 2015 is less than satisfying. Only 39 of the 50 envisaged contracts have been signed and half are mere declarations of intent. Thus, the French President did not truly introduce a new approach to dealing with China. With all due respect, he only highlighted the importance of the historically friendly relations between China, France and Europe. Macron’s mistake was to invoke France’s rivalry with the United States. Alluding to the Chinese proverb “When the wind of change blows, some build walls, others build mills”, the French President referred to the con- struction of the wall between Mexico and the United States. From the perspective of a G-2 scenario, China will always measure itself against superpowers like the US and consider France and Europe medium-sized actors instead. In addition, Macron has not addressed the problems resulting from France’s and the EU’s lack of geopolitical impact given the overwhelming power of players such as China and the US. What future thus awaits the EU as a new era of global governance dawns?

Conclusion

As globalization’s pace slows, the need increases to belong to a territory, region or country. The dynamics of transnational flows erase neither borders nor the places delimited by those borders (Zajec, 2016). On the contrary, it is clear that the geopolitical powers of nation-states such as China, the United States and Russia are growing. This growth has been accompanied by resurgence of personality cults (e.g. those surrounding Xi and Putin) and of ideologies guided by national interests. BRI is a good example, since it is the ideological pursuit of the Chinese dream. The strategy behind Trump’s “America first” campaign follows the same logic, being a call to revitalize the American dream.

European identity crisis

The EU, on the other hand, lacks a dream. Following the massive inflow of refugees to the European continent, Europe’s citizens have been legitimately demanding that border controls be restored and strengthened. It is necessary to define the European identity as a result. The EU is also an arena where national and transnational forces (e.g. global companies, interest groups) interact. And precisely these transnational forces, especially international companies, often behave more or less autonomously, regardless of the regulations issued by nation-states. The EU is an inter- mediate actor, at best a forward-looking one. It is not a “United States of Europe”, neither can it boast of being a true global force. After all, European power is clearly limited in economic terms. Being a global player requires a shared vision on the economic, political, military, social and cultural levels.

Globalization in its current form has given rise to a kind of new, highly conflictual bipolar world, one that requires a redefinition of the world order. The resulting rivalry is playing out on several levels:

-Institutional: Democratic system versus authoritarian regime, even dictatorships.

-National versus transnational forces.

-Nation-states versus global companies, business alliances and interest groups (lobbying).

-Within the EU: Nation-states versus European institutions, and Western Europe versus Eastern Europe.

The identity of the heart, a nation of the heart and the strength of differences

The leaders of European institutions should not underestimate the national strengths of the member states and their respective populations. According to this logic, President Macron is wrong to want to pursue the strategy of “even more Europe” without taking into account legitimate feelings of belonging and national identity. Jacques Ancel (1879–1943) contributed the notion of identity to geopolitics. According to Ancel, groups of individuals take shape based on a common memory, history, culture and language, eventually defining themselves within a border: “He defends a nation of the heart in and of itself that is non-rational” (Gauchon and Huissoud, 2008, pp. 7–11). In this sense, the EU can act as an avant-garde player, questioning a power’s sustainability — values versus mercantilism. A new “cosmopolitical” order of this sort must ensure fair trade relations, transparency of transactions, social justice and, above all, a more equitable distribution of natural resources and goods on a global scale. More precisely, it is the human dimension and the application of moral and ethical values that are essential if there is     to be an evolution towards a cosmopolitics, a process that must respect borders and, thus, national sovereignty (Banik, 2016).

In our globalized world, neither the EU, China nor the United States is an isolated island paradise. No actor is privy to the absolute truth. The challenges of climate change, growing global competition (for natural resources, food, water, etc.), the rivalry between national and transnational forces and, above all, international terrorism are forcing us to face new realities. The illusions must be relinquished that underlie today’s ideologies (those found in Europe; patriotic Chinese-style capitalism;

 “America first”; personality cults; a return to revisionist power structures). We must bridge our differences and move towards a cosmopolitical global governance based on human values — towards an “identity of the heart”. As Europeans, let us begin evolving towards a “Europe of the heart” in keeping with Jacques Ancel’s geopolitical vision (Banik, 2016).

“It is the heart which is worthwhile and which must be considered above all.” (Jacques Ancel)

Notes: This paper was originally published in “China and the World: Ancient and Modern Silk Road, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1–18 DOI: 0.1142/S2591729319500032, reproduced with the permission from the author.

Author, speaker and guest lecturer on current geopolitical, economic and political issues related to China, EU and the US, focus on Jacques Ancel’s geopolitical vision “identity of heart”. Author at worldscientific.com, at moderndiplomacy.eu and book author at éditions L'Harmattan, Paris. As a member of the successor generation of the displaced population - her family had to flee on her mother's side from Königsberg in East Prussia in January 1945 and on her father's side from Schneidemühl in West Prussia - Katja increasingly connects the topics of identities and borders in her geopolitical views. Personal website: www.katjabanik.com

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Japanese firms’ slow and steady exit is sounding alarm bells in Beijing

Published

on

Last year in March, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had indicated Japan would initiate measures to reduce the country heavily relying on China for factory production. Since July 2020, Japan has rolled out subsidies totaling over 400 billion Yen to move its enterprises out of China to Southeast Asia and beyond. It is yet to be seen if the scale of incentives has actually triggered a major change in where Japanese companies relocate production.  On the other hand, experts in China continue to wonder why would Japanese companies which are on average making 17% profit diversify into the ASEAN nations, where in 2019, their rate of return on direct investment was a mere 5%?

***

In less than ten days, Japan is going to have a third prime minister within a short span of twelve months. On September 1 last year, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigned on health grounds, Yoshihide Suga was chosen as Abe’s successor. At the time, China’s leadership did not show any worrying signs as the new Japanese leader was expected to continue with the foreign policy of the previous government. But one year later, Suga’s unexpected departure is leaving Japan’s diplomatic relations with China considerably strained over Taiwan. Yet the leadership in Beijing is not going to lose sleep over the next prime minister’s public stance on the Japan-Taiwan “alliance.” What China will be closely watching is how many more billions of Yen and for how long a new leader in Tokyo will carry on with rolling out subsidies to lure away Japanese businesses out of China?

Interestingly, on assuming office Prime Minister Suga had promised continuity in domestic policies and that he will respect Abe’s foreign policy. However, Suga’s promised commitment to further improve relations with China was viewed differently in the People’s Republic. Writing in an article on the day Yoshihide Suga took office in Tokyo, Zhou Yongsheng, professor of Japanese studies at Beijing’s China Foreign Affairs University, observed: “[Under Suga] Japan will continue to align with the US as far as international relations and security affairs are concerned, and continue to back the US policy of containing China It is under these preconditions that Japan will seek cooperation with China.”

In sharp contrast, reviewing Suga’s foreign policy performance after two months, NIKKEI Asia’s foreign affairs analyst Hiroyuki Akita wrote in November 2020: “Suga has not said much publicly about his views on diplomacy but he has urged his aids to continue Abe’s diplomacy as it is at least for one year.” Akita gave a thumbs up to this approach and recalled a Japanese saying to describe it: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” However, not everyone agreed with Akita praising Suga’s brief record in diplomacy as flawless. Having spent seven years in the Abe cabinet as Chief Cabinet Secretary, Suga’s image was that of “a fixer, not a leader.” Suga did everything in diplomacy in his early phase as the prime minister what Abe had been espousing for the past seven years.

But as Toshiya Takahashi, professor of IR at Shoin University in Japan had predicted within a few weeks of Suga becoming the top leader, “Abe’s shoes were too big for Suga to fill.” Why so? Mainly because unlike Abe, not only Suga was not ideological, he was also far less diplomacy driven. “Suga is not an ideologically driven revisionist — he is a conservative politician, but his attitude has no relation to ideology. He does not seem to hold any specific cherished foreign policy objectives that he is willing to push with all his political capital in the way that Abe did in 2015 with the passage of the security-related bills,” Takahashi had commented.   

To observers and experts in both Japan and China, Prime Minister Suga’s (he will relinquish office on September 30) non-enthusiastic approach to foreign policy might have much to do with the current state of strained relationship between Japan and China. Asahi Shimbun opinion poll last year claimed foreign policy and national security as among the two most popular elements of Abe’s legacy. No wonder, critics in Japan have been pointing out that Suga’s cabinet did not have the luxury and support Abe enjoyed in foreign affairs of having in the government someone like Shotaro Yachi – the former secretary general of the National Security Secretariat. In China too, reacting to Suga’s first policy speech after taking office, scholars such as Lü  Yaodong, Institute of Japanese Studies, CASS in Beijing had observed, “Suga seems not to be as enthusiastic about China-Japan ties as Abe. Compared with Abe’s administration, Suga may walk back China-Japan ties.” (Emphasis added)

Remember, as already mentioned, the LDP had succeeded in pursuing policy of (economic) cooperation and avoiding confrontationist diplomacy with China under Abe. But Suga government’s failure to effectively fight coronavirus pandemic and its perception that China was increasingly becoming aggressive in SCS, are being cited as reasons why Japan was compelled to take strong steps against China. It is too well-known by now how Tokyo angered Beijing by referring to the importance of Taiwan to regional security in the recently released 2021 Defense White Paper. In fact, a Chinese scholar had warned as early as within a month of Suga taking over as prime minister from Shinzo Abe, saying that “Japan will take a more offensive stance against China over maritime boundary disputes under the incitement of the US” (emphasis added).

Hence, it is of extreme import to mention here China’s top diplomat Wang Yi’s recent trip to four ASEAN nations. Apparently, the second visit by the Chinese foreign minister in quick succession in the neighborhood had aroused the global media attention as it was soon after the recent visit to the region by the US vice president Kamala Harris. However, according to a Chinese commentator, Wang Yi’s recent visit to ASEAN countries must be viewed in the context of the region turning into a “battle ground” for rising economic one-upmanship among big powers. “Just a day after Wang Yi’s departure, Vietnam reached an agreement on defense equipment and technology cooperation with Japan,” the commentary noted.   

Furthermore, whilst under the previous Abe government, Japan consistently increased its investments in the ASEAN nations, except in the year 2016, all through from 2014 until last year, Japan’s investment in the region far exceeded that of China’s. Contrary to his vows, since coming into office in September last year, especially following his meeting with President Biden in the White House in April this year, Prime Minister Suga’s quiet agenda has been to confront China in both political and economic arena. In Japan, the Suga agenda was interpreted by analysts as “rebuilding Japan-US industrial chain, decoupling economic ties with China.”    

A policy report released by Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) in March 2021, revealed three important facts: first, in the year 2019, total Japanese investment in ASEAN nations stood at USD 265.5 billion – 14% of the country’s overall overseas investment, i.e., USD 1,858.3 billion.; second, in 2000, Japanese investments in ASEAN totaled USD 25 billion as against its USD 8.7 billion investment in China – a gap of USD 16.3 billion. Whereas in 2019, Japan invested USD 135.2 billion more in ASEAN as compared with China. As pointed out by one Chinese analyst, this gap is hugely significant, especially as the overall size of the ASEAN economy is a little over one-fifth of China’s GDP; third, followingthegovernment’s new strategy last year to encourage Japanese businesses to move out of China to new locations in ASEAN nations, the new guidelines also entailed reducing investments into China. A large part of the investments was diversified into ASEAN markets.

Finally, what is beginning to worry the Chinese authorities is the trend and direction of slow exodus of Japanese businesses out of China going back to Japan and towards Vietnam and Indonesia on one hand, and widening gap in Japanese investments between ASEAN and the PRC, on the other hand. At the same time, it was beyond anyone’s imagination in China that Japan would be acting foolish and risking “economic security” by diversifying businesses and investments into less profitable “barren” markets. But then who could anticipate what political and economic policy-rejigging coronavirus pandemic would bring about?

Overall, China’s more immediate and bigger concerns are firstly the sudden departure of Prime Minister Suga – in spite of Suga having made it clear he had no will to change or reverse “decoupling” policy he had been pursuing, and secondly, whoever emerges as the new leader of the four contenders by the month-end, analysts in Japan believe Tokyo is unlikely to change its “anti-China” political and economic policies.  

Continue Reading

East Asia

How China Exacerbates Global Fragility and What Can be Done to Bolster Democratic Resilience to Confront It

Published

on

Authors: Caitlin Dearing Scott and Isabella Mekker

From its declared policy of noninterference and personnel contributions to United Nations (UN) Peacekeeping Missions to its purported role in mediating conflicts, China has long sought to portray itself as a responsible global leader, pushing narratives about building a “community of common destiny” and promoting its model of governance and economic and political development as a path to stability. This narrative belies the reality. Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-style “stability,” whether to protect Belt and Road Investments (BRI) or regimes with favorable policies towards China, in practice facilitates authoritarianism and human rights violations, contributes to environmental degradation and corruption, and undermines democratic governance, all of which can fuel instability, intentionally or otherwise.

In pursuit of its true goal – “a world safe for the party” – China has leveraged its diplomatic and economic power to weaken  the international human rights system, bolstering support for illiberal regimes, contributing to democratic decline and exacerbating global fragility in the process. Nowhere is this more apparent than in conflict-affected contexts.

Conflict Resolution, CCP Style

Although China brands itself as a ‘promoter of stability, peace, and unity’, its very definition of stability is built on its authoritarian model of governance. This, plus its concerns about non-interference in its own domestic issues, informs its conflict resolution approach, which emphasizes host state consent and political settlement, two-ideas that can be laudable in theory, depending on the context. In practice, however, China’s conflict mediation efforts in some instances have provided support to incumbent regimes who are perpetuating violence and conflict, promoting a  ‘stability’ that disregards the voices of vulnerable populations and the need for inclusive governance. In the case of the Syrian civil war, China’s “political solution” meant maintaining China-friendly Bashar al-Assad’s grip on power, while blocking resolutions condemning the regime’s brutality against its citizens. 

“Stability” promoted by China can also come at the expense of human rights. China (and Russia) have previously pushed for cuts to human rights positions within peacekeeping missions, endangering the capacity of these missions to protect civilians in conflict.  In Myanmar, where the military is committing unprecedented human rights violations against its own citizens, China initially blocked a UN Security Council statement condemning the military coup and other international efforts to restore stability at a time when a strong international response was much needed. This was in line with China’s previous engagement in the country, working closely with the military regime to “mediate” conflict near the Chinese border in a way that preserved China’s interests and influence, but did little to actually address conflict. After a growing humanitarian crisis began to threaten its investments on the Myanmar side of the border, however, China changed rhetorical course, showing where human rights violations stand in its hierarchy of stability.

Advancing China’s Interests, Undermining Governance

China’s policies in fragile states mirror its unstated preference for expanding its economic and political interests, even if securing them sidelines the stated imperative of addressing fragility. In some instances, China has lobbied for UN policies in conflict-affected contexts that appear to support its own agenda rather than – or sometimes at the expense of – peace. According to the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission’s 2020 report to Congress, “China has shown an apparent willingness to leverage its influence in the UN peacekeeping operations system to advance its economic interests in African countries, raising the possibility that Beijing is subverting UN norms and procedures in the process.” Per the report, the most notable example of this was in 2014 when China lobbied to expand the UN Mission in South Sudan to protect oil installations of which the China National Petroleum Corporation held a 40 percent stake.

Moreover, China’s pursuit of its interests sets up countries on unstable trajectories. China’s economic investment policies and initiatives exacerbates governance deficits and increases fragility by encouraging corruption, facilitating authoritarianism and human rights violations, and contributing to environmental degradation, all key drivers of conflict. Two cases from Nigeria and Pakistan highlight the point.

In Nigeria, China’s investment projects have exacerbated corruption and fueled distrust in local government – key drivers of conflict and intercommunal violence in the country. China has exploited poor regulatory environments and worked within illegal and corrupt frameworks, often tied to armed groups and criminal networks. In one illustrative example, China state-owned timber trading companies  offered bribes to local officials to illegally harvest endangered rosewood. Members of local communities have cited feelings of exploitation by officials accepting bribes from Chinese businessmen, further stressing fragile ties between local government and citizens. Such business practices also demonstrate a blatant disregard for the environmental consequences of illegally harvesting endangered flora and fauna. Moreover, the inherently opaque nature of these projects that are tied to CCP interests makes it difficult to demand accountability.

Similarly in Pakistan, a 62-billion-dollar project known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) aimed at linking Xinjiang to the Arabian sea, has exacerbated tension in conflict-affected provinces. The project plans to build infrastructure and extract resources from several less developed regions, while overwhelmingly benefitting industrial and political hubs such as Punjab. Many provinces, including Balochistan and Sindh, have accused political elites of altering the route of the corridor in their own interests, thus further marginalizing their communities. Separatist groups have launched several attacks throughout the country, not only fueling conflict between Pakistani ethnic groups but also leading to attacks against Chinese expatriates. Recently, prominent voices from within China have called for a military intervention in Pakistan. CPEC has increased military presence throughout small villages, sparked an uptick in violent conflict along the route, and further eroded trust in local government institutions.

These cases may of course signal more opportunism and indifference by China to the impact of its engagement on stability in any given country, as opposed to an explicit attempt to undermine democratic governance (as it has done elsewhere in support of pro-China interests). Regardless of the intent, however, the impact is the same. China’s focus on political leverage and profits first and foremost undermines stability – and China likewise can benefit from instability in states with corrupt politicians interested in trading local resources for short-term political gains.

What Can be Done: Bolstering Democratic Resilience to Address Fragility and Foreign Influence

Foreign authoritarian influence has a compounding impact in conflict-affected contexts, further undermining governance structures, institutions, and processes that can mitigate or exacerbate fragility.  Good governance, on the contrary, can not only help countries prevent and manage conflict, but can also help countries address the myriad challenges associated with foreign authoritarian influence. Strong democratic institutions help societies respond positively and productively to threats both domestic and foreign.

Targeted investment in democracy in conflict-affected contexts vulnerable to foreign authoritarian influence offers an important opportunity for utilizing the Global Fragility Strategy in support of US foreign policy initiatives and advancing the Biden Administration’s policy priorities to tackle climate change, prevent authoritarian resurgence, confront corruption, and prevail in strategic competition with China.  An investment in support of democracy and good governance to address any one of these issues will reap dividends across each of these issues – engaging in conflict prevention and stabilization programming will both advance global democracy and advance US goals vis-à-vis China and other authoritarian rivals. Such investments, which must be long-term to account for the compounding impact of foreign authoritarian influence in already fragile environments, should include:

  • Supporting governments, civil society, and citizens to better understand, expose and counter foreign authoritarian influence, particularly in conflict-affected contexts where data and research efforts can be challenging. An understanding of China’s playbook is critical to countering CCP influence operations;
  • Helping independent media to investigate and expose foreign authoritarian influence and how it fuels conflict, whether through training, financial support, or other protections of the civic and information space, to raise public awareness of the impact of such engagement on conflict dynamics and promote transparency and accountability in dealings with foreign actors;  
  • Developing evidenced-based tools to prevent and mitigate foreign authoritarian influence in fragile contexts;
  • Strengthening electoral institutions, political parties, legislative bodies, and judiciaries to uproot elite capture and mitigate malign influence;
  • Leveraging diplomacy to build political will and incentives for government officials to resist foreign malign influences. Such diplomatic efforts can include increased outreach and contact with countries previously neglected by the US – but prioritized by China – and public diplomacy to both expose the CCP’s misleading narrative and advance narratives about what democracy can deliver;  and
  • Coordinating with similarly-minded donors such as the European Union, Japan, and Australia, to implement a unified approach to match the scale of Chinese investment and maximize the impact of any intervention.

Only democracy can help countries navigate the nexus of domestic and foreign threats to their stability. In the era of COVID-19, authoritarian resurgence, and climate crisis, supporting countries to develop these “resilience” fundamentals is a sound – and necessary – investment.

*Isabella Mekker is a Program Associate with IRI’s Center for Global Impact, working on countering foreign authoritarian influence and conflict prevention and stabilization programming.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic and Xi Jinping’s vision to reshape the new world order

Published

on

First: The internal and external strategic objectives of Comrade Chinese President “Xi Jinping“, in parallel with the international partnerships and relations of the Communist Party of China “CPC” around the world

Second: The recognition of Chinese Comrade President “Xi Jinping” before the leaders and youth of the Central School of the Communist Party “CPC” of the profound global changes post (Covid-19) world

Third: The relationship between the global achievements of the Communist Party of China, and the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping” call for establishing an international multipolar world, and the politicization of the “Covid-19” pandemic in the USA and the West

Fourth: The relationship between the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic and the test the (new global governing systems and global governance) from the Chinese perspective

   The Egyptian researcher was invited as an expert in Chinese and Asian political affairs, by the “Friends of the International Chinese Belt and Road Initiative Forum” in the Pakistani capital “Islamabad”, on Friday, September 10, 2021, to talk about:

  “Politicizing the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and linking it to China, and the reasons behind this matter“, in a meeting that was intensively covered by the international media, in several international, Chinese and Asian websites, newspapers and news agencies, in reference to the importance of this event for Beijing.

   In fact, it is not possible in any way to separate the attempts of the United States of America and the West to distract China towards achieving its primary goal of (building a multipolar, multilateral world and international poles), and the vision of Comrade Chinese President “Xi Jinping” on (reshaping the world order and makes it more compatible with Chinese interests and values).

   Where China’s leaders see that the liberal international system reflects the (global vision of the white colonial powers victorious in the Second World War), which it created to serve their interests at the headquarters of the United Nations “UN”.  Accordingly, Comrade “Xi Jinping” has formulated a strategy for China consisting of (two points), as follows:

  1. China is increasing its power, personnel, and financial influence within existing global governing institutions.
  • At a time when China’s leaders, on the other hand, must work on (building new institutions centered around China), such as:

(Belt and Road Initiative, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Silk Road Fund) … besides, some other relevant Chinese international institutions.

– Hence, the Egyptian researcher sought to draw attention to the “real reasons behind the principle of politicization of the origin of the “COVID-19″ pandemic, and its relationship to China’s international achievements”, through the following division:

– First: The internal and external strategic objectives of Comrade Chinese President “Xi Jinping”, in parallel with the international partnerships and relationships of the Communist Party of China “CPC” around the world

  China has developed a comprehensive plan that the United States of America and the West tried to obstruct, in order to prevent China from internationally rising. The most important successes of China internationally are represented, by:

1) The ruling Communist Party of China has sought to establish international partnerships and party relations under the supervision of the senior and central leaders of the party, which is known as, the strategy of the (relationship between the Communist Party of China “CPC” and the other international parties), as an important part of the Chinese long-term strategy.

2) The Communist Party of China has internally developed a plan adopted by itself, represented in the (realization of the original goal of seeking the happiness of the Chinese people and the renaissance of the Chinese nation, as well as the unity of the world).

3) The Communist Party of China, in cooperation with the international parties with the same ideological thought and even intellectually opposite with it, seeking to the (commitment of achieving consensus and mobilizing the international forces to build a new China).

4) The Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping“, raised an important international Chinese slogan with many connotations, represented in:

“The world is common to all, and we are a nation with one common destination for humanity”

5) In order to achieve these Chinese priorities externally, the Communist Party “CPC” and its Committee on Foreign Communications and external Relations of the “CPC” worked in parallel and in line with the “Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs”, as an official institution together, through the (strategy of the Communist Party of China to deepen exchanges and cooperation with international political parties, and give full play to the for the advantages of contacts between the various political parties with the Communist Party in Beijing), in response to the call of the times to build a community of a shared future between China and the world, especially African, poor and developing countries.

6) Chinese President “Xi Jinping” was keen to (confronting international hegemony and unilateralism by Washington), and President “Xi Jinping” in his capacity as “General Secretary of the Communist Party of China”, stressed that “the fate of the world should be controlled by all countries on an equal footing, as international rules should jointly be formulated by all countries, and all countries of the world together manage the various affairs of the world”

7) Indeed, the senior communist leaders in Beijing have succeeded in transforming this global economic strategy into a (trustworthy support for the votes of the members of the Group of 77 in its favor in various forums, and at all known international parties).

8) To achieve the previous priorities, President Comrade “Xi Jinping” personally supervised the (transformation of the People’s Liberation Army from an institution based on the Continental Defense Army into a force to project power and influence beyond China’s borders), through the expansion of (navy, air, cyberspace capabilities and satellites). Here, Comrade Xi’s stated mission is to “build a world-class military institution to fight and win wars” in the post (Covid-19) world.

9) We also find the continuation of Chinese national efforts aimed at transforming China into a (technological superpower), imposing its global power and technical progress on (fifth generation networks of communications, semiconductors, supercomputing, and artificial intelligence).

10) The Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping“, and the leaders of the Communist Party of China, supported what is known as the “sovereignty of the Chinese people”, as the (first priority). The Communist Party “CPC” officials and Comrade “Xi”, in their political speeches, considered that:

“The position of the Chinese people is the basic political position of the Communist Party, making sincerely serving the Chinese people the basic objective of the Party, realizing the people’s aspirations for a better life, due to their constant pursuit and struggle, and promoting reform and development to achieve greater benefit and better well-off of living for all”

 Thus, the Communist Party “CPC” has always and along the way won the support and support of the masses of the Chinese people.

11) Many Western researchers, experts and academics themselves confirmed that the goals and endeavors of the Communist Party of China at every stage are very clear, and it adjusts its policies, according to the changing domestic and external situations in order to meet the needs of the Chinese people, and here, we can indicate out to a (research report issued by Kennedy College of Government at Harvard University) in 2020, which showed that:

“The Chinese government, led by the Communist Party of China, enjoys more than 93% of support and satisfaction among the Chinese people”, as another survey conducted by (York University in Canada), which is showed that:

“The Chinese people trust their government by up to 98%, and that trust has increased, especially after the emergence of Covid-19”

12) The Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, and the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party were also keen on deepening (belonging and unity) among the Chinese people, with Comrade “Xi’s affirmation” that:

“History’s journey has no end, but the future has already begun”

13) The “anti-corruption campaign” led by Comrade “Xi Jinping” in the Chinese interior, which was dubbed “Tigers and Flies“, included more than one million senior and junior officials of the Communist Party of China.

14) In order to achieve China’s goals internationally, the Chinese leader “Xi Jinping” presented his vision of the (future of China), which he called as the “Chinese Dream“, within the framework of a project entitled: “Rebirth of the Chinese Nation“, and succeeded in carrying out economic reforms that contributed to reducing the decline in economic growth, limiting state ownership of industry, combating pollution, and most importantly implementing the giant land transport project, known as the “Silk Road Initiative”

   Hence, China’s global achievements and its call for a multipolar international world made it as a primary target for attempts to obstruct it by the United States of America and its allies in the West.

Second: The recognition of Chinese Comrade President “Xi Jinping” before the leaders and youth of the Central School of the Communist Party “CPC” of the profound global changes post (Covid-19) world

   President “Xi Jinping’s realization” of the importance of (political education for Chinese youth) in the post (Covid-19 world), came as Comrade “Xi” affirmed to the youth and leaders of the Communist Party, that the most important reason for China’s success and steadfastness now is to work together on the necessity of mobilizing leaders and the youth of the Communist Party of China and its president with the (Network of Friends around the World), because of those current profound international changes that the world is going through now, through the following affirmations:

1) President “Xi Jinping” believes that there is a “politicized war” against China, as a result of the changes that the world is currently witnessing, by saying:

“The world is currently undergoing profound changes that have not been seen in a century and is rapidly evolving after the Coronavirus pandemic”

2) Comrade “Xi Jinping’s affirmation” of the profound indications for the global changes came in his speech before the (Central Institute of the Communist Party), which is an educational institute of the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party, as a signal from him to keep pace with the Communist Party of China with current international events.

3) In the same context, the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, confessed that:

“China is bothering with its international stances”

4) The most dangerous message of the Chinese President was what came from Comrade “Xi’s affirmation” before the leaders and youth of the Central School of the ruling Communist Party, about:

“China must not budge one iota on matters of principle, and adhere to China’s sovereignty, security and development interests with unprecedented firmness”

5) In the context of “Xi Jinping’s keenness” to pay attention to the Chinese youth to lead the Chinese nation, Comrade “Xi”, called:

“Young officials should uphold their ideals, adhere to the party’s loyalty, seek truthfulness from reality and facts, shoulder responsibilities, and strive to become the backbone of a society in which the Party and the people will trust together”

6) In the context of Chinese President “Xi Jinping’s assertion” that: “China strongly confronts any attempts against it”, emphasizing “China’s military and economic renaissance, as matters, according to Comrade “Xi Jinping” that are “irreversible”, and stressed out these points in his international speech, which was globally highlighted, on the occasion of the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China on July 9, 2021.

7) Believing in the role of the “Chinese people” in the struggle against Washington and the West and their attempts to distort China’s international image, President “Xi Jinping” addressed in front of crowds of Chinese audiences in the “Tiananmen” famous Square, location in the center of the Chinese capital, “Beijing”, with the affirmation led by “Xi” in his speech to the Chinese masses, by confirming that:

“China does not oppress other countries”

8) Chinese President “Xi” also warned that “no one should try to “persecute China”, saying:

“They beat their heads against a steel fence”

9) What stopped the Egyptian researcher most during Comrade “Xi Jinping’s discourse” to the Chinese masses on the occasion of the centenary of the Communist Party of China, while the Comrade “Xi’s affirmation” of his rejection of foreign attempts to distort the image of the Communist Party of China.

10) Today, Comrade “Xi Jinping” is keenly to internationally talk about the (role of the Communist Party in the modern history of China), by saying:

“The Communist Party of China has an essential part to the growth of the Chinese state, and attempts to separate it from the people will fail”

11) We find Comrade “Xi’s affirmation” of the necessity of (unification and the unity), as the only way that can (save China), and is capable of achieving the “development in China” in both of the internal and external side.

12) In the context of attempts to politicize the “Covid-19” pandemic, and stigmatize China with it, Comrade “Xi Jinping” confirmed that:

“We will never in China allow anyone to bully, oppress or subjugate China”

13) In a reference by “Xi Jinping” to the strength of the Chinese people in defending of their ruling Communist Party, his assertion came that:

“Anyone who dares to threaten China, its leaders and its ruling Communist Party, hits their head at the mighty steel wall represented by more than 1.4 billion Chinese citizens”

   Thus, we can understand the overall current international situation, that the increase in the intensity, strength and fierceness of the American-Western competition, in the face of China and the attempt to mobilize certain regional and international parties against each other, especially after the outbreak of “Covid-19“, which has contributed to the deepening of the global differences and the intensification of conflicts. So, China has repeatedly accused unfair forces of trying to curb its growth, and these statements were taken as an explicit and clear Chinese signal to Washington in the first place.

Third: The relationship between the global achievements of the Communist Party of China, and the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping” call for establishing an international multipolar world, and the politicization of the “Covid-19” pandemic in the USA and the West

  Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping” has repeatedly warned against “politicizing the issue of the COVID-19 virus” or stigmatizing it as the Chinese virus. In his international political discourses, he has explicitly pointed out that:

1) Refusing to marginalize or exclude others or certain countries from working with the international community, by the call of Comrade “Xi” in his speeches on:

“We must reject the attempts to build blocs to exclude others and oppose the zero-sum approach. We must view each other as members of the same large family, continue to win-win cooperation, transcend those ideological differences and not fall into the trap of clash of civilizations”

2) Comrade “Xi Jinping” linked as well the relationship between the Coronavirus pandemic and the current international concepts, by emphasizing in his political discourses, about:

“The COVID-19 pandemic reminds the world that we are living in a global village that is interconnected and has a common interest, in which all countries are closely linked and share a common future”

3) In an important speech by President “Xi” at the (Annual Boao Forum for Asia) in April 2021, Comrade “Xi Jinping” criticized the efforts of countries that aimed at “building barriers” or “separating countries from others and dividing the world into warring or conflicting fronts”. Here, Comrade “Xi Jinping” has asserted on:

“Dividing the world into many competitors and building barriers between nations without working together or adopting the principle of common destiny of humanity will inevitably harm others and completely will not benefit anyone”

4) President “Xi Jinping’s long-standing call” for “reform of global governance” came to better reflect a broader and more diverse range of visions and values ​​from the international community, including their own, rather than those of a few major countries. This was as expected has rejected by Washington that has deeply warned of achieving the Chinese objectives, and the American officials have been claiming that:

“USA is a leader of the libral democratic values ​​in the world, and is globally leading the paths of defending human rights”

5) Comrade “Xi Jinping’s statements” at the “Boao Forum for Asia“, in April 2021, confirmed the purpose of his calls for a (new world order), because:

“The world wants justice, not hegemony”

6) Here, Comrade “Xi”, along with the leaders of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, are keen, in all international events, to emphasize that:

“The big country must appear with an international appearance worthy of it, with its ability to assume more international responsibilities”

   We can understand and conclude from this above understanding that the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping” was keenly to referring to the concepts of “hegemony, unilateralism and isolationism”, besides the other related terms, but Comrade “Xi” didn’t mention or refer to a specific country in his statements or all of his political speeches, but the Chinese officials have recently explicitly referring to the American “hegemony”, in a public criticism of Washington’s imposition of its power and influence in trade and geopolitics in an unfair manner that harms the interests of other countries.

Fourth: The relationship between the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic and the test the (new global governing systems and global governance) from the Chinese perspective

   The Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping“, has called in all his current political discourses on the need to work to establish “international economic blocs” that work for the benefit of developing countries, a multipolar system and a multilateral international world, which is directly and reflected largely in the “increased American competition in the face of  China, and the attempt by Washington and its allies in the West to politicize the origin of the Coronavirus, by calling for its stigmatization and appending it to China“.

  Washington’s attempt to turn the world against China by causing the spread and outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic, which was documented by Chinese President “Xi Jinping” in his political speeches, through the following points:

1) President “Xi’s admission” that the world’s ruling systems are the main criterion for their success in combating the global epidemic, certainly came in an international speech to him, by stressing out:

“The spread and spill over of “Covid-19″ is a major test of the ability of countries’ governance systems to withstand or decline, and a test of the global system of governance”

2) Comrade “Xi” goes extremely beyond, by calling for a “global governance system”. China developed its philosophy and features, through “Xi’s emphasis”, on:

“The global governance system must adapt to evolving global political and economic dynamics, as an attempt to face the global challenges and adopt the fundamental direction of peace, development and win-win cooperation”

3) Comrade “Xi” was also keen to set clear moral standards that guide China’s relationship with the world, and the world’s relations with each other, by calling:

“Countries must not violate ethical standards and comply with international standards, provide the global public good, bear due responsibilities and be in the good faith of their citizens”

4) In the talk of Comrade “Xi Jinping” about the (relationship between the current global economic system and the Corona pandemic), Comrade “Xi Jinping”, indicated that:

“The spread of COVID-19 reminds the world that economic globalization is an indisputable fact and a historical trend”

5) In order to achieve the success of any governmental system or political system, President “Xi” has stressed the need to adhere to the following criteria, as:

“We must strike an appropriate balance between government and market, equity and efficiency, growth and income distribution, technology and unemployment, to ensure full and balanced development that benefits people of all countries, sectors and backgrounds in an equitable manner”

6) Here, we find that what was and still angers the United States of America and the West the most against Comrade “Xi Jinping” is his call that:

“We must continue open and inclusive development, commit to building an open world economy, and support the multilateral trading system with the “World Trade Organization” “WTO” as the cornerstone”

7) Here, we find that China’s attempt to create and strengthen regional and international ties, by strengthening its relations with countries within (collective frameworks), each of which is specialized in a specific region, such as: (ASEAN Organization, Shanghai Cooperation Organization), and others. In the sense that these institutions are working to create (parallel frameworks) for those on which the current international system is based, which is dominated by the United States of America with the help of its allies, which has provoked the United States of America with the continuation of Chinese calls and efforts to have a “central leadership role in a new pluralistic international system”, in order to globally extend its influence.

8) With the increasing calls of Comrade “Xi Jinping” for Chinese involvement in the international multilateral issues, from here, China found it in its interest to call for new global regimes, in order to enhance its international standing, thus China contributed to reaching a “climate agreement“, and increased its efforts in confronting the multiple international issues, such as: (confronting poverty, the spread of epidemics, all global and development efforts), and other related mechanisms, which aroused the ire of the United States of America by inviting China to lead the international efforts in the field of global governance systems and to develop a preliminary vision for the shape of new systems of governing institutions and Governance, which are mainly for (labor and management), additionally the peacekeeping efforts are under the direct supervision of the United Nations “UN”.

9) In an understanding from China of the reality of the current international situation in the post (Covid-19) world, the Chinese comrade “Xi Jinping”, has confirmed by saying:

“China’s situations may have been negatively affected by the global ordeal of the outbreak of “Covid-19″, but China is not in a hurry to transform itself into a great power, but rather announced that it has three decades to reach, and the future is still open for it to achieve this possibility”

10) China is currently working to deepen several other goals, through which it sees that:

“The best way to enhance China’s international standing is to safeguard the interests of the largest number of countries, strengthen the foundations of economic dependability, and stress out on achieving the mutual benefits of relationships among the different nations, not just their own interests”

11) For achieving the above-mentioned objectives, China, through the (International Belt and Road initiative “BRI”), has implemented infrastructure projects in multiple countries, established road and railway networks, and built electricity and water plants, which makes it easier for it to globally promote its call in “multi-polar world“.

   China has focused its efforts to be the “largest trading partner of many Asian and African countries”, facilitating its international efforts to establish a new administrative system, known as: (Global Governance and Managing Political Systems from a mainly Chinese perspective), which greatly angers Washington and its Western allies.

   Through the previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, we note that “by comparing the American strategic goals with their Chinese counterparts and their development initiatives around the world”, the United States of America shows its achievements by being the (maker of peace through force and not peace), the call for a new Middle East, and a unilateral climate agreement, and others.

   Perhaps this is what was actually put forward by the speech of the former President of the United States of America “Trump” when he spoke about the “achievements of the United States of America internationally in confronting China“, during the (deliberations of the seventy-fifth session of the World General Assembly of the United Nations “UN”), and from here, it becomes clear to us the difference between the Chinese initiatives of development to serve (global development goals), and among those American goals that support the use of force, with their failure to use it effectively, as happened in (Afghanistan and Iraq), and others.

   Hence, the attempts of the United States of America to stigmatize the “pandemic of the Coronavirus” and attach it to China, by confusing the “scientific reasons for the causes of the global outbreak of the pandemic, and those real underlying political, economic and strategic reasons behind the principle of American and Western politicization of Covid-19”, mainly aims to:

“Distracting Chinese attention away from those American international problems and crises by raising the world against China and paying attention to it for causing the spread of the Corona virus, so that the United States of America is unique in leadership on the international scene within the framework of international hegemony and unilateralism”.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending