Connect with us

East Asia

The roadmap of China’s foreign relations in 2021

Published

on

As the volatile 2020 draws to a close, the world looks to the next year for humanity. As the most dynamic and a more confident country during the heyday of the pandemic time, China rolls out its roadmap of foreign relations in 2021 and beyond. It shows the consistence and persistence of China to carry on the mission of “national rejuvenation” by 2050. To that end, the Chinese leadership continues to perceive major powers as the strategic priorities; the neighboring countries as the immediate concerns for the reasons of security and stability; and the developing countries, particularly African countries, remaining the major buttress of China’s foreign relations. This policy agenda started from the Mao-Zhou’s era and has continued for seven decades until nowadays.

When we enter the third decade of the 21st century, it is widely held that by traditional measurements, China would be able to overtake either the United States or the European Union in this decade. As it remains the strongest alliance in the world, it argues that the “transatlantic community” needs to take the lead in new technologies, particularly in military. In so doing, their joint capacity in science research and digital technologies must be unrivaled—for now and in the future. Since the Western countries are arrogant in terms of their legitimate positions, they say that the renewed transatlantic commitment to human freedom and democracy is needed to safeguard the future for their children and grandchildren. This mentality seems to verify that they can’t tolerate a more confident China and a resurgent Russia to take the lead in the areas of the latest technologies. This means that if China continues allying with Russia in this direction, they will be capable of challenging the most powerful and purposeful “transatlantic community” in the global affairs.

However, what Beijing aims to project on its political agenda in the next decades are relatively transparent and consistent. As the rise of China remains the same as its long-desired goal, Beijing’s priority necessitates to deal with the great powers—the United States, Russia, EU and Japan. Yet, among them the United States and its ally Japan and to certain extent EU have seen China as a competitor and probably a rival in geostrategic terms, China then needs to manage a stable relations with Washington. Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated that China has intended to restore the bilateral relations to the normal stage as the two largest economies of the world do share interests in many areas from anti-terrorism, peace-keeping to the pandemic and climate changes, let alone the issues of poverty and economic imbalance. Yet, tensions over cyber-security will remain, and deployments of theatre missile defense may resurface. As American scholar James Rae argued, conditions are more likely to be jeopardized by some form of a broad Obama-era rebalancing to the pivoting of ‘Indo-Pacific’ and more assertive American efforts to interfere in the South China Sea. Despite all these prospects, reasons for optimism remain.

First, the U.S. under the Biden administration is likely to recommit to multilateral efforts at promoting counter-terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation generally, and specifically to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iran nuclear question and more traditional diplomacy through the Six-Party talks on the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Those areas of agreement could be a salve to reduce mistrust on the broader security front. Second, cross-strait relations should at least return to some form of mutually acceptable dialogue rather than an ideologically-driven and hyper-partisan pro-Taiwan rhetoric and behavior provoked by the current hawkish groups headed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Most likely opportunity for improvement the bilateral ties between China and the U.S. is within the economic dimension that the Trump’s team has torpedoed the relationship during the past year.

Second, China has highlighted the practical cooperation with the EU in the development of bilateral relations, including an early conclusion of the China-EU investment agreement. China has become the top trading partner of the EU and the two sides signed a protocol on geographical indications (GI) this year. Now the bilateral investment agreement negotiations are underway and the two sides have also decided to establish a high-level dialogue on environmental, digital cooperation. For sure, China is perceived as a technology competitor and a systematic rival in the future. In spite of this, China and many member states of the EU have moved forward the bilateral cooperation in various fields. China vows to maintain continuity, stability, and sustainability of the macro policies, such as macro-control measures that must be in line with market rules and China’s economy will run in a reasonable, a steady and sound development while it opens more room for cooperation with the EU.

Starting in 1970s, China has supported the European integration process and hopes to see a more united and prosperous EU. As Chinese Premier Li said recently, China supports the EU in keeping strategic independence, and working in unity and cooperation, and also supports its member states in playing a more constructive role in the EU and the world as well, such as joint efforts to safeguard multilateralism, promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and maintain world peace and stability. As the EU vows to play a “civilian power” in the new era, it will continue to provide a fair, open and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese companies.

Third, China and Japan are the neighbors and also important economic powers in the East Asia. Accordingly, when Yoshihide Suga became the first new prime minister of Japan in nearly eight years, he stressed that Japan would implement policies to beef up its alliance with the United States, while hoping to establish stable relationships with China and Russia. As the situation surrounding Japan is becoming more volatile, Japan is certain to expand its alliance with the U.S., but it is equally necessary to build a stable relationship with neighboring countries including China and Russia. Meanwhile, China insists that to develop a bilateral relationship that features long-term stability and pragmatic cooperation conforms to the fundamental interests of the two countries and the expectations of the international community.

Obviously, China is aware that in order to deal with the complicated relations with the U.S., Japan and the EU effectively, it is vital for it and Russia, its great neighbor in the north, to further strengthen the bilateral relations. In a recent phone call by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, both men hailed the high-level of mutual trust and profound friendship between the two countries since they helped and supported each other through their anti-pandemic efforts, maintaining a high level of cooperation. It is seminal that the two strongest Eurasian powers share common grounds on many issues and have jointly upheld multilateralism, safeguarded global and regional security and stability, and played the exemplary role in international anti-epidemic cooperation while fighting against “political viruses.” Now looking into the new decade, China and Russia vow to work together to push forward the social-economic development goals by 2030.

As a matter of fact, China and Russia have acted as the driving force to move forward with Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia to jointly build an anti-pandemic fortress, a Health Silk Road and a community of health for all. This is really a “civilian alliance” to cope with all the non-conventional security issues, which in turn would enhance the regional cooperation along with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In a bid to further deepen the anti-pandemic cooperation, China and the four countries will support the World Health Organization in playing a coordinating role and oppose any attempt to politicize the pandemic and attach a geographical label to the virus. Accordingly, they will consolidate and expand anti-pandemic achievements. In so doing, they will actively promote the cooperation in the development, production and purchase of vaccine. The four countries also vowed to make a concerted effort on Chinese traditional medicine cooperation.

As the world is entering a period of turbulence and change, strong China-Russia relations are of more prominent significance in sustaining regional and world peace and security. The two powers are expected unwaveringly to develop future-oriented relations, and work with the international community to construct a new type of international relations and build a community with a shared future for mankind, so as to make greater contributions to the cause of human peace and development.

In brief, China and Russia must not allow the unease that has spread through many countries to darken the milestones we have achieved collectively.

Ms. Mao Xiaolin holds a MAs degree in International Relations, now a research fellow in Shanxi Municipal Government, China

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Considering the Continental Dimension of the Indo-Pacific: The Mongolian Precedent

Published

on

The Indo-Pacific is now the site of global great-power competition and contestation. And, as a reflection of its growing importance in international discourse, a number of extra-regional actors adopted the concept last year. Among those adoptees, Mongolia set a unique precedent for the regional security discourse to actively consider the continental dimension of the Indo-Pacific by highlighting geopolitical convergences with other regional actors, and the strategic threat posed by Beijing’s “Silk Road Economic Belt”.

Mongolia in the Indo-Pacific

Actors who have adopted the Indo-Pacific concept vaguely define it as beginning in the Arabian Sea and ending in the Western Pacific Ocean. Much of the discourse is also driven by the US-China strategic competition in Southeast Asia, and the US’ attempt to counter Chinese influence in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, along with its regional partners and allies, e.g the India-Australia-Japan-US ‘Quad’. As a result, actors in the Indo-Pacific have generally focused on the development of maritime military and economic measures.

In early October, during a Japan-Mongolia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, both sides agreed to continue consolidating their efforts in pursuing a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”, in line with the promises of the 2018 Japan-Mongolia Summit.

Mongolia’s participation as a continental, extra-regional actor with limited maritime significance, shifts the geopolitical locus of the theatre, ever so slightly, north of Southeast Asia (the current focus). Ulaanbaatar’s adoption of the geostrategic theatre appears to be driven by continued Chinese antagonism, and a result of its “third neighbour” policy.

China continues to threaten Mongolia’s territorial sovereignty by claiming Inner Mongolia,clamp down on its cultural identity, and impose costs on Mongolia’s export-oriented economy. The last issue is critical, since Mongolia’s largest export partner, approximately92.78 percent of overall exports, is China. Enclosed between two large countries, Russia and China, Mongolia has traditionally maintained a “third neighbour” policy approach: building political and economic relationships with actors other than the aforementioned.

Given the continued animosity with Beijing, Ulaanbaatar has increasingly emphasised these other relations over the years. e.g. with the UK, the US, Japan, etc. In 2019 President Khaltmaagiin Battulga visited New Delhi to develop deeper ties with another “third neighbour” state. Mongolia also shares the “like-minded” characteristics – a liberal democracy – to maintain and preserve a “free, fair, open and rules-based” order in the US-Japan Indo-Pacific strategy.

And so, actors looking to potentially partner with Mongolia or others with similar economic and connectivity deficits in Central and West Asia, will have to include, within their Indo-Pacific approaches, measures that involve non-littoral actors.

The BRI and Continental Asia

China’s rise as an expansionist Asian military and global economic power is at the core of the  Indo-Pacific security discourse. Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea (SCS), China’s growing naval power, and the colossal Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) form the major strategic threats to regional multilateralism and collective security.

The most long standing threat among them, the BRI, is divided into the transcontinental “silk route” and the maritime “silk road”. However, much of the Indo-Pacific discourse is dominated by the silk road, especially those projects directed towards the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). BRI projects in the IOR are crucial to Beijing’s expanding influence in South Asia and control on international energy and trade supply routes. Also hidden among the maritime/trans-continental connectivity and infrastructure projects, is China’s growing security presence in the region.

However, Mongolia’s entry directs attention to a dimension unique to the current maritime Indo-Pacific discourse –the silk route, that cuts across Central Asia, towards Europe and South Asia, with a similar number of projects in Southeast Asia.

Among the six ‘silk route’ projects, Mongolia’s concern is the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC) that cuts through Eastern Mongolia, beginning in Ulanqab (or “Jining”) in Inner Mongolia, and ending at Ulan-Ude, in BurYatia, Russia. Similar projects include the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the China-Central Asia-West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC).

Connecting the continental to the maritime is the main goal of the BRI. In fact, the project was first announced during a Chinese state visit to Central Asia in 2013. President Xi Jinping proposed the “Silk Road Economic Belt” with a vision to connect the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea. Beijing’s vision of comprehensive global economic and military power requires a built path to various regions of the world, i.e infrastructure to facilitate dual-use logistics. Given the recent spate of BRI loans going bad, this vision continues to remain unfulfilled.

The continental dimension, Asia, is what makes the Indo-Pacific a theatre of global concern. Trans-continental connectivity, between and within Europe and Asia, narrows the distance between actors, and the shared interest in maintaining regional multilateralism and collective security ensures their continued participation in the Indo-Pacific. As more actors like Mongolia adopt the Indo-Pacific concept, connecting the continental to the maritime and vice versa, sans BRI, will become a strategic concern.

Mongolia’s entry into the theatre offers a unique precedent for those involved in maintaining and preserving a “free, fair, open and rules-based” Indo-Pacific to evaluate and initiate relationships between non-littoral actors and the maritime dimension.

The On-Ground Reality

However, there are a number of obstacles to actively consider continental Asia in the Indo-Pacific discourse. The two most important are geography and geopolitics.

Mongolia for example, is completely enclosed by two actors – Russia and China – who are averse and hostile to the idea of the Indo-Pacific. And, any “counter-BRI” connectivity project envisioned by other regional actors will have to go through their territories. The case of Afghanistan is similar. Divergences in geopolitical interests and ties with actors in the Arabian Sea, particularly with regard to Iran and Pakistan, stays the idea of trans-regional connectivity between Kabul and the world.

The geopolitical obstacle here is the dependent economic relationships that non-littorals in Asia have with Beijing. Mongolia is just one among many Central and West Asian states that have local economies indelibly tied to the political whims of Beijing. During the coronavirus pandemic, a period that saw considerable anti-China sentiment in the international community, Beijing has managed to maintain a level of trust and shared security with many Indo-Pacific states. National vaccination plans are based on the delivery of Chinese vaccines.

There is another reason why the security discourse on the Indo-Pacific is focused on maritime measures – maintaining and preserving the integrity of international Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) and the respect for territorial sovereignty. In that endeavour, multilateral platforms like the Quad allows members to share historic and strategic advantages in the IOR and Pacific Ocean to counter Chinese expansionism in the Indo-Pacific’s various sub-regions.  On land however, in Central and South Asia, for example the clash in the Galwan river valley last year, Chinese incursions provoke bilateral responses giving it leeway to act with relative impunity.

Conclusion

While there are a number of real obstacles to consider the continental dimension of the Indo-Pacific, Mongolia sets a geopolitical precedent for a comprehensive geographic definition, one that includes both the maritime and continental. From this year on, states participating in the Indo-Pacific now have a reason to approach and include non-littoral actors in the Indo-Pacific.

This precedent also highlights the need to include the continental ‘silk route’ in the Indo-Pacific security discourse. Devising such a definition will be a similar exercise as to the amalgamation of the terms “Indo-Pacific” and “Asia-Pacific” to form the “Indo-Asia-Pacific”; now used at times in geostrategic discourse.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Time to play the Taiwan card

Published

on

At a time when the dragon is breathing fire, India must explore alternative tactics, perhaps establishment of formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan can be a landmark step

***

The standoff on the Ladakh border between the Indian Army and the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) continues amid failing talks and casus belli measures being unleashed by the Chinese regime. While the union government and the armed forces make it clear that they will do whatever it takes to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity, precious little has been done on the foreign policy front. While India and its democratic allies which comprise the Quad security grouping declare their intent to form the ‘Asian NATO’, the Quad continues to suffer from indecisiveness which was pretty much evident when the Quad did not even issue a joint statement to condemn China at the foreign ministers meeting held last year, only America publicly called out China.

In such a situation, it is imperative that India explore alternate diplomatic and militaristic routes to tame the dragon.

Recognizing Taiwan

Establishing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan after recognizing should be vigorously pursuing by South Block. Indo-Taiwan ties date back to the early 1950s when Chiang Kai Shek, the ex Chinese president and former head of state fled to the island of Formosa following the victory of Mao Zedong in the long drawn out Chinese civil war called on Nehru to establish and further ties with Formosa, however Nehru believing that Chiang was nothing but a “peanut” decided to ignore his call, choosing instead to concentrate on building ties with People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Seven decades on, plethora of changes has taken place on the foreign affairs front, while both China and India have developed considerably both militarily and economically the dragon has surpassed elephant to become an economic powerhouse in its own might. It has now embraced aggressiveness to enforce its 5th century vision of the ‘Middle Kingdom’. In such a situation providing legitimacy to the existence of Taiwan is a necessary first step.

Paradigm shift in policy

Establishing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan will bring about a paradigm shift vis-à-vis India’s foreign policy. It will enforce the idea that liberal democracy is the last word in the battle of ideologies as Francis Fukuyama had visualized in his landmark book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ and that there is no alternative to human rights and liberties, not even the Chinese model of ‘authoritarian development’. It will be the boldest step that any global leader has taken, not even the mighty US which has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan has taken this step.

Recognizing Taiwan will entail a lot of benefits for the mandarins of India’s foreign policy regime- firstly, Taiwan is a robust democracy with a booming economy, it will prove to be an alternative to China albeit in a relatively less proportion, secondly, India can bolster the legitimacy as the leader of the democratic world at a time when the democratic institutions in the US-often regarded as the cradle of democracy has been undermined.

Thirdly, India can get the support of another powerful ally in its attempt to carve out a new supply chain alliance which India-Japan-Australia formalized recently. Fourthly, recognizing Taiwan will make it clear to China that India means some serious business and if the need arises then India will not back down from sending dedicated naval and air assets in the disputed South China Sea region to enforce freedom of navigation principle in the resource rich region. Lastly, the Quad security grouping will be institutionalized which in the near future can even be extended to include new members, it will be the first time that India will be a part of any dedicated military and economic alliance which will deter the aggression of the Chinese war machine in the strategic Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific Region.

Caveats remain

However the recognition may invite severe ramifications for India. China will be infuriated and can choose to ratchet up tensions with India. India must be extremely careful while dealing with China as China is our second largest bilateral trade partner and a key export partner of India with regard to raw materials and goods. According to a FICCI report, India imports more than 40% of several important goods like the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients), television, chemicals, chips, textiles and many more.

The dragon will as a possible retaliatory measure can activate its propaganda machinery to wage psychological warfare with India. It can also activate its terror financing networks which for years remained a chronic internal security for India in the northeast of the country. China will also collaborate with its ‘iron brother’ Pakistan to try and deter India by intensifying terrorism in the Kashmir valley and elsewhere. Further, China can use its potent disinformation empire to try and peddle fake news about the credibility of India’s indigenous vaccines at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel of a pandemic stricken world has appeared.

Exercising caution

Keeping all the dangers in mind, the Modi government must keep national interests in mind. Despite all the risks, it must work with all the like- minded countries to take own the mighty dragon responsible for unleashing a deadly virus which has wrecked havoc on humanity. For the sake of the free world, India must take the hard step which will reinforce India’s position in cementing its place as the leader of the free world.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Pro-Communism warping Hong Kong

Published

on

The latest turmoil in the Covid-ridden strata of mainland China is not servile to any pandemic, however, the issue has been one of the most queer and rare kinds, enough to be classified as one of the endemic issues in the global affairs. The tension at helm is the chaos following the announcement of a “New Security Law” by the Chinese regime which is being eyed as one of the monumental events of this decade; slicing off a sliver of attention from the deadly Corona virus that continues to exponentiate around the world in its second wave and sporadic variants.

The law that set out by the Chinese lawmakers back on 22nd May 2020, threatens the liberties of subversion and sedition enjoyed by the citizens of Hong Kong under a constitution. Simplistically named “Basic Law”, it aims to tame the country scaffolded by the “One country, Two systems” framework since the power handover by the former colony to China back in 1997. This act came around amidst strained economic relations between the two superpowers of the world; China and USA, each passing the baton in the blame game of who sustains the blood-crown of the catastrophe impending on the world courtesy of the lethal virus that engulfs every periphery in each continent on the globe. The matters seem complex at sight and a glimpse to the historical timeline of how riddled the relations were could hint at how strained they could reach.

The colony, known as ‘Hong Kong’ today, had been the battle ground, figuratively, to the major competitors of the 20th century: The Great Britain and China. The British dominated the colony for more than 150 years, tracing back to the late 19th century; leasing the territory for the span to morph it into the modernised metropolis marking it as the hub we know today. In 1997, an agreement was reached via an accord, ‘The Sino-British Joint Declaration‘ between the two sides. The treaty allowed Hong Kong a semi-autonomous status, that is, relaying self-sufficiency in all the national domains except in defence and foreign affairs. The allotted autonomy arches under the sovereignty of China until year 2047, henceforward melding into the mainland China as harkened by the Chinese hegemony over decades.

Despite of the granted protection of Hong Kong’s own legislation, borders and freedom of speech, the liberties have been trampled on by the Chinese government over the last couple of decades. A similar law abolishing the right to sedition was initiated in 2003 yet mass protests calling out up and about 50,000 citizens impeded the efforts that went futile and drastically ended up being shunned for good. The Communist party under the wings of Chinese president Xi Jinping have expounded further in tightening their talons on the city since 2012 as efforts were made to corrode the educational system of the country via meddling with the curriculum, biasing the foundation to hail Chinese communism. These acts were proactive reactions to the advances of the United States forging relations with the city. China even tried to manipulate the elections in 2014, tampering with the selection their Chief Executive leading to a 3-month long protest known as the ‘Umbrella movement’ and ultimate downfall of Hong Kong’s autonomous political system.

The security law falls in tandem to the events of 2019; the legislation allowing the convicts from Hong Kong to be extradited in China causing a rave of fear of a massive tactical crackdown of the Anti-communist activists of Hong Kong, sighting it just as ruse to underwhelm the right of sedition of the people of Hong Kong. The Law passed by the parliament notions to only one thing; The ultimate end to Hong Kong. The lawmakers in China, hailing from the National People’s Congress (NPC), sight this move as extricating a threat to the national security and stability of the country while many of the pro-activists in Hong Kong deem the law as betrayal, accusing China of walking back on its promise of high-degree autonomy and freedom of speech, marking it as the final straw, the last struggle before the country could override the laws in the city and indirectly, transition from the entity holding the right to veto the laws to now gripping the law altogether.

Despite of the speculated protests to spark like the history dictates, many of the sage minds predict either a relatively dormant demonstrations or none at all, having a tint of finality in the statement shote the protests are “high stake in risk and repression”. The recent arrest of the leading activists of Hong Kong standing up to voice their disdain to the separatist efforts of China further solidify the notion. Despite of a global condemnation to the new law, the efforts of China resume to subdue any opposition in Honk Kong no matter how sparse. Foreseeing no way out for Hong Kong this time; the Covid-19 paralysis the United States in its own crisis and the legislature inclining towards the Chinese pressure, a complete erasure of Hong Kong is sighted and could not be restrained- for better or for worse.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Finance3 mins ago

ADB, EIB Join Forces to Protect Oceans, Support the Blue Economy

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) today formed a new Clean and Sustainable Ocean Partnership...

Style2 hours ago

GEN Z Creates Sustainable Fashion with Recycled Materials

“Sustainability is somewhat of a trend among the new generation.  We care more about the planet as mass media pushes...

Arts & Culture4 hours ago

Rising Pak-Turk Cultural Diplomacy: “Dirilis Ertugrul”- The Prime Catalyst

Amid massive success of famous Turkish drama series Dirilis Ertugrul, also titled as Resurrection Ertugrul in English for Netflix, is...

Americas6 hours ago

Is Mike Pompeo the worst Secretary of State in history?

Trump may have a race for the worst presidential title, but Pompeo is in a class of his own. James...

Africa8 hours ago

Mozambique’s Crisis and its Humanitarian Aid

Escalating conflict and a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Cabo Delgado has left communities completely reliant on humanitarian assistance. According to...

Reports10 hours ago

Skills Development Vital to Enabling Transition to Industry 4.0 in Southeast Asia

Countries in Southeast Asia should consider developing industry transformation maps in key sectors to enable the transition to the fourth...

Development11 hours ago

Principles for Strengthening Global Cooperation

Global leaders are advocating for cooperation to be the new compass for international relations and have released a set of...

Trending