China’s ‘no strings attached’ approach to the Middle East may work better than US ethos of liberation

[Nan Yang]

China’s ‘no strings attached’ approach to the Middle East may work better than US ethos of liberation​

Beijing’s strategy may not banish political enmity and ethno-religious strife from the region, but it could bring socioeconomic relief to war-torn countries. And for those suffering hardship, that may be a lifesaver


Peter T. C. Chang

Published: 1:30am, 11 May, 2022

Illustration: Craig Stephens

As the US pulls back, China is leaning in, drawing Middle East states into its “community with a shared future”. Beijing’s geoeconomic strategy will not promote liberal democracy in the region but it could restore socioeconomic stability in some of the conflict-ridden countries.

The Ukraine war has galvanised the West. But others, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel, are reluctant to join the US-led sanctions against Russia. For these traditional American allies, the seeds of hesitancy were sowed earlier. They saw in former US president Barack Obama’s avowed pivot to Asia and US President Joe Biden’s hasty withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan signs to redraw alliances, including closer alignment with China.

In January, foreign ministers from the Middle East, including from Iran and Turkey, visited China to discuss economic collaboration. Then, it was reported that Saudi Arabia had invited Chinese President Xi Jinping for a state visit in May, which would be the first overseas trip for the Chinese leader since the pandemic began.

But China is wading into a region fraught with risk. For example, in January, the UAE – where many Chinese companies operate – intercepted two ballistic missiles over the skies of Abu Dhabi fired by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

Because it hedges its bets between sworn enemies and follows a “no-strings attached” investment policy, China is accused of unprincipled mercantilism. Beijing’s retort is its long-standing policy of non-interference, which suited autocrats in Gulf states who reciprocated with their silence on Xinjiang.

Actually, China’s policy of non-intervention has religious roots, namely, polytheism. The ancient Chinese believed in multiple pathways to the ultimate good. This pluralistic ethos underpins China’s conviction that every country should determine its own political destiny.

By contrast, Christian monotheism asserts that the church alone is the gateway to salvation. This theology shaped the US’ sense of destiny as the beacon on the hill, which must liberate and democratise the world.

Surely, the Chinese also aspire to a free world, but Confucianism posits that the best way to achieve this is through exemplary leadership. Indeed, the Chinese emperor reigned with the belief that the virtuous power of his benevolent rule could lead to peace under heaven. Thus, for much of its long history, the self-absorbed Middle Kingdom barely ventured beyond the Great Wall.

One exception was the Ming dynasty’s Admiral Zheng He, a Hui Muslim, whose epic voyages reached the Horn of Africa. This brings us to the historic significance of today’s China and its growing presence in the Middle East. Not since the 15th century has China’s footprint been so widely spread across the globe. In fact, the Belt and Road Initiative has surpassed the Zheng He maritime route it seeks to replicate.

Globalisation has finally caught up with China. The once self-contained Middle Kingdom now knows its fate is intertwined with the wider world. And with a worsening environmental crisis, among other exigencies, China is mindful that it must stay globally engaged, to save the world, and itself.

Thus, unlike Zheng He’s expedition, which ended abruptly, China’s 21st-century global outreach may be here to stay. That said, modern China has retained a crucial Ming dynasty feature, namely, a tributary-like power configuration centred on trade and commerce.

As with its imperial forebears, China today has no grand geopolitical ambition. Instead, Beijing’s intent is to carve out a geoeconomic sphere of influence. President Xi sets this up as a quest for “common prosperity” in a community with a shared future where humankind’s diverse civilisations can coexist harmoniously.

Belt and Road Initiative explained

Amid the Ukraine war, the US is again framing the threat to the existing world order as a battle between democracy and autocracy. Unless the free world prevails, Washington warns, peace will elude humanity.

But China is determined to move past the West’s bipolar world view. It is advancing an alternative master narrative of sustaining an inclusive global economic order where divergent political ideologies can exist alongside each other in pursuit of peace and prosperity.

Herein lies an intriguing study of the two superpowers’ contrasting visions and postures.

When the Berlin Wall fell, the US set out to transform the world, convinced that liberal democracy is the “end of history”. But after the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, the US’ appetite for nation-building has diminished. The post-Cold-War triumphalism has dissipated, and the US is back on the defensive, warding off resurgent autocracies.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj

Taliban raises flag in Kabul as international community addresses humanitarian crisis

China, on the other hand, is marching forward, touting its geoeconomic vision and expanding the belt and road network across continents. Beijing is helping Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild their devastated economies, but is leaving it to the Iraqis and Afghans to determine their own political fate.

China’s strategy is a play on the “Asian values” argument that social economic stability must precede the restoration of civil political rights. But the Asian values argument has left the US feeling betrayed. After facilitating China’s re-emergence as an economic powerhouse, Washington was aghast when Beijing refused to embrace liberal democracy.

Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party has its own version of good governance, and a rising China is not likely to facilitate the cause of liberal democracy. In fact, with Beijing’s no-strings-attached investment policy, political enmity and ethno-religious sectarianism is likely to continue to beset the Middle East. But what is the alternative?

The US preference was to wage war, topple tyrants and change regimes. Yet billions of dollars and countless lost lives later, the US campaign to free the oppressed has yielded neither political liberty nor economic stability.

Xi’s potential visit to Saudi Arabia, and China’s burgeoning influence in the wider region, is not expected to yield immediate political transformation. But Xi’s vision of a community with a shared future could bring socioeconomic relief to some of the war-torn countries. And for many whose livelihood has been shattered, this may well be the life-saving strategy that matters most for now.

Peter T.C. Chang is deputy director of the Institute of China Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia