Is China becoming an Interventionist?

[William Hung]

As China's wealth continues to grow, its investments and interests will inevitably extend further offshore. Often, these overseas investments or interests lies in volatile and unstable territories, such as those in Africa and the Middle East. As various conflicts have erupted from these volatile territories, some attention has been focused on China's non-interference policy. Some argue that China hasn't contribute enough to enforce regional stability and is in effect, a free-rider in these foreign regions. Zach Lindberg argues that China's non-interference policy cannot be sustainable. As China's overseas investments and interests become more significant, she might just have to become an interventionist out of necessity.

Chinese Foreign Policy Shifts Toward Intervention - The Borgen Project

However, some voices inside China begs to differ. The Global Times has recently published a speech made by Niu Xinchun, where he insist that China still (and ought to) maintain its non-interference policy. China, Niu assert, neither has the capacity nor any interest to become an interventionist power.

Beijing should be active but not interventionist in Middle East - Global Times

On the other hand, Christian Le Miere analyses several specific cases where China does seem to have carried out actions that can be regarded as interventionist. Le Miere concludes that China is heading towards an interventionist policy.

"In Myanmar, China's interventionism is even more direct. Its long-running support of the United Wa State Army
(UWSA), a 20,000-strong insurgent force currently in ceasefire with Myanmar's government, apparently
extended to helicopter training and provision for the insurgents"

"It is not just in the military sphere that China's interventionism is growing. Increasingly, Beijing has proven
willing to use its growing economic leverage for coercive means."

"Examples of this
are the unofficial export quota that appeared to be placed on rare earth metals to Japan in 2010, the imposition
of an unofficial quota on Norwegian salmon after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Chinese dissident Liu
Xiaobo in December 2010, and an unofficial import quota that appeared to be placed on Philippine fruit in April
2012. These are clear indications of Beijing's willingness to intervene in another country's internal affairs to
encourage different behaviour."

"Elsewhere, Beijing has utilised diplomatic means in an attempt to affect internal affairs, particularly where it has
economic interests. In Zambia, where China has invested substantially in the country's copper mines, Chinese
ambassador Li Baodong threatened to cut diplomatic relations with the country if the opposition candidate,
Michael Sata, was elected in 2006."

"As a result of these developments, China will increasingly find itself in a position to affect the affairs of other
states for its own benefit, and there will be occasions when this runs counter to the interests of both the targeted
state and other external powers, such as the United States or Western European states. This combination
suggests that Beijing's foreign policy may increasingly reflect that of the more interventionist Western states it
has criticised in the past."

NOTE: These are only some direct quotes from an article and so does not in itself constitute the full article.

Source: C. Le Miere. Asian Influences: China's Shifting Non-Interventionist Stance in Jane's Intelligence Review. (Vol. 26, Is. 4).

It is expected that any world power vested with economic wealth and overseas interests will have to become interventionist to a certain degree. However, If an intervention were not carried out appropriately, it can backfire. R. K. Yang tells a revealing instance where China's foreign intervention had backfired:

3.2 Impact of China’s Evolving Stance on Intervention

China’s evolving posture on international intervention as applied on developmentsin the Middle East and North Africa during the Arab Spring has not been withoutits consequences. In fact, the impact on this West Asian region has been significant, given Beijing’s traditionally friendly position towards the Middle East, even generating tensions in ways that have not been seen before between China and the Arab world. These emerging tensions have surfaced in public discourses. A good illustration of this was a seminar in Singapore on China and the Middle East which debated the implications of recent events in the region on both China and the Arabworld. There was a clear clash of perspectives between the Arab world and China in the seminar organised by the Middle East Institute on China and the Middle Eastto discuss the implications of a rising political and economic relationship betweenthe two sides. (Insights 2012).

Key sentiments aired during the seminar referred to a sea change in Arab perception and attitude towards China in an unfavourable way. The year 2011 when the Arab Spring broke out was described as a turning point in contemporary Arab–China relationship and Arab perception of China. While for the past 60 years China had been viewed as a ‘‘friend of the Arabs’’—the power that would challenge US dominance in the Middle East—this appeared to be no longer the case after Libya and Syria. While the economic leg of the relationship would continue to flourish, the political side was predicted to decline. Abdul Kuala Abdullah of the United Arab Emirates, a key speaker at the seminar which this author attended, declared: ‘‘A new view of China is emerging in the Arab world, that China has been acting irresponsibly in the region, that it does not understand the region, and that China is a (rising) superpower that is not welcome’’.

Three key issues emerged that clearly were critical of China’s posture duringthe Arab Spring: First, that China was seen as taking sides in the Middle East, and getting more involved in the complex politics of the region; second, that China’s reactions showed that the Arab Spring did not resonate well with it; and third, that China’s veto of the Security Council resolution on Syria calling on Assad to step down completely took the Arab world by surprise. Abdul Khaleq also discerned what he called several symbolic first-timers that he urged China to pay attention to: First, the burning of the Chinese flag in Arab capitals - which never happened before, indicating a new mood in the region; second, slogans in the Arab social media describing China and Russia as the ‘‘new enemies of the Arab people’’,when previously, Abdul Khaleq said, the words ‘China’ and ‘friends’ were synonymous; third, in the new list of Arab friends and enemies, China is not on the list, which he said is an unexpected turn of events; fourth, due to China’s veto on Syria, there were calls for a boycott of Chinese products—something unimaginable just a year ago when boycotts were usually targeted at the US; fifth, a shift in Saudi Arabia’s attitude, with Riyadh clearly unhappy with the double veto over Syria by China and Russia, which could result in King Abdullah reviewing his‘‘look east’’ strategy towards China.

In a nutshell, the Arab view of China as articulated by Abdul Khaleq was that it was ‘‘on the wrong side of history’’. Before 2011, while the Arab world was said to be ready to welcome China as the next superpower, now, there could be second thoughts of China as a future superpower, especially in relation to its interests in the Middle East. China’s stance over the issue of international intervention in Libya and Syria was seen as a ‘‘political blunder’’. ‘‘If China is seen in the Arab world as making more political blunders, there will be a price. The price will not be just slogans but second thoughts about China as a strategic partner’’, he said.


Source: R. K. Yang. The Geopolitics of Intervention: Asia and the Responsibility to Protect. (Springer: Singapore, 2014), pg 39-40.

China's overseas investments and trade will no doubt be desired by many countries. However, the diplomacy and worldview of the Chinese leadership leaves a lot to be desired. The US is often considered, rightly or wrongly, by some as an interventionist villain. But the US has only gained this status after it has become a global superpower. Now, China might be gaining this villain status even before it can become a superpower. As China continues to extend its foreign investments and loans offshore, will everyone roll out the red carpet to welcome the long-awaited alternative superpower? or will they burn the red PRC flag to despise the new interventionist villain?

First time in history? Arabs burning a PRC flag in the Syrian capital.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

As China's wealth continues to grow, its investments and interests will inevitably extend further offshore. Often, these overseas investments or interests lies in volatile and unstable territories, such as those in Africa and the Middle East. As various conflicts have erupted from these volatile territories, some attention has been focused on China's non-interference policy. Some argue that China hasn't contribute enough to enforce regional stability and is in effect, a free-rider in these foreign regions. Zach Lindberg argues that China's non-interference policy cannot be sustainable. As China's overseas investments and interests become more significant, she might just have to become an interventionist out of necessity.

Chinese Foreign Policy Shifts Toward Intervention - The Borgen Project

However, some voices inside China begs to differ. The Global Times has recently published a speech made by Niu Xinchun, where he insist that China still (and ought to) maintain its non-interference policy. China, Niu assert, neither has the capacity nor any interest to become an interventionist power.

Beijing should be active but not interventionist in Middle East - Global Times

On the other hand, Christian Le Miere analyses several specific cases where China does seem to have carried out actions that can be regarded as interventionist. Le Miere concludes that China is heading towards an interventionist policy.



It is expected that any world power vested with economic wealth and overseas interests will have to become interventionist to a certain degree. However, If an intervention were not carried out appropriately, it can backfire. R. K. Yang tells a revealing instance where China's foreign intervention had backfired:





China's overseas investments and trade will no doubt be desired by many countries. However, the diplomacy and worldview of the Chinese leadership leaves a lot to be desired. The US is often considered, rightly or wrongly, by some as an interventionist villain. But the US has only gained this status after it has become a global superpower. Now, China might be gaining this villain status even before it can become a superpower. As China continues to extend its foreign investments and loans offshore, will everyone roll out the red carpet to welcome the long-awaited alternative superpower? or will they burn the red PRC flag to despise the new interventionist villain?

First time in history? Arabs burning a PRC flag in the Syrian capital.

Those flag burning clowns are FSA loser scum. Probably all dead by now.

Now check this out.

2 sides (or more) to any dispute and China cant please everyone.

The middle east will be retarded to drag China into a war.

 

[William Hung]

Those flag burning clowns are FSA loser scum. Probably all dead by now.

Now check this out.

2 sides (or more) to any dispute and China cant please everyone.

The middle east will be retarded to drag China into a war.

That Abdul speaker said it wasn't just in Syria that people were burning PRC flags, but in other Arab capitals as well. According to him, the general Arab attitude is now more negative towards the PRC.

Yes, no one can please everyone. The US has demonstrated that.

The main point to note is that it is not easy to please someone or to gain political partners just by trade or giving financial incentives.

It seems that the common PRC perception in the other thread was that once China reaches certain wealth (and military prestige), it can easily influence and win over allies just by trade and giving financial incentives.

 

[northeast]

More or less.Money cannot bring true friends and allies.

 

[Keel]

That looked like a bunch of the OP's countrymen doing the insidious work like what he and his cohorts have been doing bashing China 24/7 on PDF

 

[powastick]

FSA is hardly the problem. ISIS gone, then you will have the Kurds. The Kurds have been busting their *** fighting ISIS and Saddam. No way they would back out of independent now.

 

[Ruisheng]

As China's wealth continues to grow, its investments and interests will inevitably extend further offshore. Often, these overseas investments or interests lies in volatile and unstable territories, such as those in Africa and the Middle East. As various conflicts have erupted from these volatile territories, some attention has been focused on China's non-interference policy. Some argue that China hasn't contribute enough to enforce regional stability and is in effect, a free-rider in these foreign regions. Zach Lindberg argues that China's non-interference policy cannot be sustainable. As China's overseas investments and interests become more significant, she might just have to become an interventionist out of necessity.

Chinese Foreign Policy Shifts Toward Intervention - The Borgen Project

However, some voices inside China begs to differ. The Global Times has recently published a speech made by Niu Xinchun, where he insist that China still (and ought to) maintain its non-interference policy. China, Niu assert, neither has the capacity nor any interest to become an interventionist power.

Beijing should be active but not interventionist in Middle East - Global Times

On the other hand, Christian Le Miere analyses several specific cases where China does seem to have carried out actions that can be regarded as interventionist. Le Miere concludes that China is heading towards an interventionist policy.



It is expected that any world power vested with economic wealth and overseas interests will have to become interventionist to a certain degree. However, If an intervention were not carried out appropriately, it can backfire. R. K. Yang tells a revealing instance where China's foreign intervention had backfired:





China's overseas investments and trade will no doubt be desired by many countries. However, the diplomacy and worldview of the Chinese leadership leaves a lot to be desired. The US is often considered, rightly or wrongly, by some as an interventionist villain. But the US has only gained this status after it has become a global superpower. Now, China might be gaining this villain status even before it can become a superpower. As China continues to extend its foreign investments and loans offshore, will everyone roll out the red carpet to welcome the long-awaited alternative superpower? or will they burn the red PRC flag to despise the new interventionist villain?

First time in history? Arabs burning a PRC flag in the Syrian capital.

Ohlala! Now I see how do people create rumors!

First I'm not sure that flag IS our five-star since it was folded that way.

Second even that one is PRC flag, don't you notice that a Russia Flag was burned first? What did that mean?

Hmmm, in Syria, hate both Russia and China. Guess who? The opposition! Man, a three years old child knows they're supported by Uncle Sam. Don't you think it's too funny to post this pic here?

 

[Okemos]

Non-intervention is easy, just sit quite and turn blind eyes to everything. But in this age, intervention is needed to safeguard financial interests. Well, to some PRC members here, everything looks glorious and perfect! Every negative news is propaganda! If some people even bother to read news, there are lots of accidents in Africa. I am not sure about the Middle East though, those pictures are disturbing.

人无远虑，必有近忧。

 

[dlclong]

Non-intervention is easy, just sit quite and turn blind eyes to everything. But in this age, intervention is needed to safeguard financial interests. Well, to some PRC members here, everything looks glorious and perfect! Every negative news is propaganda! If some people even bother to read news, there are lots of accidents in Africa. I am not sure about the Middle East though, those pictures are disturbing.

人无远虑，必有近忧。

PRC things, you will never know ， banana,
Is always against. Please don't care about PRC, do you Americans

 

[Lux de Veritas]

Sooner or later, PRC is going to become more imperialistic like it or not. She may soon clash with Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam itself is imperialistic but they are only capable of asymmetrical warfare rather than winning the war by sending in divisions.

Recently Iraq FM Ibrahim Jafari shout on the roof top that China is willing to airstrike ISIS, but fall short of sending boots on the ground. The article from RT then continued that China is doing so to protect her oil investment in Iraq.

China offers military help to Iraq to defeat ISIS – report — RT News

OMG, this is a classic case of USA style stealth imperialism.

Meanwhile ISIS is a Sunni imperialism project and vanguard of Sunni evangelism. The mainstream Sunni pretends that "ISIS is not Islam" but most are ecstastic that ISIS coming strength to strength taking Shia land from Iraq and Syria.

The day China bomb ISIS, Sunni will not cheers that China kills "NON MUSLIM terrorst". Sunni will hate and declare Jihad against China.

 

[Ruisheng]

Sooner or later, PRC is going to become more imperialistic like it or not. She may soon clash with Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam itself is imperialistic but they are only capable of asymmetrical warfare rather than winning the war by sending in divisions.

Recently Iraq FM Ibrahim Jafari shout on the roof top that China is willing to airstrike ISIS, but fall short of sending boots on the ground. The article from RT then continued that China is doing so to protect her oil investment in Iraq.

China offers military help to Iraq to defeat ISIS – report — RT News

OMG, this is a classic case of USA style stealth imperialism.

Meanwhile ISIS is a Sunni imperialism project and vanguard of Sunni evangelism. The mainstream Sunni pretends that "ISIS is not Islam" but most are ecstastic that ISIS coming strength to strength taking Shia land from Iraq and Syria.

The day China bomb ISIS, Sunni will not cheers that China kills "NON MUSLIM terrorst". Sunni will hate and declare Jihad against China.

Yeah sending screws to repair the planes is also a "military help".

 

[somsak]

Sooner or later, PRC is going to become more imperialistic like it or not. She may soon clash with Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam itself is imperialistic but they are only capable of asymmetrical warfare rather than winning the war by sending in divisions.

Recently Iraq FM Ibrahim Jafari shout on the roof top that China is willing to airstrike ISIS, but fall short of sending boots on the ground. The article from RT then continued that China is doing so to protect her oil investment in Iraq.

China offers military help to Iraq to defeat ISIS – report — RT News

OMG, this is a classic case of USA style stealth imperialism.

Meanwhile ISIS is a Sunni imperialism project and vanguard of Sunni evangelism. The mainstream Sunni pretends that "ISIS is not Islam" but most are ecstastic that ISIS coming strength to strength taking Shia land from Iraq and Syria.

The day China bomb ISIS, Sunni will not cheers that China kills "NON MUSLIM terrorst". Sunni will hate and declare Jihad against China.

Im no expert on Mid east. I guess the correct way for China is to support SheeAh secretly, and show innocence face.

 

[William Hung]

Ohlala! Now I see how do people create rumors!

First I'm not sure that flag IS our five-star since it was folded that way.

Its quite amusing to see you desperately try to protect that perfect and glorious image of Chinese foreign policy in your head.

I got that picture from The Telegraph. Read the caption, it says they are burning a PRC flag:

Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are already intervening in Syria. Why aren't we? – Telegraph Blogs

Second even that one is PRC flag, don't you notice that a Russia Flag was burned first? What did that mean?

Hmmm, in Syria, hate both Russia and China. Guess who? The opposition! Man, a three years old child knows they're supported by Uncle Sam. Don't you think it's too funny to post this pic here?

Did you read the article I quoted? or did you only looked at the picture?

This thread has nothing to do with whether the FSA or Assad is better. It's saying that China is now moving away from its non-interference policy and has picked a side in the Middle Eastern conflict. And the other side of the conflict is angry at China's interventionism.

Read that book reference I quoted. The Arab academic said the Saudi royal ruler and many average Arabs are now angry at China.

 

[powastick]

Saudi should take the lead on solving their problems not China or US. If the Arab League can't solve their problems, they might as well disband.

 

[Raphael]

China is becoming more activist (see South Sudan and Afghanistan), but interventionism is still not on the cards. Military intervention is only legitimate when one or more of these three conditions is fulfilled:

- The government of the host country invites the intervening country.
- The UN improves military intervention.
- Violence and civil unrest in the host country threatens to spill over into the intervening country, in which case the intervenor can preemptively intervene to stop it.

Anyway, China's priorities for now will remain its immediate backyard, where its territorial integrity is threatened by provocative banana harvesters. Even when China had the generosity to provide these banana harvesters with comfortable, well-paying jobs as maids and taxi drivers in Hong Kong, they chose to show their gratitude by claiming Chinese territory. With such unruly neighbors to contend with, China's more distant foreign policy interests will have to be postponed to a much later juncture.