Following the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the parliamentary “Two Sessions,” the Chinese leadership’s involvement in the area of foreign policy has increased in recent weeks. The global optimism of such action stands in stark contrast to the increasingly paranoid and aggressive rhetoric on both sides of the argument that is re-emerging on the long-suffering European Continent.
The “black-and-white” picture of the world order being stubbornly shaped by certain influential political forces contradicts China’s ancient historical culture and is totally unsuitable for it today. Let’s at least draw attention to the reality that practically all the PRC’s geopolitical rivals’ economy is significantly intertwined with the economy of China. Therefore the former’s systemic collapse (which results inevitably from the idea that “whoever is not with us is against us”) spells disaster for China as well. As a result, the Chinese are unlikely to accept the “traditional-European” definition of the term “winning” in a particular fight.
Although there were some Manichean aspects, which critics referred to as “assertiveness,” in PRC foreign policy practice a few years ago. In relationships, for instance, with India and nations in the Southeast Asian region. This has significantly strengthened the standing of the abovementioned (“outside-regional”) adversaries in some of these nations. Evidently, this explains why China’s ties with its “problematic” neighbors have become much more flexible in recent years.
This shift is especially relevant for how relations with India are being established since it removes critical reasons from those representatives of Indian establishment who want to see their country abandon its historically neutral foreign policy stance and join the opposition of the PRC.
As they say, China is successfully learning along the way to play the role of a major geopolitical actor, which is fairly new to it. The concept of creating a “Community of One Destiny,” which is totally congruent with China’s historical past, serves as the foundation for the “learning” process. It was proposed by China’s current leader, Xi Jinping, around the year 2012-2013.
Its future development might be seen in the “initiatives” proposed by him in the fields of global security and the social and economic development of all humanity. The CPC held a video conference on “Path towards Modernization: The Responsibility of Political Parties,” on March 15, 2023 (more than 500 party representatives from 150 countries attended). China’s leader Xi introduced the Global Civilization Initiative.
The language used to formulate this Initiative is fairly general, much like any political undertaking of this nature. This doesn’t lessen its significance because a person, living anywhere in the world, is considered the foundation of the global development process. At a time when entire peoples are being used as cannon fodder for the political purposes of the global bargaining, this is an incredibly impressive starting point.
The same Initiative was highlighted at the Forum two weeks later, marking the tenth anniversary of the Community of Common Destiny concept under the general title “Chinese Path to Modernization and Global Community of Shared Future”. The attendees this time included “dozens of senior officials, business representatives, international delegates and experts from 14 countries,” according to China Daily.
Mushahid Hussain Syed, Chairman of the Pakistani Senate’s Defence Committee, currently serving as a senator on the ruling Pakistan Muslim League platform since spring 2022, was notable for both his attendance at the event and his keynote talk. In the first place, it demonstrates once more the tenuous ground of the repeated claims that the current Pakistani leadership is “pro-American“. The guest’s remarks that “the focus on solving human problems as well as the win-win cooperation of the Chinese modernization experience” provide rich experience for developing countries as they address their own problems when faced with the “politics of hegemony” are noteworthy in the second place and serve as confirmation of the first point. It is hardly necessary to specify which of the world’s superpowers was referred to as a source of “hegemony” by the Pakistani participant at the Forum.
The head of the BRICS Institute, New Delhi was also there, and his remarks about the modernization experience in China were very positive. He claims that China’s expertise has been substantially incorporated into India’s current phase of global development. Really poignant words given the tense status of the bilateral relations at the moment.
The Global Security Initiative was introduced by President Xi Jinping in his speech at the regular Boao Asia Forum for Asia a year ago. Let’s recall that this global forum, which has taken place on the Chinese island of Hainan since 2002, is frequently called the “Asian Davos”. Nonetheless, it is safe to argue that the former has already surpassed the latter in significance as a result of the shifting of the center of the global political and economic activities to the Indo-Pacific area.
In the context of a sharp aggravation of the international situation, both of the above-mentioned initiatives of the Chinese leader were unavoidably at the forefront of conversation at the BAF Annual Conference 2023, held from March 28 to 31 under the theme “An Uncertain World: Solidarity and Cooperation for Development amid Challenges.”
Recently appointed Chinese Premier Li Qiang delivered the keynote address on behalf of the PRC, positioning his country as “an anchor for global peace and development amid the uncertainties across the world.”
The prime ministers of Singapore, Malaysia, and Spain were the guests of honor at BAF Annual Conference 2023 and were greeted by the Chinese leader at the end of the event. From the perspective of the issue highlighted here, China’s rejection of the “black and white” approach to world order, the appearance and speech at BAF Annual Conference 2023 of all three of these international guests, and the follow-up talks with the Chinese leader are of a significant nature.
The dominance of Taiwan and the Southeast Asian subregion, which the first two of these leaders represented, has long been crucial in terms of strategic relevance. Both for the PRC and its key opponents. Various sensational “military” information—warplanes have crossed South China Sea’s airspace, someone’s submarines, destroyers and/or aircraft carriers have entered or left it—takes up most of the media space allotted to the situation in Southeast Asia.
Nonetheless, the opposing players in this situation resolve the aforementioned strategic goal mostly by “silent” means. Together with flexibility, the terms patience, constructive spirit, and mutual benefit can be added to the list of words that define China’s approach to forging relations with ASEAN regional association countries. Recall that China is the main trading partner of the majority of ASEAN member states. President Xi reportedly used some of these terms in his conversation with representatives from two of the 10 ASEAN counties.
As for the other, no less significant, political and economic region for China, which is located on the European continent, relations between the two sides are virtually totally governed by trade conditions. For the time being, we should add that some of China’s European allies are beginning (for whatever reason) to become involved in Indo-Pacific region using military “tools“.
Let us also add that one of the motivations for the Spanish prime minister’s travel to China, followed by the French president’s and senior EU officials’ visits to Beijing, was clearly an attempt to influence (including through trade and economic channels) the PRC’s position on critical global issues. These current problems are mostly caused by the deterioration of the situation in Europe itself, which was mentioned at the beginning of the article, and the intense enhancement of China-Russian relations following the Chinese leader’s recent trip to Moscow.
Finally, it is worth noting that, according to the Chinese Global Times, regarding the recent visits to PRC by European politicians, portraying relations with Europe in the notorious “black and white” mindset is unacceptable. The US has been accused of attempting to evaluate Sino-European relations from this vantage point. Yet, despite their current acuity, US-Chinese interactions do not conform to such a simplistic coloring either.
This is also why, as previously stated, the Chinese dislike this kind of primitivism in depicting the outside world. This is the way they are, and it must be taken into account when building relations with the PRC.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”