Recently I moderated a discussion with very interesting speakers on China and multilateralism. In preparation to this discussion, I wrote some thoughts, which I put into this blog. You can also check this article by Vasilis Trigkas - one of the discussion' participants - on the related matter.
A New Cold War?
Obviously, the world sees a struggle between the US and China for the global number one position. Henry Kissinger, who wrote an interesting book „On China“ said recently „We are at the foothills of a Cold War”. And Niall Ferguson - author of a biography of Henry Kissinger said recently: “...this new Cold War is both inevitable and desirable, no least because it has jolted the U.S. out of complacency and into an earnest effort not to be surpassed by China in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other strategically crucial technologies.”
For those who lose the number one position, it is always hard to accept this fact. England with its British Empire had to realize that long ago, and it is still struggling to accept that loss. Brexit has been one of the outcomes of the nostalgia for a leading global position. It seems that the US is particularly concerned about China as competitor for the number one position. Europe, with its late and fragile unification process, was never in the position to gain the first place. Some in Europe and the U.S. think that adding together the American and European strengths and capacities can prevent China from progressing in the global race and argue therefore for a common strategy against China. They fear a world dominated by an authoritarian China, which is enforcing its way to govern on the “rest” of the globe.
What are China’s aims?
But is China longing to dominate the world? Or is it interested to be just one of the leading global powers? Would it be therefore possible to invite China to share power, resources, and technological know-how with the “rest” of the world? Could the West mobilize the “rest” of the world against China or at least as a strong counterweight to and finally, partner for China?
The statistics show a clear picture: China represents strong competition for other countries, including the United States. In reality, China is regaining a position it used to have until about 1820. For many centuries China had been the strongest economic power. The difference to the situation today is that China was in the past – most of the time – in self-isolation, unlike such expansionist colonial powers as Britain, France and even the United States. Certainly this attitude has changed. China of today is globally active – less so militarily and in a cautious way. This rising global interest of China in combination with a much stronger position than the former US rival, the Soviet Union ever had, makes China a much more challenging competitor than the U.S. had to confront in the past.
Politicians in the United States and even in the EU still think the West could prevent China from becoming at least an equally strong actor in today’s world. Some of them even criticize the recognition and acceptance of China as a world power by Richard Nixon, following the recommendation of Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security advisor and later foreign minister. However, it would be sheer blindness and arrogance to deny the Chinese people the same rights and the same opportunities as the West secured for itself. All too long Western powers and Japan tried to dominate and humiliate China.
Perhaps, China did overreact to the past injustices committed by foreign imperialist powers. It often used foreign investments into the country, but also acquisitions of foreign companies to illegally obtain know-how connected with these investments, in violation of copyright. Chinese companies participated in European public procurement procedures but there was no reciprocity. Often these companies were owned or at least heavily financially supported by the government or owned by the army. Competition has been often distorted. This imbalance and the violation of copyright was troubling many Western countries. For Kishore Mahbubani who wrote a book “Has China won?”, it was China’s biggest mistake “to alienate major constituencies in America, without thinking through the consequences of doing so.” The hubris that China developed - according to Mahbubani – led it to pressure many businesses but also to undertake unnecessary and provocative actions in the South China Sea.
How should the West react? Some “experts” advise the U.S government and also European governments to “deglobalize” or at least cut existing supply chains. Globalization and heavy reliance on international supply chains can and should be changed and adapted. In certain areas - a recent example would be the development and production of COVID-19 vaccines - there should be more autonomous capacity for different regions. Even agreements on mutual support and delivery guarantees cannot prevent interruptions of supply chains in emergency cases - as during pandemics. But a general policy of enforced de-coupling would endanger a lot of progress which resulted from establishing international networks and global supply chains. This would be especially true for poorer countries, which should be included on a higher level of international cooperation. They should be not only supplier of primary resources from oil and coal to rare earth, but given the chance to produce higher value products, for example, also strongly-needed vaccines.
The reaction of the U.S. and the EU
It was and is correct that the US and the EU are demanding more fairness and equal treatment of Chinese and Western companies and investments. The US, especially under President Trump, wanted to achieve this equality by force: special tariffs, forbidding investments or the use of Chinese technologies, especially from Huawei etc. It was also the intention of the Trump administration to accelerate de-coupling of the U.S. economy from the Chinese one. Many business people warned that such a policy would endanger and spoil the American industry more than the Chinese one. In the meantime, the last meeting of the Chinese National People’s Congress pleaded for decoupling from the Chinese side. They want to reduce the dependence on U.S. and EU technologies.
The EU negotiated for many years an investment agreement which was concluded principally at the end of the German EU presidency in December 2020. But the ratification process is still ongoing. Meanwhile, the American administration changed and with Biden there is a US President who is keen on close transatlantic relations. It is President Biden who is also enforcing a stricter policy of respect for human rights. This led the new U.S. President to ask the European partners to follow his policy especially in view of the treatment of the Uighurs in the West of China.
Already Mike Pompeo, the unfortunate state secretary of President Trump, spoke about genocide against the Muslim Uighurs by Chinese authorities. This came from the same administration, which openly was discriminating against Muslims, especially in relation to migrants. The attitude of Chinese authorities against the Uighur minority under the pretext of combatting terrorism is certainly extremely aggressive. The measures seem not to be proportionate to the terrorist threat. Chinese violations against basic human rights of the Uighurs cannot be denied even if the designation ‘genocide’ may be contested.
This US pressure came at a time, when stronger and more easily applicable human rights instruments were decided by the EU. Since many years already strong voices in the EU Parliament asked for a stricter policy vis-a-vis China. The fact that China is depriving Hong Kong citizens of their rights has also added to the bad climate around the Sino-European relations. At present, it is no longer certain whether the investment agreement will pass the ratification procedure in the European Parliament and in some national parliaments.
As former long-term parliamentarian, I can understand and support the special attention given to the human rights question in the European Parliament. In both cases – in Western China and in Hong Kong - I see violations of human rights. But the question is how the US and the EU can change the situation. Are sanctions the most suitable instruments? Often these measures are more self-satisfying and self-assuring than improving the situation of the population concerned. In this connection it is interesting that the Muslim countries from whom the strongest support for the Uighurs should come, have kept silent. They do not want to lose the benefits of good relations with China.
How to involve other countries?
China is very open and frank about its reaction to criticism of Chinese policies by foreign governments and other public institutions. One should not be naive about that. The fact that some EU members blocked several times criticism of China has clearly its root in the special favor the Chinese authorities gave to these governments. China developed a very specific, harsh and interest-driven diplomacy. All the investments and vaccines supplies abroad have not been done out of charity but to ensure political support and economic opportunities for China itself.
The U.S. and the EU must recognize that the majority of governments consider in the first place the power and strength of the global actors and not so much their moral judgements and guidelines. That should not lead the West to act immorally. We would live in a better world, if America and the European countries had implemented a more value-oriented policy in the past. But that was rarely the case. However, this recognition should teach us more modesty and realism also when fighting for human rights and democracy in other areas of the world. The U.S and Europe will be more convincing by an exemplary policy “at home”. Of course, it would be helpful to have allies supporting the critical position concerning human rights violation.
The U.S. are keen to mobilize the countries in Asia which themselves feel challenged or even threatened by the rise of China, especially India and Japan. Already now there exists the “five eyes” cooperation of the intelligence organizations of the U.S., Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Certainly, also for Europe it would be beneficial to strengthen the ties with countries like Japan and India. When dealing with Asia, Europeans should not think only about China.
Asia is a bigger and more diverse continent. Especially India is an important country as a counterweight to China, although it is not an easy partner itself. Also, the ASEAN community is an interesting partner for the West. But all these potential partners should not form an aggressive anti-China alliance. Europe should rather concentrate on the question of how it can participate in the dynamic development of these Asian countries. We cannot and should not copy the specific model of the different Asian countries. But the energy they put into economic growth is admirable. Of course, it must be connected with an engaged climate policy in Asia and Europe.
Such regional alliances could also make a contribution to a peaceful path towards solving territorial conflicts. The activities of China in the South China Sea and the threats towards separatists in Taiwan are not comforting. The use of force to “solve” these issues would endanger peace and security in the region. However, China, like other superpowers, like the U.S. and Russia, is trying to create and preserve a buffer zone along its shore. Many experts see these measures as defensive, but some neighboring states regard it as provocative. Many countries therefore rely on U.S. military equipment and support. Others try to avoid confrontation and actions, which China would interpret as provocation. Again, to have a continued dialogue in parallel to military defense and keeping the maritime straights open is absolutely necessary. An open sea should be in the interest of China, its neighbors and the U.S. Europe can help in supporting the dialogue about an open sea, but certainly should not be engaged militarily.
China is not only active in Asia. Africa is another focus of Chinese trade and investment activities. Concerning Africa, the EU should clearly try to find a common, mutually adjusted development strategy together with China. I have long advocated for such a strategy and was happy to find it again in the arguments of Kishore Mahbubani’s book on China: “If Europe wants to preserve its own long-term interests, it should make the development of Africa, in partnership with China, an immediate priority.” Together, they “could catalyze a powerful wave of new investment in Africa. Overtime, with a strong African economy there will be less incentive for widespread African migration to Europe.” The U.S may object, but the U.S. has lost much interest in the development of Africa and it is our neighborhood and not America’s.
Confrontation, competition and cooperation - or a road to disaster
As all “ newcomers”- historically China is a newcomer on the global scene - China wants to show presence and strength. This includes the danger of overreacting and of overestimating its capacities. With respect to the growing military expenditures and capacity and of China’s technological and especially cyber know-how, the U.S. and Europe must be vigilant. But the same danger can come from an overreaction from the power which is fearing - rightly - the loss of its dominance, the U.S. As Martin Wolf wrote recently in the Financial Times: “Somehow the US and China must learn to confront, compete and co-operate, at the same time.” The same holds true for the European Union.
Henry Kissinger wrote in his book “On China” published 2011: “The argument that China and the United States are condemned to collision assumes that they deal with each other as competing blocs across the Pacific. But this is the road to disaster for both sides.” And because of that danger Kissinger pleads for a Pacific Community parallel to the Atlantic Community. He asks: “Could a similar concept replace or at least mitigate the potential tensions between the United States and China? It would reflect the reality that the United States is an Asian power and that many Asian powers demand it. And it responds to China’s aspiration to a global role.” I am not in all respects a big fan of Kissinger and maybe the idea of a Pacific Community is not realistic today but such an approach sounds much better than the saber rattling of some people on both sides.
The world is increasingly developing towards a multipolar one and we should promote such a world, without implying that only these poles have rights and authority. This multipolarity is - unfortunately - not based on the same understanding of democracy and human rights. The West, especially the EU should not be afraid from a competition about these values and principles. But it must know that only a strong economy and the promotion of science and technology can support the West’s position in this competition.
Who defines the rules?
There is one specific concern, the U.S. and the EU should take very seriously. China tries to gain influence globally and wants to be the new rule maker for the tech industry - in terms of technology but also content-wise! It is already working on a new master plan for standards for the next-generation technologies. It includes authoritarian elements of state control of media. The blocking of website and therefore, of free information flows should be a right of national authorities. We can find many cases of fake news and misuse of personal data by global tech companies. But what the Western world cannot and should not support, is politically motivated supervision and control of information.
The British magazine “The Economist“ has recently called for a “grand bargain” concerning the new tech industries. “A grand bargain would help focus competition with China on tech, potentially enabling detente in areas where collaboration is essential, such as curbing global warming, health and, as with the Soviet Union arms control. A grand bargain could make the world safer by making it more predictable. When superpowers are set on a collision course, that is something profoundly disturbing.”
The tech companies will continue to play an important role for the world’s economies and societies. As China and several other, mostly authoritarian, countries, try to set the rules for the future digital world, the West must prove, that their own ideas about an open but also responsible tech world are preferable to the restrictive authoritarian model, promoted by China. Here we find a competition which would not lead to war but may hopefully lay the ground for future global cooperation.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.