haidian
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 4,888
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Can China be a force for good?
Beijing wants to convince the world it can play peacemaker in regional conflicts
Michael Vatikiotis
October 16, 2018 14:00 JST
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, center, with Bangladesh Foreign Minister A.H. Mahmood Ali, left, and Myanmar's Minister of the Office of the State Counsellor Kyaw Tint Swe in Beijing in June © China News Service/VCG/Getty Images
As China grows more powerful, it is also attempting to play the role of honest broker and peacekeeper. Self-serving, perhaps, but what countries are not?
When the Chinese government summoned the foreign ministers of Bangladesh and Myanmar in June to discuss the ongoing tragedy of Rohingya Muslim refugees, many feared that Beijing would demand the forced repatriation of the more than 700,000 Rohingya who had fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh after clearance operations by the Myanmar army in 2017. But the refugees were not forced back at the point of a gun. Instead the Bangladesh foreign minister visited Myanmar and the two sides started talking about a repatriation process.
The rest of the world would like to see the Rohingya return to their homes in Rakhine State under the right conditions. There have been several efforts spearheaded by countries such as Canada and the U.K. to address the Rakhine crisis, yet these have produced little more than strongly worded statements. Meanwhile, as the U.S. began stepping up rhetoric against Beijing on trade, China quietly convened another meeting with Bangladesh and Myanmar, this time with the United Nations secretary-general, to talk about repatriation of the Rohingya.
This shows that China can be influential when it comes to addressing global crises and conflicts in what the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs euphemistically refers to as "hot spots." The rest of the world should encourage, support and help shape these efforts rather than be afraid of China's involvement.
China's approach is driven by its own interests. But that is standard operating procedure for emerging superpowers. The U.S. intervened across Asia for 30 years after the end of World War II, showering countries with arms and aid, development advisers and troops to battle Communist Russia and China and win the Cold War. Hundreds of thousands died in the wars that the U.S. fought.
Similarly, China has intervened in Afghanistan, the Indo-Pakistan conflict, and more recently, in Bangladesh and Myanmar because it wants to safeguard its maritime access and counter U.S. containment efforts. The collateral damage so far, at least in monetary terms, seems mostly to be mounting debts in loans owed by regional governments to China.
Concerns about China's adherence to universal norms and universal humanitarian standards abound. It is quite challenging to accept China's peacemaking credentials as Chinese citizens are being herded into re-education camps in China's western Xinjiang province. China's projection of power in the South China Sea has driven the U.S. and other Western powers toward a policy of strategic competition and confrontation that is straining ties.
But this should not obscure the fact that China is using its influence and clout over Bangladesh and Myanmar to help ease the Rakhine crisis, unlike other countries in the region or, indeed, the U.N. Security Council.
The question we should all be asking is not how this might advance China's interests in the world at the expense of the West, but rather how to harness this influence so that it can more effectively address urgent humanitarian needs. To think otherwise would be redolent of Cold War zero-sum thinking that needs to be changed.
According to the Germany-based Mercator Foundation, China is now engaged in mediation efforts involving nine global crisis areas, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea and South Sudan, three times as many as six years ago. China's Belt and Road Initiative launched in 2013 is investing in infrastructure projects that traverse many of these conflict areas. China has appointed special envoys and become actively engaged in formal peace processes in Myanmar and Afghanistan, reversing its stance of just a few years ago that any external involvement in another country's internal disputes constituted unacceptable interference.
So how can China's emerging geopolitical clout be better engineered to help save lives and serve the cause of peace? Critics say this is impossible because of China's hard-wired insistence on putting stability and security before the needs of those affected by conflict on the ground. But has anyone tested this assumption?
Fostering habits of closer collaboration and cooperation with China on conflict and crisis would help. Concerns about China's strong-arm approach to addressing the humanitarian crisis in Rakhine State are not alleviated by simply labeling Chinese efforts as counterproductive. U.N. Security Council members such as Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands would be better placed to influence the situation in Rakhine if they engaged and teamed up with China to forge a common approach.
This approach should start with the habit of seeking China's views at top levels. It sends a powerful signal if the U.N. Secretary General consults with China on areas of international concern, even if it risks upsetting competing powers like the U.S. Consultations and discussions with senior officials would also help prevent China pursuing its own narrow interests. One idea would be to establish a high-level regional working group on the Rakhine crisis, which would include both China and India -- the two regional states with most influence over Bangladesh and Myanmar.
At the working level, China's mediation efforts, which can appear to be crude and ham-fisted to conflict parties, could benefit from constructive advice. It is important to ensure this advice can initially be provided informally through scholars and experts who can feed ideas up the official chain. Public lobbying and chastisement do not work with Chinese leaders, who rarely request either help or advice.
Critics will point to China's vehement resistance to accountability as evidence that Beijing does not respect global norms and values. China voted against a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva in September that established a mechanism to examine evidence that might be used to bring a case against Myanmar in the International Criminal Court. But how effective can the West be, acting alone, now that the U.S. has left the Human Rights Council and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton has excoriated the ICC and threatened to arrest its officials if they bring a case against the U.S. in Afghanistan?
Whether we like it or not, China is a new engine of international action, one the rest of the world must now seek to harness to norms and practices that save lives, even if they will inevitably be adapted and shaped by China's interests.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Can-China-be-a-force-for-good
Beijing wants to convince the world it can play peacemaker in regional conflicts
Michael Vatikiotis
October 16, 2018 14:00 JST
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, center, with Bangladesh Foreign Minister A.H. Mahmood Ali, left, and Myanmar's Minister of the Office of the State Counsellor Kyaw Tint Swe in Beijing in June © China News Service/VCG/Getty Images
As China grows more powerful, it is also attempting to play the role of honest broker and peacekeeper. Self-serving, perhaps, but what countries are not?
When the Chinese government summoned the foreign ministers of Bangladesh and Myanmar in June to discuss the ongoing tragedy of Rohingya Muslim refugees, many feared that Beijing would demand the forced repatriation of the more than 700,000 Rohingya who had fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh after clearance operations by the Myanmar army in 2017. But the refugees were not forced back at the point of a gun. Instead the Bangladesh foreign minister visited Myanmar and the two sides started talking about a repatriation process.
The rest of the world would like to see the Rohingya return to their homes in Rakhine State under the right conditions. There have been several efforts spearheaded by countries such as Canada and the U.K. to address the Rakhine crisis, yet these have produced little more than strongly worded statements. Meanwhile, as the U.S. began stepping up rhetoric against Beijing on trade, China quietly convened another meeting with Bangladesh and Myanmar, this time with the United Nations secretary-general, to talk about repatriation of the Rohingya.
This shows that China can be influential when it comes to addressing global crises and conflicts in what the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs euphemistically refers to as "hot spots." The rest of the world should encourage, support and help shape these efforts rather than be afraid of China's involvement.
China's approach is driven by its own interests. But that is standard operating procedure for emerging superpowers. The U.S. intervened across Asia for 30 years after the end of World War II, showering countries with arms and aid, development advisers and troops to battle Communist Russia and China and win the Cold War. Hundreds of thousands died in the wars that the U.S. fought.
Similarly, China has intervened in Afghanistan, the Indo-Pakistan conflict, and more recently, in Bangladesh and Myanmar because it wants to safeguard its maritime access and counter U.S. containment efforts. The collateral damage so far, at least in monetary terms, seems mostly to be mounting debts in loans owed by regional governments to China.
Concerns about China's adherence to universal norms and universal humanitarian standards abound. It is quite challenging to accept China's peacemaking credentials as Chinese citizens are being herded into re-education camps in China's western Xinjiang province. China's projection of power in the South China Sea has driven the U.S. and other Western powers toward a policy of strategic competition and confrontation that is straining ties.
But this should not obscure the fact that China is using its influence and clout over Bangladesh and Myanmar to help ease the Rakhine crisis, unlike other countries in the region or, indeed, the U.N. Security Council.
The question we should all be asking is not how this might advance China's interests in the world at the expense of the West, but rather how to harness this influence so that it can more effectively address urgent humanitarian needs. To think otherwise would be redolent of Cold War zero-sum thinking that needs to be changed.
According to the Germany-based Mercator Foundation, China is now engaged in mediation efforts involving nine global crisis areas, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea and South Sudan, three times as many as six years ago. China's Belt and Road Initiative launched in 2013 is investing in infrastructure projects that traverse many of these conflict areas. China has appointed special envoys and become actively engaged in formal peace processes in Myanmar and Afghanistan, reversing its stance of just a few years ago that any external involvement in another country's internal disputes constituted unacceptable interference.
So how can China's emerging geopolitical clout be better engineered to help save lives and serve the cause of peace? Critics say this is impossible because of China's hard-wired insistence on putting stability and security before the needs of those affected by conflict on the ground. But has anyone tested this assumption?
Fostering habits of closer collaboration and cooperation with China on conflict and crisis would help. Concerns about China's strong-arm approach to addressing the humanitarian crisis in Rakhine State are not alleviated by simply labeling Chinese efforts as counterproductive. U.N. Security Council members such as Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands would be better placed to influence the situation in Rakhine if they engaged and teamed up with China to forge a common approach.
This approach should start with the habit of seeking China's views at top levels. It sends a powerful signal if the U.N. Secretary General consults with China on areas of international concern, even if it risks upsetting competing powers like the U.S. Consultations and discussions with senior officials would also help prevent China pursuing its own narrow interests. One idea would be to establish a high-level regional working group on the Rakhine crisis, which would include both China and India -- the two regional states with most influence over Bangladesh and Myanmar.
At the working level, China's mediation efforts, which can appear to be crude and ham-fisted to conflict parties, could benefit from constructive advice. It is important to ensure this advice can initially be provided informally through scholars and experts who can feed ideas up the official chain. Public lobbying and chastisement do not work with Chinese leaders, who rarely request either help or advice.
Critics will point to China's vehement resistance to accountability as evidence that Beijing does not respect global norms and values. China voted against a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva in September that established a mechanism to examine evidence that might be used to bring a case against Myanmar in the International Criminal Court. But how effective can the West be, acting alone, now that the U.S. has left the Human Rights Council and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton has excoriated the ICC and threatened to arrest its officials if they bring a case against the U.S. in Afghanistan?
Whether we like it or not, China is a new engine of international action, one the rest of the world must now seek to harness to norms and practices that save lives, even if they will inevitably be adapted and shaped by China's interests.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Can-China-be-a-force-for-good
