The West and the US have been conveniently used as an easy scapegoat and pretext in justifying Beijing’s behaviour and in chastising Western moves in the region. Even in the local media and discourse, growing anti-West narratives have taken root.
In the security architecture in the region, every Western move is cast as provocative and promoting biased anti-China postures that will trigger polarisation and an arms race. Little is said about the actual triggers of these and the bellicose military postures of Beijing. AUKUS is chastised, but Beijing’s growing nuclear capacity and ambition in the South China Sea with its Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) advancement and intent to increase nuclear warheads and ICBMs have not been touched by the critics.
Submarines under the AUKUS deal that are operated by Canberra are nuclear-powered, not nuclear weaponised but AUKUS has been easily targeted to create lingering regional fear and for Beijing to continue playing the victim card.
The arms race in the region and tensions and risks of conflict fall-out started long ago, and these are primarily caused by the actions of China in triggering the inevitable regional fear and the subsequent actions to preserve regional security and state survival. Regional polarisation and arms race does not self-create by the actions of the US or the West, they are natural by-products of the obvious actions and intent portrayed by Beijing over the past two decades, particularly since the ascension of Xi. This natural act of self defence against the mighty onslaught of Beijing’s combined hard and soft power engulfment has seen regional players take common-sense actions and Western assuring support in safeguarding their survival.
China was given much hope and support by the West that it would eventually become more of a model of democracy that will accept and even enhance the Western-brokered rules-based order that governs international trade and law since the Second World War.
The hope was pretty much dashed years ago when it became clear that China is nowhere near this path and further cemented by recent intent. Beijing’s tacit support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, its repudiation of the “one country, two systems” settlement in Hong Kong, its disregard for the principles of fair trade, its abuse of human rights, its refusal to cooperate over the origins of Covid, and its increasingly bellicose rhetoric and actions in the region and beyond, all have put an end any remaining hope that the West will be able to coax or incentivise Beijing to change its course.
Its approach to the West is confrontational, rather than cooperative, intending to provide a clear, more effective, and credible alternative order to the world with Beijing at the centre of the entire spectrum of international trade, economy, and security umbrella.
The West is rueing its own blunder and misplaced hope, but the time of regret is now over.
Already, the inevitable concentration of shared values, importance, and economic integration among allies and common forces is growing in intensity. Foreign direct investment flows are increasingly concentrated among countries that are geopolitically aligned. The US Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, speaks of “friendshoring” of supply chains to trusted countries, and Britain is similarly focused on jettisoning its economic dependence on Beijing in key strategic industries by diversifying its supply chains.
Long-term neglect of the Global South has seen Beijing seizing upon the opening to extend its influence-seeking activities and soft power sway over it. Countermeasures by the West have been late but will be more crucial now in maintaining the right upholding of international normative adherence.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure finance programme made China the world’s largest bilateral creditor but has been hit by spiraling bad loans, with more than US$ 78 billion worth of borrowing turning sour over the past three years.
According to AidData at William and Mary University in the US, the total scale of BRI lending of the past decade is believed to be somewhere near $ 1 trillion.
Beijing has extended an unprecedented volume of “rescue loans” to prevent sovereign defaults by big borrowers among about 150 countries that have signed up to the BRI.
Increasing numbers of BRI borrower countries are being pushed to the brink of insolvency and default by a global growth slowdown, rising interest rates, and record-high debt levels in the developing world.
The value of such sovereign bailouts amounted to $104bn between 2019 and the end of 2021, according to a study by researchers at AidData, the World Bank, Harvard Kennedy School, and Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Since 2021, Xi has launched three strategic initiatives aimed at reorienting the architecture of global governance and security structure in halting the Western momentum.
As Beijing canvasses for international support for two of the major initiatives, the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, those countries signing up to become “friends” of China’s vision also become debtors to Chinese creditors.
Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Security Initiative (GSI) at the Boao Forum for Asia annual conference on 21 April 2022. The Global Security Initiative (GSI) is the latest manifestation of China’s international aim to challenge the Western-led global governance system, to de-legitimise the US role in Asia and the Indo-Pacific, and to advocate for a China-centric approach in using the Asian way of security governance.
While Beijing has called out the US-led containment measures and Washington’s steadfast upholding of international law as being hypocritical and biased by pointing out the bloc mentality and Cold War mindset approach of the West, its own measures through the GSI and other soft power sway and hard power intimidation have been conveniently bypassed. The GSI has also caused fear and caution in the region, together with other increased hard power postures and aggressive grey zone tactics.
China’s own hypocrisy is laid bare in the GSI core tenets as opposed to its own actions on the ground.
The GSI is encapsulated in “six commitments”: (i) pursuing common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security; (ii) respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; (iii) abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter; (iv) taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously; (v) peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation; and (vi) maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains.
Beijing’s past and current actions in the region in particular, over the South China Sea and beyond, have all made a mockery of these so-called six commitments.
The “six commitments” of the GSI are embedded in China’s national and international security architecture, consolidating the basic tenets of modern China’s foreign policy as codified in the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and non-interference. However, its actions of disregarding the rule of law and the norms as set in international trade practices and the law of the sea are in direct opposition to the values espoused in this initiative.
The GSI replays the terms “common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security” from the New Asian Security Concept.
It also includes the indivisible security concept, which works on the need for “legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously”. The workings of this indivisible security approach are based on the mantra that the pursuit of one’s security should not be at the expense of other’s security. Again, realities and happenings on the ground which have created ripple fear and insecurity of others as a direct implication of Beijing’s militarisation and intimidation have run contrary to these affiliations.
The GSI, together with the BRI and the Global Development Initiative (GDI), are all continuations of Beijing’s narrative-shaking intent in portraying the country to be worthy and credible in shaping a new leadership discourse and direction and in replacing the old Western order. It frames China as a “responsible, trusted and credible” global player that will provide more effective global leadership and support to the “victims” of the past and current unfair Western model and hegemony.
If China plays by the rules and rises peacefully, the extent of the current security dilemma and dangerous conflict setting will not be seen.
India is an inevitable rising power too, but it did not act like China. It also suffers from past humiliation, but it remains a responsible global power and did not escalate tensions or ignore international law, or intimidate other countries with grey zone tactics and coercion.
It also suffers from a security vulnerability setting with China and Pakistan but remains responsible for respecting the norms.
Japan has made mistakes in the past and is now a responsible global player. Although facing its most serious security threat since WWII with a triple front threat from Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow, Tokyo remains calm and collected and is taking the necessary security and deterrent efforts through regional alliance and cooperation and internal security enhancement, not with bellicosity like what Beijing did.
The Cold War mentality has always been used as a pretext for not wanting Malaysia or the region to fall into this trap, being brainwashed by propaganda that this mentality is polarizing and dangerous.
Have actual analyses been done on the efficacy of our neutrality in not wanting to take up a stance for norms and values, and whether a bloc mentality is really the worst evil or outcome in safeguarding state or regional survival and security?
How can we guarantee that being neutral will ensure our security and that Beijing somehow will show restraint to us in a real-time conflict just because of us being neutral?
When a real conflict or a hot war breaks out, there is no consideration of neutrality. There are only urgent permanent interests that will decide whether Beijing will make the ultimate move.
We are being hypocritical and we thought that being neutral is the best and safest bet and that taking sides is worsening the situation.
Wars and conflicts are never solved or won by being neutral. Both the Cold War and the two great wars have been won by the alliance and coming together of players who are championing the ultimate values of freedom, human rights, and democracy. They are not gained or won just by standing on the sidelines and ignoring the global moral responsibility of taking a principled and right stance of resolutely defending freedom and fighting aggression, authoritarianism, and oppression.
Beijing can hide behind its so-called peaceful history and friendship with the region dating back centuries, and reaffirm its so-called Asian regional friendliness, to give a good package and impression to regional players, but its future of potential intent is not sealed.
We cannot use the historical basis of a peaceful rise and conduct of China as a justification for assuring that China has never used force to compel other countries. Security and international policies are fluid, and only permanent interests remain.
Do we want to hedge a bet on the unproven future orientation of Beijing and autocracy as a system or rely on the safe bet of the proven historical success of democracy and freedom?
The US has saved the region and the world from the dangers and onslaught of Nazism, imperialism and communism and saved the region from further annihilation, both in human lives and in civilizational sustainability.
This is the undeniable track record if we are keen to compare relatively.
The US created this rules-based system to provide checks and balances and to ensure all countries and players play by the same rules.
Washington could have ruled the whole world on its own, after the victories in WWII and the Cold War, but chose to give peace and freedom and democracy the ultimate victory, by encouraging openness and multilateralism and giving support for common development and human rights through a shared global development approach based on democracy and freedom.
We let our historical disdain for the West to cloud our judgment, and let the emotional baggage get the better of us. We have also succumbed to Beijing’s intense and consistent pretext and propaganda of its multi-faceted soft power influence.
The US is not perfect and no country is, but its past record shows its commitment or at least the intent and effort to fulfill its global obligations and standing up for values that are worth fighting for.
COLLINS CHONG YEW KEAT
Foreign Affairs and Strategy Analyst
UNIVERSITI MALAYA
