Look to China

Image: Brickinfo Media / shutterstock.com

World peace is in danger. There are wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa; there is an ongoing US trade war; President Donald Trump has pulled out of multiple international treaties and organizations; he retreats from alliance obligations and intervenes militarily in foreign countries. In response to a strong sense of insecurity, governments around the world boost their military budgets. As if this is not enough, there is also a fear that top tech companies are heading for a crash. We fly like bewildered bats in an endless tunnel.

China, however, stands out for its commitment to a global system of independent sovereign states and the non-intervention principle. China’s worldview is not so much based on individual rights as on the sovereign rights of nations. It wants a world with no war among states. China weathers the storm of Trump’s tariffs and plans to receive him on a state visit in April. It may define the world’s future.

The US raid in Caracas on 3 January was a serious violation of the UN Charter. Yet many governments preferred to not condemn it but just mention its illegality in passing. Critics pointed out how the capture of a state president could set a precedent for other states. Could Russia seize Zelensky? Could  China kidnap Lai Ching-te?

Different Realisms

Russia and China reacted differently to the US raid. Both had invested in Maduro. Both issued official protests. Putin, however, kept quiet. His aggression against Ukraine goes far beyond anything Trump has done. Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev, now Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, made an interesting remark on 4 January that Trump’s behaviour was illegal but “internally coherent” by pursuing US interests. This indicates convergence between the worldviews of the White House and the Kremlin: International relations are a contest between interests, with use of hard power. Medvedev said that Venezuela belongs to the US “backyard.”

China’s reaction was more firmly grounded in norms. Beijing condemned the US action as a violation of international law. It said US actions “clearly violate international law, the basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.” Official Chinese commentaries warned against any country acting as the world’s “policeman.” On 5 January, in a meeting with Ireland’s Prime Minister, Xi Jinping criticized “unilateral hegemonic bullying severely impacting the international order,”  and urged that “all countries should respect the development paths independently chosen by the people of other countries.”

While this could be dismissed as pure rhetoric, let us consider the possibility that China means it seriously. China might see a sovereignty-based international order as converging with its national interest.

Interest and Peace

A stable, sovereignty-based international order serves China’s core interest in a predictable external environment that ensures its access to open global markets. China has heavy economic interests around the world. It depends on selling its electric cars, solar panels, windmills and other output from its overproducing industry. It depends on importing soybeans, oil, datachips and a range of necessary products. China suffers from low profit margins and from a far too low level of domestic consumption, due to an excessive savings rate. While reforming its economy, China needs full access to global markets.

To satisfy its need for geopolitical stability, China has agreed on its borders with all of its neighbours on land, except India and Bhutan. It has created a system of shared influence with Russia in Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Although Mongolia was once a part of Qing territory, China has recognized it as a sovereign state. This means its only territorial disputes are with India, its maritime neighbours, and Taiwan.

For a period of four decades now, China has avoided armed conflict with other countries. Incidents in the Himalayas, the South China Sea and East China Sea have been worrisome but limited. China has carried out large scale military exercises around Taiwan, but they have been announced in advance and have not protruded into Taiwan’s territorial sea or airspace. There are people in China who argue that all great powers will at some stage have to use force to defend their interests abroad. Some say China needs combat experience. For someone imbued with the thinking of Sun Tzu, however, this is not so. The best way to win a war, according to this Chinese sage, is to avoid fighting any battles. The aim of China’s assertive behavior has so far been to signal or warn, not provoke any war. The option remains for everyone to show restraint.

Status Quo in Taiwan

Taiwan is China’s Achilles Heel. Since it is not an internationally recognized state, an invasion of Taiwan would not perhaps in itself violate article 2(4) of the UN Charter (like the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the US intervention in Venezuela). Yet this would be a matter of controversy. And the means used in a military attack would no doubt be in breach of customary international law and the Geneva conventions. An outright military invasion would no doubt meet resistance, and possible intervention by the US and Japan. A war over Taiwan could escalate and provoke a nuclear exchange. China’s Anti-Secession Law from 2005 obliges Beijing to use force if Taiwan takes steps towards independence or if the prospect of a peaceful unification is lost. Such red lines do not follow the thinking of Sun Tzu since they may prevent China from controlling the battlefield. Red lines give adversaries an opportunity to provoke war on their terms. The ideal approach from a peace perspective would be for China to reassure Taipei and prepare itself for yielding full autonomy. This could allow for free trade over the Strait and give China access to Taiwan’s world-leading technologies.

China’s military exercises, US arms sales to Taiwan, and actions by Taiwanese leaders that are perceived as pro-independence are closely intertwined and risk generating a self-reinforcing spiral of escalation, underscoring the importance of reassurance. The most realistic solution to the Taiwan dispute may in fact be no solution. Status quo has served both sides well since 1979.

The Role of Small Countries

The anti-globalist policies pursued by Putin and Trump, who think in terms of spheres of interest, leave room for Asian countries—big and small—to play a role in promoting peace. An enlightened China would back this up, both in Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with its eleven members, has a record of bringing great power leaders together in its ASEAN+ meetings, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asian Summits. ASEAN could help forge a new era of cooperation among Japan, Korea, and China, and also India, in a sustained effort to reinvigorate the UN and uphold a rules-based international order.

If East Asian countries set a reassuring example, then this might also help Europe overcome its scary squeeze between a Russian nemesis and a capricious American protector. Sadly, the US and Russia have the world’s two largest arsenals of nuclear weapons. China’s strategic arsenal is also growing at a worrisome pace. Yet Beijing still stands for No First Use. And Japan will hopefully uphold its anti-nuclear stance. ASEAN’s Nuclear-Free Zone, as declared in 1995, continues to commit its members to not developing, possessing, or stationing nuclear weapons.

There may be light at the Asian end of the tunnel.

Related articles:

Is China's "Great Power Status" a Plus or Minus? (3-minute read)

US-China Reassurance: Theory and Practice(10-minute read)

The Current Need for ‘Reassurance’ in the Taiwan Strait: A Chinese Mainland Perspective  (10-minute read)

Stein Tønnesson is the Director of the Toda Peace Institute..