Does credibility matter in international politics CLAWS Scholar warrior Autumn 2020
Does credibility matter in international politics CLAWS Scholar warrior Autumn 2020
Introduction
The Coronavirus which commenced in Wuhan, China, in mid- November and subsequently spread globally, brought China and the WHO in open confrontation with the rest of the globe. Nations demanded an investigation into the origin of the virus, its subsequent global spread, with little impact on the rest of China as also the role of the WHO, toeing the Beijing line. China, which till mid-February was the recipient of global aid as it battled the crisis became the accused and faced backlash. It began defending itself vigorously against all accusations, even spinning yarns on the origin of the virus.
The virus brought forth lessons, which, for decades were known but ignored. Economy and diplomacy, which were always considered linked, began separating. Nations which dominated global politics and decision making, moved into the background opening doors for others. Allies and coalitions, which had survived multiple crisis ended up in growing mistrust. Global cohesion in controlling a pandemic was invisible leaving doors for exploiting those in need. In short, Coronavirus has impacted the global community in many more ways than the two world wars and the financial crisis of the last decade.
Chinese offensive approach and global distancing
Nations began questioning China. China, believing its power remains invincible responded in full vigour. Its diplomats commenced threatening host nations’ leading to alienation. In Sri Lanka, the twitter account of the Chinese Ambassador was suspended for inflammatory comments. The Chinese ambassador to Cyprus, faced flak for stating that the world was embarrassed on how quickly China recovered and has hence resorted to ‘blame shifting and lies.’
In Brazil, the Chinese Embassy had a spat with a Brazilian minister on his comment of China’s plan for world domination. In addition, with Brazilians supporting Taiwan, there was further disagreements when the Chinese Ambassador, warned the Brazilian leadership of the ‘One China’ policy. In some nations, comments were undiplomatic and hurt local sentiments, leading to the Chinese Ambassador being summoned, as in France.
In Europe, where China was seeking to replace the US, ‘wolf warrior’ policies of its diplomats has, on the contrary, led to China losing ground and friends. In an opinion piece in Bloomberg on 07 May, Andreas Kluth writes, ‘2020 may go down in history as the moment they (Europeans) turned against China in defiance… It’s because China, by trying to capitalize on the pandemic with a stunningly unsophisticated propaganda campaign, inadvertently showed Europeans its cynicism.’ He added, ‘Chinese officials have managed to offend Europeans across the continent, who usually agree on nothing.’
An article also appeared in the Chinese government owned website Sohu.com titled, ‘Why Kazakhstan is eager to return to China.’ It angered the government of Kazakhstan which called in the Chinese Ambassador to protest. In response the Chinese stated, ‘The article does not reflect the position of China’s government.’ The article was subsequently withdrawn.
When Australia and New Zealand joined calls for an investigation, China responded with economic threats. It initially accused them of joining an ‘anti-China crusade’ with the US to ‘smear China.’ It also termed Australia as ‘the most loyal US attack dog.’ It sought to target Australia.
China began imposing tariff on Australian barley, rejected its beef stocks on flimsy grounds and refused to import Australian iron ore. It advised its citizens to avoid visiting or studying in Australia, claiming biases against Asians. The Chinese ambassador, Cheng Jingye, stated that Chinese tourists and students may rethink their plans to visit Australia in the future and consumers may decide against buying Australian products.
In an article on 01 May in the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher, an Australian journalist and commentator wrote, ‘Australia has arrived at its moment of truth. It is now presented with the explicit choice between sovereignty and money. It arrived this week when the Chinese Communist Party publicly threatened Australia with trade boycotts for proposing an international inquiry into the global pandemic.’ Australia has refused to budge from its stand, choosing principles to trade. It has stuck to it. Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, stated, ‘We are an open trading nation, but I am not going to trade our values in response to coercion from wherever it comes.’
Trump announced that the G7 was an outdated concept and hence the grouping needed to expand and add developing economies, including India, South Korea, Australia and Russia. All nations accepted the offer, less Russia, which desired the participation of China. China has viewed this grouping as being against it. The Global Times commented on 05 Jun, ‘if India hastily joins a small circle that perceives China as an imaginary enemy, China-India relations will deteriorate. This is not in India’s interests. The current bilateral relations have already been on a downward trend.’
Simultaneously, China began flexing its muscles in the South China Sea. Its offensive naval manoeuvres directed towards Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Japan have led to increased tensions in the region. With the second swearing in of the anti-China government in Taiwan, Xi Jinping began threatening it with military action. In an editorial of 13th May, the Global Times stated, ‘the US has no capability to protect Taiwan once the separatists cross the red line, since the mainland now has the overwhelming advantage to solve this long-standing problem.’ To counter China, the US has moved three aircraft carrier led groups into the Indo-Pacific.
North Korea, a Chinese dependent state, has broken off all communication channels with South Korea, enhancing tensions in the region.
There has been a continuing standoff between China and India in Ladakh. As per reports the Indian army is preparing for a hostile summer expecting more Chinese actions. While there has been some disengagement, post multiple rounds of military talks, the Pangong Tso standoff continues. It may continue till a diplomatic solution is found. India has refused to either bend or stop construction of its infrastructure along the borders. Multiple reasons have been stated on why China commenced the standoff, especially in regions where such incidents are rare, including the Galwan valley, however the reality is unknown.
An article in the Global Times on 26 May, authored by Long Xingchun, President of Chengdu Institute of World Affairs states, ‘Although a handful of Indian media outlets and social organizations echo the Trump administration’s views, the Indian government should keep a sober head to not be used as cannon ash by the US.’ In addition, China has cautioned India against taking advantage of the ongoing US-China trade war. Evidently, it is also irked by Indo-US proximity. An article of 08 Jun stated, ‘due to the complexity of the situation, the military standoff could continue for a little longer,’ while continuing to mention a peaceful resolution to the standoffs.
The Chinese navy is bound to increase its actions in the Indian Ocean, stretching Indian navy capabilities and adding to concerns. Threats continue to flow through the Chinese Global Times. Their editorial published on 18th May, stated, ‘Since the outbreak of COVID-19, there have been some subtle and complex changes in China-India relations, which have created uncertainties for the improvement of bilateral relations.’ It also stated, ‘if India escalates the friction, the Indian military force could pay a heavy price.’
Recent objections by Nepal for the first time in years, on a road constructed within Indian territory, away from the disputed Kalapani area, was due to Chinese instigations. China recently sent a medical team to Bangladesh, to assist it in battling the Coronavirus. China is seeking to win over Indian neighbours in South Asia hoping to enhance pressure on India for its own gains, hoping to pull India away from the US with military threats.
This rude, offensive and threatening behaviour across the globe by China has begun pushing it away from global groupings. It is losing allies and friends at an unbelievable pace. It considers itself capable of fighting global anger singlehandedly on account of its economic and military power, but in the bargain has lost international faith, trust and credibility.
Realistically, China has just a few friends left. Pakistan and North Korea are sworn allies, who neither possess a choice nor a voice in global circles. The only major country on China’s side is Russia, which would back China as it seeks to counter US influence. However, Russian support is also theme based, as it seeks to reduce Chinese influence in Central Asia.
China believed it could replace the US as the dominant global power as it was the first to recover from the pandemic, while other nations moved into self-isolating modes, battling the pandemic. That is now being proved wrong.
Nations in self-isolating mode – leadership vacuum
The spread of the Coronavirus made nations realize that in such pandemics, they need to be prepared to fight battles alone. Allies and alliances would be similarly affected and hence support would remain limited. The European Union (EU) could not support its own grouping. EU nations blocked movement of critical medical stores and equipment within themselves, aware that none in the union produces all its needs, interdependency being the very basis of its establishment.
Central EU funding to kickstart the economy, reached after marathon discussions, was short of demands of severely impacted nations, adding to financial woes. Some countries remained more financially impacted than others. The discarding of the demand for issuing a Corona Bond has further divided the EU with Italy, France and Spain registering protests.
The US ignored NATO allies as it sought to control its internal spread of the virus and regain its economy. The US, which traditionally led battles against pandemics and recessions adopted a ‘Nation First’ approach, grabbing all resources needed to fight the virus, even from its allies and locked itself into a cocoon. It highjacked supplies meant for its allies, even from tarmacs, paying double and triple the price to Chinese manufacturers. A report in the Guardian stated, ‘American buyers managed to “wrest control” of a shipment of masks from China that was supposed to go to France by offering three times the selling price.’
Trump banned move of medical stores across borders leading to anger in Canada. Trudeau, the Canadian PM stated that it was a mistake which could backfire as Canadian medical professionals go to work in Detroit daily. A US official stated that the country would continue with its buying spree ‘until we have way too much.’ He admitted that, ‘We’ve gotten our hands on every bit of it that we can.’
Fareed Zakaria, a leading foreign affairs expert stated, ‘The US is abdicating its role as leader of the world. During previous pandemics such as Zika and Ebola, the US was at the forefront of organising international effort. President Obama stepped up as the president of the world.’ He added, ‘In this case, the US is absent. It has no interest in a global leadership role…it is acting childishly.’ Late acceptance of the threat posed by the virus forced Trump into an isolationist panic mode.
Globally it was nation first and the rest later. The global community moved into an isolation mode with virtual meetings being the order of the day.
Thus, there appeared to be a leadership vacuum in the initial stages. China sought to grab global pre-eminence by being the global supplier of medical stores. Even supply of faulty equipment was ignored as nations sought assistance. India proved to be more dependable supplying medicines globally, with no conditions. It was India which pushed through the G20 summit and SAARC collaboration. Its goodwill soared.
As the situation eased, nations began to unite against China. Chinese violent reactions including offensive diplomatic counters, boosted by its belief of power, was its downfall. With passing days, China began losing global respect and credibility.
Critical infrastructure within national control
Nations initially faced shortfalls in critical items when Wuhan shut down. Further, all medical equipment essential to contain the virus, manufactured within China, was diverted to Wuhan, with almost no supplies moving globally. Wuhan is also the base producer for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) requirements. It even impacted Indian drug manufacture.
A major lesson which emerged from the pandemic was critical manufacturing, in this case medical stores, cannot be banked on existing global supply chains, which were initially created for economic gains. Thus, economy became secondary to control of essential industry. Essential industry had to be moved into regions where the home country possessed power over manufacture and distribution. While such an action would lead to increased costs, it was acceptable, as nations realized that they were being held hostage by Chinese blackmail.
China demanded that France permit participation of Huawei 5G networks, which it refused. UK which had earlier accepted to consider Huawei in its plans backed down. It made similar demands to other nations.
The Indian government also realised the importance of self-reliance. It has begun taking steps to reduce dependence on imports and enhance local industry. PM Modi pitched for Make in India and launched his ‘vocal for local’ campaign. The Indian government is also offering sops to manufacturers of medicines to reduce dependency on China for API.
The movement of critical infrastructure led to nations considering expanding the current global supply chain. This implied moving manufacturing out of China, either back home or in nations possessing similar ideology.
Supply chain management
Manufacturing concerns belonging the US, Japan and European nations are being compelled to move from China. This is the result of one of the most important lessons drawn from the pandemic. Apart from spreading the supply chain, preventing it from being controlled by a single nation, it would also free it from Chinese blackmail.
India is amongst the nations making a major pitch to draw in these companies. India supported the globe with medicines on demand and coordinated a joint approach to combating the pandemic by SAARC nations. It even dispatched medical teams whenever requested. Its global standing and reputation are currently at an all-time high, which could play a major role in attracting companies quitting China. This has angered China,
Qiang Feng, from the national strategy institute at Beijing writes, ‘Despite years of promotion of a “made-in-India” campaign and efforts to draw foreign investment in recent years, India still cannot take over China’s position in global industrial chains.’ China would never desire that these companies relocate to India as it could reverse the economic gap in the years ahead.
The desire to move supply chains out was because China threatened nations using its power as the global supplier. With increased blame for not being transparent on the Coronavirus, China faced global isolation and responded by threatening to disrupt supply chains.
Within China, there is increasing unemployment, closing industry and growing anger. With determination of companies relocating, Chinese economy would move into a downswing, impacting its global power. It is already facing demands for restructuring loans from its BRI as also in its further investment into the same.
Economic impact on China and its fallout
Chinese response to questioning and threats of pull out of industry has been a brazen display of its military and economic power accompanied by hostile diplomacy. In the current global environment, when nations are together seeking answers, hostility only produces negative vibes, adding to anger and determination to punish. The only way China can be punished is economically and that is possible by moving manufacturing out.
Xi Jinping’s attempted to restore some credibility by agreeing to an impartial investigation led by the World Health Assembly (WHA), that too after the pandemic ended. This was too little and too late, leading to loss of credibility. China should have seen the writing on the wall and responded with a positive approach, however, failed to do so.
At the National People’s Congress (NPC), China for the first time since 1980, stated, ‘it wouldn’t be setting a target for economic growth this year.’ Writing for the BBC, Karishma Vaswani states, ‘For the last 40 years, China’s Communist Party has been able to promise a simple contract to its citizens: we’ll keep your quality of life improving and you fall in line so that we can keep China on the right path. the coronavirus could be putting that social contract at risk.’
Chinese premier Li Keqiang stated at the NPC, China’s economic growth, which shrank 6.8% in the first quarter, the first contraction since at least 1992, was expected to drop more in the current quarter. He cited disruptions to supply trains, international trade and volatility in commodity markets as well as declines in domestic consumption, investment and exports.
Conclusion
Chinese offensive actions led to its loss of credibility. It assumed that its power was invincible, and it could push its weight globally. However, as it became evident in the WHA, nations refused to back China. Even African nations, who depend on Chinese funding and are part of its BRI, backed out.
Chinese subsequent actions, including threatening Taiwan, ASEAN nations and commencing a standoff against India, added to global anger. Taiwan, whose support during the pandemic was far better than China’s, gained respect. In a display of resentment to China, Netherlands sent a planeload of tulips to Taiwan as gratitude for support during the pandemic.
Nations are determined to pull industries out of China and hurt its economy. Chinese hopes of replacing the US as a major power, even in the Indo-Pacific, is unlikely to materialize. Nations, which till recently were on the fence would move towards the US.
A major lesson which flowed from the pandemic for China is that credibility matters globally. If you lose credibility, nations will never standby and support your policies, despite all comprehensive power that the nation possesses. China will, despite being the first to override the pandemic, applying military and diplomatic pressure, lose in multiple ways at the end of the day.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army