Honest Broker
The role of China in a new world-order
In the unfolding drama of the 21st century, conventional wisdom posits that the United States and China are locked in a pivotal geopolitical struggle. The prevailing Western narrative casts the US as the stalwart defender of a so-called 'rules-based world order' - an order purportedly conceived and presided over by Washington since its ‘triumph’ in World War II. This world order is alleged to align with international law as enshrined in numerous covenants since the United Nations' inception almost eight decades ago.
However, this portrayal is more illusion than reality. At best, this so-called 'world order' mirrors a uniquely Western interpretation of selected international laws; at worst, it represents a distortion tailored to serve Western interests, including in its relations with former colonies.
Western powers, ensnared in their own hubris, believe that the rules they champion inherently serve the global good. This belief is, at best, naïve and, at worst, self-serving. The Western narrative then paints China as the primary antagonist to this rules-based order, attributing to the Asian giant both the desire and capability to disrupt and reshape it. The problem is there's no hard evidence backing such a claim.
This characterization reveals a profound cognitive dissonance among Western leaders. It is remarkable that they ascribe such subversive motives to China - a nation that, in stark contrast to the US, has not deployed its military abroad for nearly half a century, the last instance being a brief incursion into Vietnam in 1979. Unlike the US, China has refrained from interfering in or orchestrating coups in other countries. It has not imposed unilateral sanctions except those authorized by the UN Security Council. Its sole overseas military base is in Djibouti, and its navy patrols the South China Sea, a critical supply line for the country.
China's most notable territorial claim involves Taiwan. Since 1972, through three joint US-China communiques, Washington has recognized Taiwan as part of China. The US reinforced this stance by facilitating Taiwan’s expulsion from the UN in order to seat China. If such restraint defines China as a threat to the rules-based order, what then should be said of the actions of the US and its allies, particularly Israel?
A telling metric for evaluating which country poses a greater threat to the rules-based order is their behaviour in the Middle East - the most tumultuous region globally. Since World War II, the US has asserted an exclusive role in promoting peace and stability in the region, often dubbed "Pax Americana," though recent history has shown this Pax to be increasingly elusive.
The US once achieved diplomatic successes, from shuttle diplomacy post-Yom Kippur War to the Camp David Accords securing peace between Israel and Egypt, and the 1994 peace deal between Israel and Jordan. However, over the past thirty years, the US's influence has largely faltered. This includes the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in 2000, the failed "war on terror" spanning from Afghanistan to Iraq, the disastrous withdrawal from Kabul, and the handing of Iraq to pro-Iranian militias. The "Assad must go" policy in Syria led to a convoluted outcome with Syria’s readmission to the Arab League and the resumption of diplomatic relations. The US’s biased Abraham Accords and unyielding support for Israel in its Gaza campaign have further sullied its diplomatic record, leading to accusations of genocide and crimes against humanity.
In contrast, China’s approach to the Middle East, as a relative newcomer, reveals a distinct absence of military bases, troops, threats and disinformation. Its focus has been on economic and trade relations, achieving strategic agreements with key regional players such as Egypt, Iran, and members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), while also maintaining favourable relations with Israel.
In 2023, China brokered a significant rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a feat that diverges sharply from the US's isolating approach toward Iran. Additionally, China facilitated reconciliation talks among Palestinian factions, addressing longstanding divisions that have hampered the peace process. If these factions honour the agreements reached in Beijing, it could pave the way for a more credible peace process, challenging Israel’s narrative of lacking a partner for peace.
The current rules-based order, as touted by the US and its allies, is increasingly recognized as a semantic facade masking Western hypocrisy and double standards. China's role is not to challenge this order but to join the Global Others in advocating respect for international law and its consistent application without bias. In this context, China's diplomatic successes could offer a foundation for a far more equitable and enduring global order, one that respects the principles of international law rather than the self-serving interpretations of the West.
Washington will not embrace that, or accept it without a fight. Indeed, several potential developments are likely to unfold.
The least we can anticipate is increased tensions between the United States and China. Washington is likely to perceive China's diplomatic successes and its challenge to the Western-dominated rules-based order as a direct threat to its own global influence. This perception could persuade a trigger-happy US to adopt a more confrontational stance, intensifying geopolitical rivalries and prompting both nations to engage in heightened diplomatic, economic, and possibly military maneuvering.
The US and its allies might implement strategic countermeasures aimed at diminishing China's growing influence. This could involve reinforcing alliances, imposing economic sanctions, or engaging in counter-diplomacy to counteract China's expanding presence in key regions such as the Middle East. Such actions would be part of a broader strategy to undermine China's role and maintain the existing balance of power.
Additionally, there is likely to be an escalation in propaganda efforts by Washington. To counter the narrative that China is a responsible global actor, the US is likely to intensify its media and diplomatic campaigns, seeking to discredit China's achievements and portray it as a destabilizing force. This could involve increased scrutiny of China's foreign policies and a concerted effort to amplify criticisms of its global role.
These shifting dynamics might also prompt variations in international alliances. The BRICS community is already growing apace with over 40 nations now lining up to join the coalition. Once the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia has been resolved, most likely with a win for Putin, NATO's power in Europe will decline. As the recognition of China's role as an honest broker gains traction, other nations might reassess their strategic alignments. Some countries could pivot towards a more balanced approach, engaging with both China and the US based on pragmatic interests rather than historical ties.
Conversely, there could be opportunities for renewed diplomatic engagement between the US and China. Despite ongoing rivalries, the recognition of China's growing influence might lead to efforts in Washington to establish new frameworks for cooperation on global issues, seeking to navigate the evolving geopolitical landscape with a view toward constructive dialogue. However I cannot see that happening if the warmongering Democrat Party remains in power.
While Washington's likely resistance to the shifting narrative may lead to heightened tensions and strategic countermeasures, it potentially opens the door for realignments and diplomatic engagements that could reconfigure global relations. The question remains whether the world will embrace a new paradigm that genuinely respects international law and fosters a more inclusive global order, or whether entrenched powers will cling to outdated models, risking further conflict and division. The future of global diplomacy hinges on our willingness to confront uncomfortable and sometimes inconvenient truths in order to chart a course that prioritizes justice and equitable engagement over hegemonic ambitions.