A year ago, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke about the possibility of a divided world caused by the escalating US-China tensions. The previous Cold War was quite a case of black and white. The US and USSR had no economic engagements or interdependency of any kind. The resulting blocs were straightforward and easy to align with for the majority of the countries, with the exception of the neutral Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries. International politics is undergoing a transition-moving from unipolarity to multi-polarity.
The Cold War is one of the primary causes of this shift in power dynamic and might even bring about a change in global norms and rules in the distant future. This Cold War is different from the Cold War of the twentieth century in some crucial ways. USSR was not a part of the Bretton Woods system, and hence the capitalist world could easily view and manage the communist bloc as the enemy with a sole focus on strategic competition, nuclear arms race and space race.
Read more: Moving towards multipolarity: End of a unipolar world
Despite Washington and London’s misgivings about China’s domestic governance system, China is very much a member of the global liberal order with massive stakes in the global economy, global trade regimes and international institutions. With the level of economic interdependence and globalization that exists between the developed and the developing world, the US, EU and much of the anglo-sphere countries are also bound to suffer the case of alienating Beijing. Hence the full-fledged and uncomplicated cold War of the twentieth century is not possible. Methods and mechanisms of confrontation as adopted during the previous Cold War and the divided world which emerged as a result of such mechanisms- will not be replicated in the current China Cold War.
Questions arise on what the consequent global politics will look like
The developing world which was mainly relegated as pawns in the US-Soviet Cold War will play a much greater role and enjoy much greater influence as a result of the Cold War. Globalization and trade liberalization has given some semblance of national power to even third-world countries. The Chinese method of using investments and economic advantages as instruments of foreign policy has given the recipient countries stakes in global competition. The states can receive no strings attached investments in exchange for political support to China.
While Washington was busy in military pursuits throughout Afghanistan and the Middle East, first through the War on Terror and then in the aftermath of the Arab Spring revolutions, Beijing was consistently deepening economic relations with the developed and the developing world. China’s approach is not quite equivalent to the USA’s sticks or carrots analogy as the former has shown reluctance to force down its own model of governance and domestic politics over its partner states. The two powers are not only different in terms of domestic political systems but also with regards to the management of other states. Let’s take the example of foreign investments and aid programs.
China has a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Whether a state is democratic, authoritarian, or communist- has no bearings on Beijing. Any bilateral or multilateral economic and military prospects are not dependent on any conditions. Perhaps this policy is the reason that over sixty countries are part of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. For the US, the exact opposite is true. Whether it is investment or aid, Washington brings along a framework of conditions incorporating human rights, climate change regulations and general ideals of democracy and politics.
Read more: How Russia can play an important role in implementing Pakistan’s National Security Policy?
The USA still exhibits the Cold War era trait of forcing its own preferred political model and ideals on oftentimes unwilling states. In contrast, Chinese investments come with no strings attached and sometimes with little transparency. The Chinese model of investment and foreign engagement is preferable for developing and third-world countries. The developing world generally has weaker democratic institutions and less than the ideal implementation of the rule of law. Hence the Chinese brand of foreign investment and development offers a favorable alternative to the US preferred model.
This policy succeeded in winning the goodwill of developing countries through its massive; no strings attached infrastructural development investments. The USA, over the years, lost popularity among the third world and largely became associated only with military and political aspects of foreign relations. The Chinese, in contrast, emerged as economic partners. The unacknowledged discourse in the developing world has been of the US leading the most industrialized democracies versus China leading a large section of the developing world by contributing to their development. African countries and their unnerving support to Beijing in the UN General Assembly is a shining example of the success of the Chinese model.
Looking at China’s human rights abuses
The reluctance of Muslim majority countries in denouncing Beijing’s alleged human rights abuses is also a result of massive Chinese investments. Beijing has shown that the US-sponsored neoliberal development model underscored by democratic ideals is not the only route for development and multilateralism. China even considers itself a developing country primarily to retain preferential treatment at the World Trade Organization and secondarily for political purposes. By posturing itself as a developing country, it can maintain the narrative that it is, in fact, an equal partner to the developing world rather than a regional or superpower dictating the circumstances in its favor.
It even painted G-7 as co-conspirators with the US, trying to decide the fate of the world. G-7 is an exclusive group consisting only of the most developed democracies. After a meeting in June this year, the G-7, propelled by the US, announced a grand scale infrastructure development plan for the developing world titled Build Back Better World. The adjectives used for this proposed multilateral partnership were “values-driven, high-standard and transparent” in a clear jab at the Chinese OBOR.
Read more: What Covid-19 pandemic revealed about the prevailing global politics?
The G-7’s decision to present an alternative infrastructure development plan is by default an admission of Beijing’s success in winning countries over through its investment model and translating the goodwill into political and favorable foreign policy outcomes. The US supported the Build Back Better World plan, if executed smartly, could jeopardize China’s sway and an upper hand in the developing world. Globalization and the liberal order itself transitioned the developing world into critical players in any global competition. Unlike the events of the twentieth-century Cold War, the developing world will play a crucial and defining role.
As mentioned earlier the clear-cut alliances of the previous Cold War dictated solely by ideological inclinations are unlikely to originate, in its stead, states will decide which side to swing primarily through economic, infrastructural and tech incentives. As a result of the US-China Cold War, the global community of states will have much greater room to maneuver and extract advantages from the competing powers in lieu of temporary alliances or partnerships.
The writer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan. He can be reached at op-ed@hafeezkhan.com. The views expressed by the writers do not necessarily represent Global Village Space’s editorial policy