Tag: Foreign Policy

Merz’s High-Stakes China Balancing Act

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

In February this year, the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrived in China. This was his first visit there since taking office, and he’s the latest Western leader seeking to reset ties with Beijing. The trip came amid warnings from German industry of growing competition from China. It is clear that both countries now want to pursue increasingly practical cooperation.

Any curious observer of China knows that the country is currently celebrating the year of the horse. It is therefore symbolically significant for Germany that the first high-profile visitor to Beijing during this highly auspicious lunar year has been their Chancellor.

One of the difficult asks Merz had for President Xi Jinping was that China should encourage Russia, its key ally, to end the war in Ukraine. But that will be a topic for another piece. For this trip, the primary focus for Germany was on seeking closer cooperation with Beijing as a hedge against rising global trade protectionism and tariffs.

Ahead of his journey to the Land of the Dragon, Merz remarked thus: “Foreign policy and economic policy belong together just as much as defence policy and domestic policy. We can no longer separate them today. That’s why I’ll be travelling to China to discuss future cooperation between Europe and Germany on the one side and China on the other…”

Remember, Merz is the latest leader to trip his way to China, seeking to stabilise economic ties and navigate geopolitical shifts. Countries which in the past had blocked China during its trade dispute are now impatiently knocking at the Middle Kingdom’s door, all keen to strike business deals. The British, Canadian, and South Korean leaders have all visited Beijing this year, yet we have not even moved half of the year!

Firstly, it is obvious, even common sensical that Merz should tread carefully not to cause a rift with Washington over China. President Trump recently threatened 100% tariffs on Canada for holding trade talks with Beijing. Germany will be aiming to strengthen ties without triggering a similar retaliation from the US.

Secondly, there is apparent domestic pressure for Merz, too. Over the past year, German politicians and business groups have increasingly warned about intensifying industrial competition with China and the risk of a new China shock. Even European/Western experts have spoken out and recognise that China has become a sophisticated manufacturer and is advancing rapidly in key technologies, a growing challenge for Germany’s export-driven economy. Last year, China sold a trillion dollars more overseas than it imported. Germany’s economy is highly export-driven, but exports to China fell more than 9% in 2025. Overall, car exports to China have dropped by a staggering 2/3 since 2022.

The other concern on Merz’s hands is that he needs to balance the need to protect vulnerable German industries from cheap Chinese goods while repairing strained ties. This would be a defining challenge for him. German automakers are already feeling the pinch from Chinese competition, since China is now the global leader in EVs, and a distant number one for that matter. This is something that Merz has to navigate along with the whole question of where rare earths will come from in the future, as China becomes more and more restrictive and is very open that it wants to use this as a political instrument as well. The other key challenge on Merz’s table is the pressure from the United States. America, of course, wants to see its European partners take a tough line on the Chinese government and particularly on their trade deficit.

Therefore, whereas Merz may want to have a stable, prosperous relationship with China, the foregoing issues I have highlighted are real concerns for him to deal with. The reality of the time is that Germany is exporting less to China. German brands in China have less of a market share, and Chinese brands are increasingly competing with Germany in third countries around the world. Merz travelled with several European manufacturers on this trip, and they all had/have serious concerns that this is costing jobs in Germany. The business people are definitely critical of what they may find to be unfair practices by China, such as things like government subsidies, although basic knowledge of economic history would reveal that this is the same process by which Western industries accumulated significant growth and came to dominate the global market.

For President Xi Jinping, it must be a very great experience hosting yet another powerful Western leader. Xi has effortlessly been positioned by Western leaders themselves as a stable partner compared to the US, whose leader, Donald Trump, seems to be as fragile to rely on as the weather.

These events have also added to the image of China as the true leader of the new multipolar world order. And since Germany and Europe in general are important markets for China, Xi must be glad to welcome more European leaders to China to strike trade deals. This is even more urgent now, when the Chinese economy’s domestic demand has been slowing down. China, therefore, needs to rely increasingly on the export market.

We should remember that the relationship between Germany and China has really flipped over the years. It had been the case that Germany was a big exporter to China, with China having to rely significantly on German machinery and German expertise. However, in recent years, China has become the one exporting a lot to Germany. There is a lot of dependency on Chinese manufacturing for the German economy to survive. Nevertheless, China still relies heavily on German imports for materials and other chemicals and manufacturing, although Germany is the most dependent of the two countries.

The writer is a senior research fellow – Development Watch Center.

 

Global Politics and Foreign Policy: Who is Entitled to the “Monroe Doctrine”?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The Monroe Doctrine is the fulcrum around which America’s grand strategy on foreign policy has revolved since the 19th Century. Originating from President James Monroe’s speech to Congress in 1823, it was a solemn statement by the United States warning European nations to desist from interfering in the affairs of countries in the Americas (the totality of North and South America and most of the Western Hemisphere). Based on this doctrine, America would interpret any intervention by a “major country” (excuse my French – because all sovereign countries are presumed equal…) in its spheres of influence (what it called its “strategic backyard”) as a threat to U.S. security.

A flashpoint in America’s implementation of the Monroe Doctrine happened in 1962 during the world’s first nuclear crisis. Fidel Castro had led a guerilla struggle in Cuba which deposed Sgt. Fulgencio Batista. To save Cuba from bankruptcy upon his usurpation, Fidel approached the communist countries and began nationalising American-owned industries since the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would not lend to him. The American president then, Eisenhower, was unsettled by the thought of a communist state emerging a few miles from the coast of Florida. When John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, he undertook Eisenhower’s scheme to invade Cuba and authorized a failed attack at the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy ordered constant surveillance over Cuba and his spy planes registered aerial photographs showing that Castro was armed with Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (I.R.B.M.s). When Kennedy confronted the Soviet Union over this, Nikita Khrushchev protested: “Your rockets are in Turkey. You are worried by Cuba. You say that it worries you because it is 90 miles from the American coast. But Turkey is next to us!” Whereas arrangements were made by the U.S.’s Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin to de-escalate the crisis, and in exchange for the Soviet Union’s withdrawal of missiles from Cuba, the U.S. reciprocated with a non-invasion pledge and the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, America’s presence in Russia’s neighborhood did not cease.

It is 62 years today since the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis and America is fueling a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine. Like America’s position on the Monroe Doctrine, Russia too claims it needs some breathing space from the expansion of NATO eastwards, and would rather keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence. A saying goes that what is good for the goose is good for the gander…

However, the world has changed. China has emerged. Its government has publicly denied having a Monroe Doctrine. Indeed, not a single war has been fought by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1979. The country’s leaders have theorised about harmonious co-existence as the future that China wants. Besides doing business and extending development finance to developing parts of the world as well as building infrastructure projects globally under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has not exhibited an appetite for military alliances with any country in the world.  Indeed, today, the PRC’s foreign policy banner is building a community of shared future for mankind.

Let us turn back to the United States and the Monroe Doctrine. American political scientist and International Relations scholar, John Mearsheimer, developed a theory called “offensive realism”. This theory explains that great powers are essentially desirous, rationally, of establishing hegemony in their hemispheres in the anarchy of the international system. He calls the international system anarchical because of the absence of any higher hierarchy above the nation-state.

It is understandable, based on the theory of offensive realism, for China, Russia or any other major world power to feel entitled to their own Monroe Doctrine. Currently, the U.S. has surrounded bases all across the Pacific in a provocative encirclement of China, which threatens a disastrous war between the two states. This is not the posture we need for sustainable peace in the world. It might make America feel safe, but nobody is safe if other countries feel threatened.

China has called for a multipolar world where no single center of power bullies the rest of the world. I think that such multipolarity is a far more secure balance of power for a peaceful world. Mearsheimer’s offensive realism would be a false theory if China’s stance was genuinely experimented on by other countries, especially the United States. However, if the U.S. posture in the Pacific is not unclenched, I fear John might be right in the long run.

Nnanda is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

The World Right now! And China’s Place in It

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Moshi Israel

The world as it is today is largely in disarray. The scenario is akin to that of a civil war where leaders are engaged in power struggles as the world around them burns to ashes. This is what is happening now, battles of hegemony and dominance are becoming more prevalent and defined. It is no longer shameful to threaten war or annihilation of the entire human species. Global peace and order are at risk because states have doubled down on taking the route of political realism. The weak are preyed upon by the strong and the interests of countries come above all else even at the expense of other’s interests.

Let us begin in Eastern Europe, in Ukraine. The war has now gone on for over two years with no end in sight. The Russians will not relent until they achieve their objectives of having a neutral and disarmed neighbor. Ukraine backed by the West has chosen to fight until the last Ukrainian in a bid to be part of Europe and out of Russia’s grip. The West on the other hand has openly stated that Ukraine is a unique opportunity to weaken Russia and inflict a strategic defeat on it. Therefore, the theater of war must continue until one side blinks. China is the only country that has pushed for a political settlement in Ukraine, emphasizing the need to respect sovereign territory and to address legitimate security concerns of all countries. This has been pushed by the Chinese despite them having a limitless friendship with Russia. Therefore, while all countries have clear allies and corners in this war, China has been politically mature enough to suggest a compromise that addresses both warring country’s concerns.

Europe is now at a crossroads. They have two major questions to answer; the first question is the Russian question and the second one is the China question. On the first question, the continent is running headfirst into a potential continental confrontation akin to the World Wars. There is an anti-Russian resurgence in Europe stemming from the Balkan states. These states are leading the drive into the new normal where Russia is seen as the major threat to the rest of the continent.

The second question which pertains to China may not be existential but is extremely important. Europe is still figuring out how to deal with China especially given China’s tumultuous relations with Big brother across the Atlantic. The recent visits by President Xi to Paris, Belgrade and Budapest have highlighted the contrast within European politics. France, knows it needs China but also has to trade carefully so as not to sour relations with their key ally, the US. China’s close friendship with Russia also complicates this further. The same goes for the majority of the European Union. Relations with China in Europe heavily depend on politics from the other side of the ocean. If it were completely up to Europe, it is evident that they would have preferred to have cordial relations with both china and USA.  On the other hand, there are some in Europe such as Serbia, and Hungary, the two allies, President Xi visited that see no qualms dealing with an increasingly inevitable China. These countries signed even more trade and partnerships agreements with China during Xi’s visit. The message President Xi brought to Europe was simply that; China is a fact of life and Europe has to deal with it.

Across the Atlantic, The United States remains consistent with its Foreign policy goals despite many thinking otherwise. The goal is as simple as maintaining US influence across the world and defending their interests and national security above all else. Now, how they go about this is a discussion for another time. The major point here is, as China’s influence grows, it inevitably collides with the influence of the United States and the latter is not accustomed to being challenged by a near peer power. China insists that its development is peaceful and seeks collaboration rather than confrontation. A peaceful world entirely depends on the US perception of China’s rampant rise.

Recently, the world was rocked by news of the death of the Iranian President, his foreign Minister and other key figures of the IRGC. This news left many in major political centers biting their nails at the prospect of the new emerging reality in the middle East. The cause of the accident was not immediately clear and that was dangerous because if a finger was pointed at anyone, it meant a potential new regional war. Many friends of Iran reached out to assist the country and it is yet to be seen what these developments will mean for the Middle East.

The war in Gaza is another political hotspot that has topped debates around the globe. The failure to release hostages by Hamas and lack of adequate humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people have made the Gaza war into one of the most gruesome conflicts in recent memory. China has constantly called for a cease fire and is currently pushing to have Palestine recognized as a state by the united Nations. The reality that the ICC might issue warrants against top leaders of Hamas and Israel has taken many by surprise. It is after all, an open secret that the Criminal court is reserved mainly for criminals in the Global South, this is no longer hearsay, as the Prosecutor Karim Khan confirmed it in an interview with CNN. We in the Global South can only watch as intrigued spectators as to where all this is headed.

In Africa, the DRC is still facing numerous insurgencies and the political climate in the country is one of uncertainty. In the volatile Sahel belt, the US has finally agreed to withdraw its troops from Niger in September. All this happens as the Global South largely improves ties with Beijing.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre.

 

 

CHINA’S DIPLOMATIC BLUEPRINT: HOPE FOR A DYING ART OF DIPLOMACY

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Salim Abila Asuman

In the modern geopolitics, an ugly discovering has been made: the cold-blooded killing of traditional diplomacy of dialogue between nations lies lifeless, its vibrant spirit snuffed out by the hands of indifference and hostility.

The absence of diplomatic discourse has left a void, one that threatens the fabric of peaceful coexistence. As one looks through the wreckages, a narrative of betrayal and neglect begins to unravel, revealing a sinister conspiracy to silence the voice of reason and compromise.

With the menace of conflict looming large, the urgent question resonates: can the echoes of traditional diplomacy of dialogue be resurrected before the drums of war drown out all hope for peaceful coexistence, and how can China be of help in its resurrection?

For generations, conventional diplomacy of dialogue stood as the beacon of hope in a world often besieged by the storms of conflict and discord.

Diplomats used their words with precision, forging alliances and as a result, weaving the delicate threads of international relations with finesse and grace. This was when the world was once where trust was built through the exchange of ideas, where bonds of friendship were forged over shared experiences and mutual respect.

As proof, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which not only ended the Thirty Years’ War but also laid the foundation for the modern state system, or the Camp David Accords in 1978, where President Jimmy Charter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel, setting a precedent for diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East.

However, as the digital age expanded its dazzling excellence, traditional diplomacy of dialogue found itself at a crossroads, confronting a challenging adversary in the form of rapid technological advancement.

In a world where tweets and hashtags carry more weight than treaties and virtual summits replace face-to-face negotiations, this old guard confrontation struggles to maintain its relevance in an ever-evolving landscape.

From the Korean Peninsula to the heat of Africa, examples overflow of how neglecting dialogue with adversaries only deepens cracks and prolongs suffering.

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s M23 rebellion and the Rwanda Congo situation serves as a stark reminder of this reality that is closest to us. Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue with the rebel faction, a militarised response is opted. The absence of sustained diplomatic efforts not only exacerbated the conflict but also upset attempted to address the underlying grievances fuelling the rebellion, perpetuating instability and human suffering.

Similarly, the standoff between North Korea and the international community underscores the risks of neglecting diplomacy. Despite repeated attempts at negotiations, including multilateral talks and bilateral engagements, the North Korean nuclear issue remains unresolved. The absence of sustained dialogue has led to periodic escalations and heightened tensions, stressing the urgent need for diplomatic engagement.

In the Middle East, from the occupied territories of Palestine to the war-torn landscapes of Syria, the failure to prioritise diplomacy has perpetuated conflict and hindered efforts for peace.

These examples underscore the critical importance of embracing the dying traditional diplomacy of dialogue as a means of resolving global conflicts. While military interventions may offer temporary solutions, they often exacerbate tensions and sow the seeds of future strife.

To address the question that was previously raised; As a significant global force and a central actor on the world’s stage China continues to foster the resurrection of dialogue as the foremost instrument for resolving conflicts and this is how;

Sustained dialogue, grounded in mutual understanding and compromise, remains the most effective pathway to lasting peace and stability and China emerges as a formidable player for its diplomatic strategies that prioritise dialogue and cooperation, even with adversaries.

In the stormy seas of international relations, China’s approach to diplomacy stands as a beacon of stability and pragmatism. Rooted in the time-honored tradition of dialogue and cooperation, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers invaluable lessons for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world.

At the heart of China’s diplomatic philosophy lies a steadfast commitment to dialogue. Amidst differences and tensions, China recognises the indispensable role of communication and negotiation in preventing conflicts and fostering mutual understanding. Whether engaging with adversaries or allies, China’s dedication to dialogue remains firm, serving as a cornerstone of its diplomatic approach.

Territorial disputes, particularly in the South China Sea, exemplify China’s emphasis on diplomatic engagement and regional cooperation. Through platforms like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China seeks peaceful resolution and manages tensions, demonstrating the power of dialogue in promoting stability in contested regions.

Ongoing negotiations with neighbouring nations underscore China’s commitment to resolving disputes through diplomatic channels, showcasing a pragmatic and constructive approach to conflict resolution.

Furthermore, China prioritises identifying mutual interests with adversaries to foster cooperation across a spectrum of issues. From trade and environmental protection to global governance, China not only builds trust but also cultivates a conducive environment for sustainable cooperation amidst diverging interests.

Above all, China places a premium on stability and harmony in international campaigns and prioritising dialogue and cooperation, China contributes to a more peaceful world order. Whether mediating conflicts or participating in multilateral forums, China’s diplomatic judgement promotes prosperity and security for all nations.

In recognising the interconnectedness of our global community, China advocates for diplomatic solutions to conflicts, emphasising the importance of cooperation and mutual respect.

From the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East and Africa, China’s diplomatic engagements exemplify its role as a responsible global actor committed to fostering peace and prosperity.

To sum it all up, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers a compelling narrative for navigating the complexities of international relations. By embracing dialogue, managing disputes, focusing on mutual interests, and prioritising stability, China sets an exemplary standard for fostering a more harmonious and prosperous global community. Its diplomatic wisdom servings as a guiding light towards a more peace world, China’s diplomatic blueprint is hope for this dying art of diplomacy in the face of its death.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

CHINA’S DIPLOMATIC BLUEPRINT: HOPE FOR A DYING ART OF DIPLOMACY

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Salim Abila Asuman.

In the modern geopolitics, an ugly discovering has been made: the cold-blooded killing of traditional diplomacy of dialogue between nations lies lifeless, its vibrant spirit snuffed out by the hands of indifference and hostility.

The absence of diplomatic discourse has left a void, one that threatens the fabric of peaceful coexistence. As one looks through the wreckages, a narrative of betrayal and neglect begins to unravel, revealing a sinister conspiracy to silence the voice of reason and compromise.

With the menace of conflict looming large, the urgent question resonates: can the echoes of traditional diplomacy of dialogue be resurrected before the drums of war drown out all hope for peaceful coexistence, and how can China be of help in its resurrection?

For generations, conventional diplomacy of dialogue stood as the beacon of hope in a world often besieged by the storms of conflict and discord.

Diplomats used their words with precision, forging alliances and as a result, weaving the delicate threads of international relations with finesse and grace. This was when the world was once where trust was built through the exchange of ideas, where bonds of friendship were forged over shared experiences and mutual respect.

As proof, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which not only ended the Thirty Years’ War but also laid the foundation for the modern state system, or the Camp David Accords in 1978, where President Jimmy Charter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel, setting a precedent for diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East.

However, as the digital age expanded its dazzling excellence, traditional diplomacy of dialogue found itself at a crossroads, confronting a challenging adversary in the form of rapid technological advancement.

In a world where tweets and hashtags carry more weight than treaties and virtual summits replace face-to-face negotiations, this old guard confrontation struggles to maintain its relevance in an ever-evolving landscape.

From the Korean Peninsula to the heat of Africa, examples overflow of how neglecting dialogue with adversaries only deepens cracks and prolongs suffering.

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s M23 rebellion and the Rwanda Congo situation serves as a stark reminder of this reality that is closest to us. Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue with the rebel faction, a militarized response is opted. The absence of sustained diplomatic efforts not only exacerbated the conflict but also upset attempted to address the underlying grievances fueling the rebellion, perpetuating instability and human suffering.

Similarly, the standoff between North Korea and the international community underscores the risks of neglecting diplomacy. Despite repeated attempts at negotiations, including multilateral talks and bilateral engagements, the North Korean nuclear issue remains unresolved. The absence of sustained dialogue has led to periodic escalations and heightened tensions, stressing the urgent need for diplomatic engagement.

In the Middle East, from the occupied territories of Palestine to the war-torn landscapes of Syria, the failure to prioritize diplomacy has perpetuated conflict and hindered efforts for peace.

These examples underscore the critical importance of embracing the dying traditional diplomacy of dialogue as a means of resolving global conflicts. While military interventions may offer temporary solutions, they often exacerbate tensions and sow the seeds of future strife.

To address the question that was previously raised; As a significant global force and a central actor on the world’s stage China continues to foster the resurrection of dialogue as the foremost instrument for resolving conflicts and this is how;

Sustained dialogue, grounded in mutual understanding and compromise, remains the most effective pathway to lasting peace and stability and China emerges as a formidable player for its diplomatic strategies that prioritize dialogue and cooperation, even with adversaries.

In the stormy seas of international relations, China’s approach to diplomacy stands as a beacon of stability and pragmatism. Rooted in the time-honored tradition of dialogue and cooperation, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers invaluable lessons for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world.

At the heart of China’s diplomatic philosophy lies a steadfast commitment to dialogue. Amidst differences and tensions, China recognizes the indispensable role of communication and negotiation in preventing conflicts and fostering mutual understanding. Whether engaging with adversaries or allies, China’s dedication to dialogue remains firm, serving as a cornerstone of its diplomatic approach.

Territorial disputes, particularly in the South China Sea, exemplify China’s emphasis on diplomatic engagement and regional cooperation. Through platforms like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China seeks peaceful resolution and manages tensions, demonstrating the power of dialogue in promoting stability in contested regions.

Ongoing negotiations with neighboring nations underscore China’s commitment to resolving disputes through diplomatic channels, showcasing a pragmatic and constructive approach to conflict resolution.

Furthermore, China prioritizes identifying mutual interests with adversaries to foster cooperation across a spectrum of issues. From trade and environmental protection to global governance, China not only builds trust but also cultivates a conducive environment for sustainable cooperation amidst diverging interests.

Above all, China places a premium on stability and harmony in international campaigns and prioritizing dialogue and cooperation, China contributes to a more peaceful world order. Whether mediating conflicts or participating in multilateral forums, China’s diplomatic judgement promotes prosperity and security for all nations.

In recognizing the interconnectedness of our global community, China advocates for diplomatic solutions to conflicts, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and mutual respect.

From the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East and Africa, China’s diplomatic engagements exemplify its role as a responsible global actor committed to fostering peace and prosperity.

To sum it all up, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers a compelling narrative for navigating the complexities of international relations. By embracing dialogue, managing disputes, focusing on mutual interests, and prioritizing stability, China sets an exemplary standard for fostering a more harmonious and prosperous global community. It’s diplomatic wisdom servings as a guiding light towards a more peace world, China’s diplomatic blueprint is hope for this dying art of diplomacy in the face of its death.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

Harmony as China’s grand strategy

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Historically, it has been customary for major global powers to forcefully have their way. China has defied many details of how such nations behave. In close to half a century, China has neither fought a single major war nor killed large numbers of foreigners. It has tried to hold true to principles of peaceful co-existence, mutual respect and harmony with other countries.

To render context and further appreciate how inspiringly odd this is, let us look at China’s nemesis. Just between the end of World War II and 2001, the United States instigated 201 out of the 248-armed conflicts that happened in 153 places around the world. Currently, the United States has 5 major ongoing wars and about 10 shadow wars.  China has none.

So, as a major global power, what is China’s grand strategy?

China has religiously maintained a set of principles for conducting international relations dating as far back as the 1950s. These “Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence” have informed China’s utter opposition to power politics which had for centuries been the fashion of conducting international relations, especially by powerful states.

However, I will not commit the gullible mistake of interpreting China’s aims based on what it says. I will instead analyse its long-term behaviour. It is cliché in international relations studies that “what the state does matters more than what the state says.”

China has mastered an effective, simple and enduring strategy of winning by establishing harmonious dealings with every country. And it is not because they are incapable of hard military firepower but because they understand that lasting peace can only come from peaceful co-existence.

While the United States has established military bases, weapons and forces on every arm and leg of the world as part of its grand strategy, China has peacefully integrated more than 150 countries and 75 percent of the world’s population under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The government of China has also improved domestic social conditions of its 1.4 billion citizens. This is the best way of earning legitimacy at home and it is key to realising long-term stability both domestically and internationally. A nation strained by division at home can barely achieve any foreign policy objectives.

This stature by such a powerful nation is very inspiring in the realm of international relations. And it is historically rooted in the DNA of Chinese leaders to harness peace and harmony as much as they can in how they deal with every country in the world, big or small.

In 1974, the Chinese leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping addressed the United Nations General Assembly and made one of the speeches that informed the way China behaves today. He said:

“If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation the people of the world should identify it as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow China.”

Fifty years later, China has not changed color and as such has neither been opposed nor overthrown by the Chinese people or the people of the world.

Through various policies such as the Belt and Road Initiative, China has also extended the reach and expanded the breadth of its tradition of economic self-sufficiency. Both the people of China and millions of people in the developing world are benefiting from development support aimed at making their countries self-sustaining.

Such unconditional support for the rest of the world will surely obtain geo-political influence and reciprocal support for China in many years to come.

Even in the face of territorial claims, China has avoided the use of force and instead pursued a good-neighbor policy that seeks to mend ties with its neighbors. Protected by two giant oceans and bordered by two friendly states- Canada and Mexico, the United States which still exercises the “Monroe doctrine” would never comprehend how China sustains a harmonious relationship with its neighbors yet it has one of the longest borders of any country in the world.

This is all testament to the sincerity with which China has upheld the five principles of peaceful co-existence, first articulated by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1953 as mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence.

China has defied conventional knowledge about so many things. It is a country whose major contribution to the rest of the world might be in being an example of alternative possibilities. One such possibility is that you can be a rich, powerful country without bullying or using the force of arms to legitimize your footprints around the world. You can respect the sovereignty of other countries and even support them to develop without conditions. It is the first time in history we are seeing with such a country.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Scapegoating: The Bipartisan Front Against China in U.S. Politics

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Moshi Israel

In recent years, the landscape in U.S. domestic politics has been characterised by increasing polarisation and a tendency to attribute internal challenges to external actors. The main victim for this finger-pointing has been China. This trend not only highlights the strain in U.S.-China relations but also points to a broader mechanism at play; Scapegoating. In this article, I aim to delve into the reasons behind the scapegoating of China by the U.S, examine some specific instances where China has been blamed for American issues, and explore the broader implications of this phenomenon.

In the Bible, in Old Testament Jewish tradition, a scapegoat was a sacrificial goat on which sins were placed and was then released into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people. Currently, scapegoating refers to the practice of blaming an individual or a group for a wide range of problems, often without sufficient evidence. In the context of the United States, scapegoating is a way to divert public dissatisfaction away from domestic policy failures and on to an ‘external enemy’ somewhere. It is also a foreign policy mechanism of creating an adversary to constantly ‘protect’ the people from, consequently, justifying exorbitant defense budgets and questionable international adventures. This strategy is not new. Scapegoating has been used throughout history by states to distract from internal issues, unify public opinion and justify policy decisions.

Scapegoating is usually propagated on the crowds of citizens as a coping mechanism where their rage is pointed to a visible ever-present external enemy, the source of all problems. And it is often promised that with the defeat of that enemy, everything will come back to normal. However, as it is so often, after defeating one created enemy, another one is created in their place. This is because the fundamental problem is not with the monster outside the gates that is always popping up, instead the problem is within, the people must be kept distracted long enough to hopefully never discover that their being devoured from within.

The U.S’ focus on China can be traced back to several factors, including economic competition, ideological differences, and security concerns. The tension between the two giants is made even more worrisome due to media spin and political rhetoric that often paint China as the antagonist in spheres of trade and technology. China is the only truly viable economic competitor of the United States, being an even bigger economy than the United States with a GDP of $35 trillion in terms of PPP compared to $27trillion of the U.S.

The scapegoating of China by the U.S has come in various forms. Economically, China has been accused of unfair trade practices, with sharp rhetoric from U.S leaders like Donald Trump who claimed China is economically ‘raping’ the U.S and Joe Biden who claimed China will ‘eat our lunch.’ Additionally, the U.S has had issues with China regarding intellectual property and currency manipulation which the U.S points to as the reason for the industrialization of certain American sectors. Everyone remembers the infamous Trump trade war with China. Politically, the Covid-19 crisis has been blamed on China and some U.S politicians have not been shy to use derogatory language against China. Senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham have been vocal on the so-called origins of Covid-19. On the other hand, Pelosi, Majority leader Chuck Schumer and Marco Rubio have all criticized China on human rights and the mere fact that China is economically competing with the U.S. Rubio even went as far as lamenting that what China offers the world is a direct challenge to U.S national interests and values. This is not to mention all the U.S provocations of China concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Currently, there is the Saga of banning the popular Chinese owned social media app ‘TIK TOK.’ The U.S claims the app poses a national security risk citing the potential for the Chinese government to access user data or disseminate misinformation. This focus on Tik Tok shadows broader issues within the tech industry such as data privacy, cyber surveillance and influence of social media over public opinion. Singling out Tik Tok is partisan and does not reflect well on the U.S congress. It is a form of killing off competition, hindering innovation and raises questions of free speech in a country which claims to have been founded on the fundamental right of freedom of Speech. There are calls for there to be comprehensive data protection laws that affect all companies and not just those based in China. Singling out china diverts attention from the much needed reforms in the tech industry concerning user information.

All these accusations against China are simplistic and short-sighted at best, they tend to ignore the complexities of international relations and eventually put world peace and prosperity at risk. China and the U.S must cooperate for the good of the world. China has raised a valid claim that the current global order is broken and needs fixing, the days of a unipolar world order are gone and it is time for a new multipolar world. This kind of adversarial approach to China hinders cooperation on Climate Change, International Security and pandemic response.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow with the Development Watch Centre