Asia takes diplomacy away from the West
China is not angry, China is focused – the second half of the year will be full of international events in which it is Beijing that is to play the leading and decisive role. In other words, the epicentre of world diplomacy has shifted to Asia since July.
This material has circulated throughout the bouquet of official Beijing media, and it is interesting first and foremost by listing those very international meetings and events. It is the meeting of the G20 foreign ministers in the coming days – and the ministers will decide on the scenario for the summit of the world’s top twenty economies which will be held in Indonesia in November. In the autumn, quite a few G20 participants are expected to attend the APEC summit in Thailand, which is only for the Pacific economies, i.e. there will be no guests from Europe or the Middle East but the leaders of the USA and China, Russia and Japan and so on are to talk once again. The Chinese have also included their 20th congress of the ruling party, which will also be held in the autumn, in an international event of global significance. Why: It must show the country and the world how Beijing sees its objectives for the next few years. And there are expected to be numerous meetings of Asian countries only, where China, mainly involving its foreign minister, will play its role of a diplomat of global importance.
Yes, the essence of all these events is precisely the active role of China. Both in the region and in the world in general. Beijing’s definition of this role, generally speaking, is as follows: the partner countries should receive a “strong reassurance impulse”; the Asian countries will show the world that they have “their own wisdom and their own plans on how they should solve the problems of security and their own development”.
It remains to be seen how this general idea will be translated into concrete action, but the wait is not long.
Why this situation (with the “Asian season” in world diplomacy) should be of interest to us all: because someone got carried away with the gloomy idea that global diplomacy is dead. And it isn’t. It is dead in a western group of countries that do nothing but rally their ranks and threaten Moscow, Beijing and others. But diplomacy is very much alive in the rest of the world. Moreover, diplomacy is very much alive in the rest of the world right now.
There are two scenarios for what will happen next autumn. The first one is the demise of at least two of the aforementioned mechanisms – the G20 and APEC. The fact is that they were originally designed to foster cooperation between countries with different ideologies and political systems – based on the simple idea that economic survival and global development are more important than divergent forms of governance. In both mechanisms, the voices of “Westerners” and “others” are split roughly down the middle. Asia, represented by Beijing or, for example, Jakarta (Indonesia, host of the G20 meeting) say roughly the following: you, the West, may foment your European wars as much as you like, but only as long as it does not affect our economy. Your sanctions are your business, as long as they do not become our business.
And then the Westerners at least begin to come to their senses and work out the rules of conduct with the non-West – that is, with us. The question is whether they will have time to come to grips with such an idea by this autumn. If not, the two economic mechanisms, the G20 and APEC, will simply be meaningless.
Scenario number two: seeing that the leaders of the non-Western world (especially China) are increasingly subjected to sanctions, “ours” will use the dying and blocked mechanisms of former cooperation as a platform for discussing how to circumvent the sanctions regimes. In other words, there will continue to be not one global world, but two, one in which everything works, including economics and diplomacy.
So far, the second scenario seems to be more realistic. Beijing, and Russia and many others, are pursuing it as well. The surge in diplomacy is evidence of that. You have not only noticed that Chinese diplomacy has become very active in recent months but ours as well, haven’t you?
What scenario is being played out so far by the Westerners when they are not engaged in mutual relations: thoughts on the subject are published regularly. But those thoughts cannot be called fruitful. Charles Kupchan says in The National Interest that the US and its allies cannot cope with the Russo-Chinese alliance, which is why they need to create a rift between Moscow and Beijing to win a new Cold War. Failure to do so would result in an “ungoverned” multipolar world in which the West would be forced to reckon with a strengthened East.
Isn’t there something newer and more realistic? At least not by this author. There are, however, other authors – for example Philip Zelikow in Foreign Affairs magazine. He vacillates between optimism and pessimism. On the one hand, it is good that Westerners’ actions destroy oil and gas as an energy source (the author is obviously from the “Witnesses to Climate Disaster” sect). On the other hand, “alternative energy sources”, in which he believes with all his soul, means the transition from one dependence to another, and in fact the former – because alternative energy production requires metals and minerals, which the same China and Russia have mostly. It doesn’t look good.
And if so, Philip Zelikov thinks, then the new world order must be built in such a way that “even Beijing” would have a place at the table where decisions are made. For this, of course, China should break off all relations with Russia. The task is so good that for the sake of it it is not a shame to invent a completely new world order, build a new financial system (the current one is not working), adopt a grand plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
In short, all that is left is to think up a new world order and persuade the Chinese leadership to join it. And what should not be done – or stopped with, says the author – is to make empty speeches and make menacing postures. The old world is broken, a new one is needed.
Actually, about “broken” we have something of an international consensus. It remains to be seen how during the “Asian diplomatic year” China and its friends will be able to rally like-minded people and offer them rules of conduct in the new world.
Dmitry Kosyrev, RIA
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel