Middle Kingdom and ‘boomerang effect’

President Xi Jinping, on the eve of assuming the supreme leadership of China, came forward with the notion that China, the Middle Kingdom, lost its grandeur and supremacy in the middle of the 19th century to Western influence and encroachment, as well as the Japanese and island kingdoms that essentially acted as imperial Western powers inflicting military defeats against the massive but inadequate Chinese forces.
In response to this historical event, referred to by President Xi as a “century of humiliation”, China has taken steps to return to prominence. The Middle Kingdom once again stands tall, restored to its prior glory, and having moved from their prior humiliation to a position of strength, China is vengeful and eager to act as such. Their assertiveness has positioned them within a place of global prominence, albeit doing so through largely unchecked aggression.
Although the aggression has yet to lead to active measures being taken, the steps for this have seemingly been taken, through a military build-up and technological development, particularly with an expanded military presence in the Indo-Pacific region as well as in outer space. It stands to reason that China’s military presence in the Atlantic Ocean is not a question of if, but when.
More specifically, China has increased its military presence in the Himalayas in response to the territorial dispute with India, while in the South China Sea, and to a lesser extent in the East China Sea, militaristic actions through air and sea have been constantly taken to intimidate and coerce sovereign states with internationally recognised claims to the waters and the resources within.
Although there has been no official dispute between China and Asean nations with regards to management and utilisation of the Mekong River, China has been acting in a dominant manner without transparency.
A common theme in the aforementioned examples is China’s unilateral posturing. They have completely ignored the rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which held that China’s historical claims over maritime areas inside their purported “nine-dash line” of the South China Sea are void of historical facts and evidence and have no basis in established international law. Yet despite this blatant flaunting of international doctrine, China remains a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
On the other hand, China has successfully propagated itself as a viable trade and socioeconomic development partner of the Global South. Its development arm, the Belt and Road Initiative has been well-recognised for both positive and negative reasons worldwide. Unfortunately, many projects and programmes that the initiative has funded have failed to live up to their desired impact or sustainability. Recipients of Chinese financial assistance have fallen into a debt trap situation, leading to them becoming what is essentially a client state instead of being a partner. Such is a reflection of emerging Chinese imperialism or neo-colonialism. In response, China’s leadership must review and take stock of such an approach. Many countries in the Global South have endured periods of Western dominance and exploitation, and although they might welcome China’s gesture of friendship and partnership, they do not wish to fall under the thumb of the re-emerging Middle Kingdom.
Coming back to the issue of politics and security, China’s newest friends and partners mainly include the likes of Russia, North Korea and, to a lesser extent, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. But looking out from the window of Beijing, Shanghai or Shenzhen, the Chinese leadership will surely see the strengthening of the Quad arrangement, sets of tripartite cooperation such as US-Japan-South Korea; US-Japan-the Philippines, Augus; US-Japan-India, US-Australia-India etc and the enhanced sets of bilateral relations such as India-Vietnam; India-the Philippines; Vietnam-the Philippines; and Japan-the Philippines. All of these cooperative activities have their beginnings or root causes from the assertive and aggressive stances taken by China. China has projected itself outward, and the reaction from the regent has come home back to China. It is essentially a boomerang.
China would do well to lessen this increased tension and confrontation by promoting diplomacy and dialogue. The Middle Kingdom should look to act in a refined and collected manner of a traditional nation-state of the past and pay homage to the Middle Kingdom not out of fear or military threat but through the respect and admiration that was once earned. The Middle Kingdom was the centre of civilisation. Acting in the interests of the greater good through civility represents the most beneficial aspect of humankind.
Kasit Piromya is a board member of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and a former Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs.