China’s international image has been decades in the making. Although democracy and human rights have never been high on the Communist Party’s agenda – phenomenal economic growth paired with a reasonable record of line towing with regards to international organisations and diplomacy resulted in acceptance by many Western nations of China’s authoritarian regime. Some even suggested that China might provide an alternative model to Western capitalist democracies for developing nations. But much has changed in the last 6 months. Corona virus has placed China under the world spotlight, not in a manner of Beijing’s choosing. What are the implications for global relations going forward?
Some of the less savoury aspects of just how the massive apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party works have become increasingly clear. From the Hong Kong protests to the mass internment camps of China’s Uighur Muslims, along with advanced surveillance schemes and claims of the debt trap diplomacy of its Belt and Road initiative – China’s image is showing signs of strain. And this was before the arrival of corona virus. The live and let live approach seems ever more difficult to justify. But what are the alternatives? Hong Kong provides a poignant example of just how difficult a change in approach may be.
Increasing tensions between China and Hong Kong are perhaps one of the greatest sources of embarrassment for a nation for whom ‘face saving’ is essential. After months of protest by pro-democracy groups, local Hong Kong elections showed that the vast majority of Hong Kongers support the protesters. Contrary to narratives portraying the protesters as criminal thugs, bent on disrupting one of China’s most prosperous financial hubs, these results surprised even Beijing.
The end of One Country Two Systems?
In contrast to Beijing’s trust in the power of economic prosperity to ensure compliance, a combination of factors have created a storm that has proved difficult to contain. For years now, Hong Kong has seen its basic rights eroded and ‘reinterpreted’ by Beijing and its supporters. This, in combination with a lack of social welfare investment in Hong Kong, soaring house prices and erosion of job opportunities by an influx of mainlanders have created rising levels of anger and discontent among Hong Kong’s youth. Beijing has now announced its intention to introduce national security legislation in Hong Kong. It will be inserted directly into the city’s Basic Law framework, by-passing local legislative processes. Widespread international criticism has ensued.
Close on the heels of the Hong Kong protests and Taiwan’s choice of pro-democracy leader, Tsai Ing-Wen, in January elections, came the Xinjian Papers. Over 400 pages of leaked documents, detailing exactly how ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region would be ‘re-educated’ in government organised ‘training schools’. These internal documents were leaked to the New York Times by a concerned member of the Communist Party. They reveal just how different the sanitized narrative of job training centers for China’s Muslim minority is from the chilling reality of exactly how officials should go about organising the most extensive internment campaign since the Mao era.
Black-listed on China’s social credit system?
Beijing’s social credit system, due to come into full effect in 2020, exemplifies the kind of social control of which any self-respecting totalitarian regime would be proud. Although commentators say that its reach is still patchy, the ideas behind it are draconian. Credit is not only gained, it can also be lost and an individual may be black-listed as a result. If this happens, rights can be removed, including one’s right to travel, buy property or take out a loan. When this happens, as it did to Chinese journalist, Liu Hu, there is little one can do. There was no file, no police warrant, no advance notification, in his case. A lack of due process, makes recourse to justice extremely difficult.
These are just some of Beijing’s less savoury projects. Much has been written about the so-called debt-trap diplomacy of its Belt and Road Initiative. Designed to bolster China’s image and extend its influence as a superpower, this trillion dollar project was coming under pressure before the pandemic. Global economic slowdown and increasing concerns about a lack of transparency surrounding China’s lending schemes were proving problematic. Rising debt levels associated with the pandemic have meant that many of China’s developing world debtors are unable to meet repayment schedules. China was a signatory to a recent pledge by the Group of 20 rich economies to cease collecting interest from poor countries for the rest of the year. However many large Belt and Road loans are “not applicable for debt relief” China has stated.
China’s struggle to control the Covid 19 narrative.
The irony of course is that the source of the pandemic has been traced to China, specifically, the wet markets of Wuhan. This has become an increasingly sore point for Beijing as Covid 19 continues to cause death and economic destruction across the globe. Numerous countries have called for an independent inquiry into the issue both with regards to the actions of the Chinese government and those of the World Health Organisation. So far Beijing has rebutted these requests and focused instead on forcefully promoting a narrative designed to salvage something of China’s international image. China as role model for its containment of the virus and later as benefactor to other, less prepared countries. It continues to insist on Taiwan’s exclusion from the WHO, although the latter’s handling of the pandemic has been among the most effective in the world.
What does the future hold? At a recent Chatham House rules event, a number of experts on China drew on the country’s history in order to provide a context for its future path. More than one pointed to the importance of the Chinese narrative of their history staring in the 5th century BC. Their power and dominance continued right up until 1900. After which came the so-called century of humiliation for China. This ended in the 1970’s as China came out of isolation and focused on inclusion in global governance institutions and wider international acceptance. By 2010, China was ready to step forward into a more assertive role . In the last few years in particular, its actions in the South China Sea, border disputes with India and an ongoing trade war with the US highlight an increasingly assertive approach to international relations.
Is it simply a matter of time?
Rising Chinese nationalism has traditionally gone hand-in-hand with the nation’s increasing global dominance. Yet the political and economic fall out of the pandemic have upset this trajectory. China’s image has been undeniably tarnished by the corona virus. What’s more, the ensuing scrutiny has only served to highlight other areas of dubious dealings. Ultimately, the answer lies with the Chinese people themselves. Will the Communist Party continue to be able to provide sufficient prosperity to quieten a desire for more individual rights and freedoms? History suggests not, especially given events in Hong Kong and Taiwan. But the time scale of rising discontent, is also a major factor and that is far more difficult to gauge.
