The United States’ Changing China Policy, Traces of China in the Middle East

I ended my previous article with a quote from the Global Times newspaper. That quote mentioned that socialist China’s success has created a rival system for the United States, and that the U.S. sees this as a threat in the long term. Examining the question of whether or not a rival system exists between America and socialist China is a comprehensive task in itself and could fill a number of articles and even books. Even so, although a bit speculative, we can suggest a question such as this: “Could the partially populist policies that Joe Biden is following today, and the attempts to reform brutal (neoliberal) capitalism, be related to the success that China’s system has witnessed?”

As everyone knows, during the pandemic, the myth of America as a superpower and the “American Dream” were greatly tarnished under Donald Trump’s administration. As neoliberal capitalism pulled the U.S. undertow, which it implemented in its most vicious form, socialist China arose. China won the struggle against the pandemic by declaring “our people’s health first,” and then quickly recovered its economy. This means that China rescued its economy by first safeguarding its people. What’s more, whenever we think about this subject, let us keep in mind the growing sympathy for socialism in the U.S., especially among the younger population.

The quote I mentioned above, after stating that U.S. antipathy would threaten China’s national security, and that China should take several precautions, added, “Only by stabilizing the situation with the incremental strength that we keep accumulating can we eventually turn the tables. This process is destined to be difficult. We should be resilient rather than seek momentary gratification. The longer the game China and the U.S. play, the less likely the U.S. will endure.” However, this game may not be as difficult as China expected. As far as anyone can see, the U.S. is prepared to abandon this harsh and no-holds-barred game. This is because Biden, in his first 100-days speech, threw in the towel on (a directly interventionist) rogue policy designed to be implemented against China. Both Biden and his secretary of state spoke as if they were almost saying, “We will only compete fiercely with China.” The reason for this change in policy is that they have not been able to convince certain other U.S. allies, especially EU countries, to participate in its rogue policy on China. An op-ed, titled “Getting tough on China more rhetoric than reality” and published on May 29, 2021 on the Asian Times website, stated that, “Many countries, including the U.S., E.U. and their allies will not risk their own economic interests by targeting China.”*

I do not know if it is too early to hope that the U.S. realizes, by following in the EU’s tracks, that its visions of a bipolar world are now a dream.

China Coming into the US’s Garden

According to an editorial published on the China Global Television Network website, China’s state councilor and foreign minister Wang Yi’s Middle East tour “comes at a time when the energy-rich economies appear to be slowly distancing themselves from the United States and moving toward China.” Recent developments will show whether or not the situation is exactly like this. According to what is written in Chinese Communist Party sources, “The U.S. has turned the Middle East into a web of problems and hostility with the imperialist interventions it has staged in the region. The countries of the region are tired of the U.S.’s imperialist interventionist policies. It seems that they have begun to notice that America’s policies have destroyed peace and stability in the region, have not at all been beneficial for these countries’ development and, exactly the contrary, have hindered their development.”

It is known that the Middle East is a region that the U.S. considered its own backyard. China has thus started to wander into this “backyard.” Furthermore, by speaking about peace and stability, not hostility and problems with countries and with the region, China has begun to wander around by promising economic cooperation and development, not an insistence on buying more weapons and pressure to control oil. To this end, China has proposed a five-point “peace and stability” plan for its role in facilitating the solution of nearly all regional issues for the Middle East. China has stated that it will be able to take on the role of mediator for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and meetings between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is hard to guess what kind of response the U.S. will give to this “peace and stability” plan of China’s. However, by considering the CCP’s theses that I mentioned above, we can expect the countries of the region to positively approach this role that China has proposed; China has not taken a side in the problems experienced by these countries and has no share of the blame in any issue experienced in the region.

China has another reason to be interested in Israel: Israeli-developed reconnaissance planes. China apparently wanted to buy some of these planes; the U.S., however, prevented the sale by paying the down payment to Israel that China had put down. This technology attracts a lot of interests from China.

The Middle East-Persian Gulf is not only the world’s richest oil region, it is also a region that has a lot of money but produces nearly zero manufactured products. According to CCP documents, various countries have begun to worry about post-oil issues, and have apparently found forging cooperation with China on this issue worthwhile. The expectations of several regional countries for development in response to China’s wish to guarantee its giant energy needs in the years to come…. This is a very comprehensive initiative with large collaboration. Moreover, it is not just an economic cooperation initiative, there is also a “political” dimension that China has not involved itself in until today: The Middle East “peace and stability” plan. It is now this political dimension that makes the subject interesting (and that will disrupt the order that the U.S. established in its backyard).

*Translator note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified. It looks as though the author is summarizing the article in his own words, rather than quoting directly.