China’s ‘peace’ diplomacy

THE recent tour of Chinese President Hu Jintao has included visits to three major countries on three continents: the US, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. He is soon expected in Pakistan also, on his first visit as president in a year that marks 55 years of diplomatic relations. Pakistan also received a visit from US President Bush in March, and an earlier visit from Saudi King Abdullah.

High-level diplomacy has become the norm in this century, and is being used to highlight the involvement of the highest echelons in managing global politics and economics. As summit diplomacy has flourished, multilateral diplomacy has lost ground, though the world’s problems are increasingly global and require management at the regional and trans-continental level. This is being remedied through “conference diplomacy” with multilateral get-togethers to consider various problems and issues. It is interesting how civilisational and ideological values are reflected in the way major countries conduct their international relations.

The past six decades have also witnessed a certain historical evolution, and a quickening tempo of transitions is in evidence. The end of the Second World War witnessed two phases in the second half of the 20th century, consisting of the Cold War and the post-Cold War periods. The current century began with the unipolarism of the US that was accentuated by the 9/11 events. However, we are witnessing a globalisation of challenges, as the planet’s resources and environment come under strain and demand collective management. The Chinese response to the current situation needs to be evaluated against the imperatives of our time.

Ever since China began its peaceful rise in 1978 and was able to maintain a growth rate of nine to 10 per cent per year, analysts in the West have worried whether China will integrate with the existing order, based on political pluralism and market-based economy, or choose to challenge it or transform it. Surprisingly, the challenge to the order set up after the Second World War, that was based on the principles of the UN Charter, which were an elaboration of the Atlantic Charter, has not come from China, but from the main author of the UN Charter, namely the US itself.

As long as the Cold War lasted, and the Soviet Union symbolised the challenge of the masses to their exploitation under the capitalist order, the tussle between the haves and have-nots had some meaning. The triumph of the West in the Cold War, and specially the disappearance of a balancing factor in global affairs have not produced the supremacy of Jeffersonian democracy or of the ideals of the UN Charter, but the power-based doctrines of neo-conservatives in the US. Glib talk of human rights, and of democratic values carry little credibility when US diplomacy is dominated by Israel, and the developing world finds itself in dire straits.

When the 20th century ended, the main challenges were truly global in dimension. Though the US had achieved great progress, and its lifestyle appeared to reflect the fulfilment of all human wishes for comfort and happiness, global inequalities had grown, and vast numbers of people lacked human or economic rights. Communism had lost its appeal, as it had proved corrupt and inefficient, and the dispossessed of the world were looking for other roads to betterment. Regional cooperation and multilateral remedies were being explored and developed.

After communism, Islam is being perceived as emerging threat to the dominance of the West. Comprising 22 per cent of the world’s population Muslim countries nevertheless account for less than five per cent of the world’s GDP, and if the few oil-rich countries are excluded, the rest are subject to extreme poverty, a situation made worse by political and economic backwardness and exploitation. A dispassionate and objective analysis of the realities on the ground will show that the resort to terrorism in some areas is a response to despair. What we are witnessing is a reliance on force to suppress terrorism by the West, while China is becoming an example of peaceful progress through development.

The US established itself in the Middle East following the Gulf War of 1991, to assure the security of Israel and of its access to the energy resources of the region. It failed to address the political issues that were causing discontent in the Islamic belt, and tended to support those victimising the Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, and elsewhere.

The unipolar world order President Bush has sought to enforce since he assumed power has created a host of new problems, and weakened the role of the multilateral organisations created to tackle the global challenges through consultation and consensus. The environment has been neglected, as the US did not endorse the Kyoto Protocol. International criminal law has been held back. Even non-proliferation issues have received a setback. China, without seeking to compete with the US, or to develop a sphere of influence, has demonstrated a certain consistency in following the principles, which have shaped its foreign policy.

When Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949, he declared that “China had stood up” and would not suffer humiliation or exploitation again. Chinese foreign policy is best encapsulated by the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” that the founding prime minister, Zhou Enlai agreed upon in 1954 with the leaders of India and Burma. In a way they constitute the essence of the UN Charter, as they proclaim sovereign equality of states, respect for sovereignty and territorial equality of states, non-interference into internal affairs of other states, mutuality of benefit in relations between states, and peaceful coexistence.

The tour of President Hu Jintao, highlighted a principle that is a natural corollary to the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, namely that China does not seek hegemony for itself and does not support the quest for hegemony by other powers, regional or global. The quest for hegemony, or spheres of influence inevitably produces rivalries, generates an arms race and leads to the threat or use of force. The situation produced by the doctrine of pre-emption adopted by the US is thee for the world to see. The inclination of the Bush administration to rely on power rather than diplomacy has produced the lowest approval rating for the president, who enjoys the support of less than a third of the US electorate.

President Hu Jintao’s visit to three major countries on three continents brought out the salient features of Chinese diplomacy, that distinguish it as it reflects the wisdom and foresight of the world’s oldest recorded civilisation. Somehow the expression “middle” goes very aptly with things Chinese. The country was traditionally named the “Middle Kingdom” because the ancient Chinese considered China the centre of human culture. Confucius, the sage who lived five centuries before Christ, and whose value system dominates in East Asia, called his approach the “middle path”, or the path of moderation, which incidentally also characterises the Islamic value system.

Other characteristics of the Confucian culture are obedience to authority, and an approach based on benevolence, that is also among the virtues espoused by Islam, to foster harmony and goodwill in human society. Since the revolution of 1949, China has sought to settle its boundaries with the numerous neighbours on the basis of friendly negotiations, frequently accommodating their point of view, as happened also in the Pakistan-China boundary agreement of 1963, in which China departed from the watershed principle to accommodate the needs of villagers in Hunza who used to migrate across the Karakorams. However, China defends its rights, where they are threatened or violated, of which Taiwan is the most important example.

Since 1978, when China began its modernisation drive, it has avoided precipitating a confrontation over contentious issues, and laid stress on peaceful settlement of disputes. The modernisation of defence is important but China is not engaged in any sort of arms race, only seeking the capacity for deterrence, so that it can stand up to policies of pressure and intimidation. Apart from the five principles mentioned above, China identifies itself with the goals of the developing world, that include a just political and economic order, with a strong role for multilateral organisations, both regional, and global.

A close look at President Hu’s tour in the second half of April will bring out the contrast in the approach of the ruling superpower and the emerging one. Having averaged an unprecedented annual growth rate of nine to 10 per cent per annum since 1978, which has made it the third economic power in the world, and which appears set to climb to the top in another two decades in terms of total GDP, China is aware of the need to allay fears that it will be challenging the current hegemons, namely the US and its allies.

The visit to the US, which was downgraded from “state” to “official” was marked by highly publicised protocol “faux pas” to show that the once low-placed communist power had been granted reluctant inclusion among the major powers, but would not earn the place enjoyed by western allies. Many issues that were a source of concern, such as trade deficit, now approaching $200 billion, and the “undervalued” yuan were raised, together with others such as democracy and human rights, Tibet, and China’s role in nuclear issues.

China gave an assurance that all of them would be taken up through diplomatic channels. China’s support against terrorism was reiterated, and the global energy crisis as well as environmental issues discussed. china reiterated its view that the UN and its role should be strengthened, with stress on diplomatic solutions. President Hu succeeded in projecting the image of a peace-loving China that had no intention of straying from its commitment to peaceful development.

The visit to Saudi Arabia highlighted China’s national and global concerns. President Hu stressed China’s desire to promote peace and stability in the Middle East by helping to resolve the political issues such as that in Palestine, and by assisting it with development. A major deal was also signed with Saudi Arabia to guarantee supplies of oil to China whose needs were growing.

China’s attitude towards Africa’s most populous country, Nigeria, contrasted with that of its traditional partners in the West who were holding back investments and aid. China concluded two major agreements, one opening up four Nigerian oilfields to Chinese exploitation, while China pledged to invest $4 billion into development projects in the country.

President Hu’s demeanour was modest, and his approach practical, in all these visits. In the US, he consciously sought to remove concerns that China would replace Russia as a future rival, or that China sought a sphere of influence. In Saudi Arabia, he held out the assurance of a positive and principled role in the Middle East where Israel is out to establish its domination with US backing. And in Nigeria, he underlined the mutual interdependence between the impoverished continent and a rising China.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Will democracy return to Pakistan?

WHEN General Ershad was ruling Bangladesh, both Khalida Zia and Sheikh Hasina were agitating for the restoration of democracy. But, at the same time, they were fighting against each other. It struck them — some well-meaning people helped them make up their mind — that they should defer their confrontation until they had ousted Ershad.

They and their parties, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Awami League, respectively, joined hands and brought back people’s rule. It is another matter that they lost no time in resuming their fight, making the nation wonder whether it would have been better off under military rule. Even today that option is not being ruled out.

I was reminded of the joint struggle in Bangladesh when I read about the meeting between Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif in London. Both stopped fighting some time ago because they had nothing to fight over. Both were in the wilderness. Benazir has said that a “meeting with Mr Sharif is aimed to discuss a joint drive for the revival of the constitution and democracy and for ending military dictatorship.” I hope that the common front will not fall apart once democracy is restored in Pakistan. Both of them must assure the people of Pakistan that the two have buried the hatchet.

However, a mere meeting is not going to erase old animosities. The stakes are too high. One of them will be the prime minister if and when democracy returns to Pakistan. It is easy to forgo even the highest office when the contestants are nowhere near attaining it. The attitude can change when the goal of prime ministership is nearly accomplished. However, Nawaz Sharif told me at Jeddah two years ago that he would ring up Benazir to offer her the office. He said he could afford to “wait” and would ask her to be the prime minister first. He was true to his words.

A few months later, I interviewed Benazir at Dubai where she lived. After checking with her, I found that Sharif had telephoned her to convey that he would like her to be the prime minister. Subsequently, they met in Jeddah to firm up the understanding. Benazir was on her way to Makkah for Umrah. The meeting in London was a sequel to the several meetings the leaders of her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Sharif’s Muslim League had held in and outside Pakistan. They tried to iron out their differences. Whether they did it to the last crease is difficult to say. But the manner in which the cadres of the two parties have begun cooperating on the ground shows that they are together at present.

The rapprochement between Benazir and Sharif is an important development because it brings together the two main political parties in Pakistan. Each has a large following and both are ideologically closer to each other than before. But their approach to military rule is somewhat different.

I found Sharif “absolutely uncompromising” on the role of the armed forces. He told me that the military could have no role in the governance in his scheme of things. It would be completely under elected rulers as was the practice in a democracy. He gave the example of India. I have not discussed the subject with Benazir. But I learn from her party leaders that she may accept the Turkish model, an apex council with the three services chiefs as its members.

The most important thing which has emerged from the London meeting is the “charter of democracy” that the two leaders have endorsed. It talks about the independence of the election commission, the judiciary and other such institutions. There is yet another point in the charter that the political parties in India might like to study. A government in power would be allowed to complete its full tenure. Although it goes against the grain of the parliamentary system, a fixed tenure can bring about political stability which the country needs.

India’s democratic structure has been trivialised because of the ambition of even a tiny party to have a share in power. The ruling party has to accommodate it to sustain a majority in parliament. The challenge before us is how to allow a coalition to settle down and govern for the full tenure because there is no likelihood for a single party to rule the country for many years to come.

The main problem that Benazir and Sharif face is how to oust the military dictatorship. Neither leader enjoys the best of reputation to evoke a popular response. What helps the situation is the announcement by the Pakistan election commission that the next election would be held under a caretaker setup. Otherwise, a popular protest like the one in Nepal is difficult to imagine. Post-independent Pakistan does not know of a single countrywide struggle.

Although the joint statement does not say anything about prime ministership, it is understood that Benazir would occupy the top position if and when the time comes.

Both the PPP and the PML-N may have to fight against the Muttihida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a combination of religious parties. It may be against President Pervez Musharraf but its track record is that it backs him up because it feels more comfortable with the armed forces than with political parties. The MMA wants to take Pakistan towards fundamentalism, not democracy. Strange, Benazir should say that she would extend “all possible cooperation to it.” This only confuses the issue.

However, the “charter of democracy” does not go far enough. Democracy without economic opportunities holds good only until polling day. Disillusionment begins soon after. Freedom is necessary but so is the bread. Both Benazir and Sharif coming from the elite strata of society as they do, have to spell out what the common man can expect if and when one of them comes to power. His sufferings are untold and he will not remain content if political freedom is without economic freedom. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru who founded the Indian institutions, “Democracy is a means to an end, not the end in itself. We talk of good of society. Is this something apart from and transcending the individuals composing it?”

Then there is the question of provincial autonomy. One of the reasons why the army could take over Pakistan easily was the centralised governance. Islamabad has too much power. It has to share it with the provinces. The agitation in Sindh many years ago and the current uprising in Balochistan should make Benazir and Sharif wiser. They cannot take the provinces for granted. India is stable because the states enjoy substantial autonomy. A popular government at Islamabad has no other option.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Sudden departure

THE US intelligence agencies failed catastrophically not once but twice in this decade: first, in not anticipating or preventing the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; and again in their misreading of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.

So it wasn’t surprising that Congress, trailed by President Bush, would demand a shake-up of the CIA and its affiliated services. Shake-ups are by definition traumatic. But it’s far from clear that the trauma inflicted by Porter J. Goss, the CIA director who quit last week after less than two years on the job, was transforming the agency in a positive way. His departure, which neither he nor Mr Bush cared to explain, offers an opportunity for improvement.

In moments such as this, it’s always worth remembering how much the press and the public don’t know about what goes on inside the CIA. It’s safe to assume that the agency has scored successes in protecting the nation that the nation will never learn of. Thousands of agency employees are working hard but in secret to prevent the next attack, and many of them are risking their lives. In an essay published on the opposite page last month, the CIA’s director of intelligence, John A. Kringen, asserted that the agency had taken on board many of the criticisms against it and changed dramatically how it operates.

But other reports have been far more disquieting. Some worrying developments can’t be laid at Mr Goss’s feet, such as the almost inevitable ballooning of the new bureaucracy created by Congress to oversee the CIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency and all the other pieces of the government’s spying operations.

—The Washington Post