Follow us on social

Shutterstock_758568595-scaled

Why China is tip-toeing into Middle East security

For the U.S., cooperating with Beijing and not forcing its Gulf trading partners to take sides would be good strategy in the long run.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

The Persian Gulf region and the rest of Asia have typically been treated as separate geographic and analytic entities despite the fact they belong to the same continent and share historical ties. Discussions about regional cooperation have mainly revolved around oil and remittances sent by migrant workers. 

This conventional thinking has predictably fallen short in appreciating the greater number of overlapping strategic interests between the Gulf and Asia. Bucking the tradition, a new edited volume, “The Arab Gulf’s Pivot to Asia: From Transactional to Strategic Partnerships,” addresses this. The argument is simple but far-reaching: The Gulf-Asia nexus can alter the regional architecture underwritten by the United States, and therefore merits greater engagement from policymakers.

Last week the Arab Gulf States Institute hosted a panel comprising the volume’s editor Narayanappa Janardhan alongside three contributing authors. They discussed their book in the context of recent developments in world politics. Of the themes addressed, two are particularly timely, as the Biden administration inches toward forming a defense bloc with Australia, Japan, and India — otherwise known as "the Quad" — to counter China’s influence in the so-called “Indo-Pacific” region. 

One such theme is the strategic independence of the littoral countries. The other is what Steve Tsang, the director of China Institute at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), termed the “selective decoupling” of the United States and China.

As to the former, Washington may have overestimated the support it hopes to get if the Gulf countries are forced to take sides in an all-encompassing strategic competition between the United States and China. Decades of entanglement in the conflict-prone region may have helped the U.S. defense industry, but it barely improved U.S. credibility among the key actors, who are perhaps trying to break away from the vicious cycle of the past and forge a new path toward prosperity. They are also grappling with the fact that oil reserves are not replenishable. Nor are the demands, as the major economies are flocking towards renewable energy. 

Hence, these countries need reliable buyers of their principal export as well as trading partners. China fits the bill for both, as the country is now the largest crude oil importer. It procures 44 to 56 percent of its annual supply from the Middle East, according to Christopher Colley, a professor at the National Defense College in the United Arab Emirates, who also wrote a chapter in the book. Estimates suggest that China will continue to have a robust appetite for oil, making it too lucrative a customer for the Gulf countries to lose.

Meanwhile, China has also significantly expanded its investment in the Persian Gulf. It is also a big four Asian country, along with Japan, India, and South Korea, with whom the Gulf Cooperation Council’s trade is greater than its trade with the United States or Europe. For them, the semblance of a win-win partnership with China is real. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that the Gulf countries want to maintain strategic independence when it comes to trade and investment, and the United States should accept that development.  

It is not only the Gulf countries that hold dearly to the idea of strategic independence. China, too, wants to maintain it, which, in turn, gives rise to its strategic decoupling from the United States. 

This is exemplified by China’s self-reliance in selected sectors, as shown with Xi Jinping’s “Made in China 2025” campaign

Selective decoupling has the potential to undermine the status quo system’s logic and create tension between its principal architect and its chief beneficiary, assuming that China will want to do business in its way. Therefore, it is likely to create a world divided between two loosely defined blocs. However, Tsang reiterates that “it is not the reversal of globalization,” meaning that there will still be avenues where the United States and China can cooperate. But that is easier said than done, given the escalating rhetoric against China that the Biden administration inherited from its predecessor. If this trend continues, the chance is that the U.S.-China rivalry will shape up to be a zero-sum competition akin to the Cold War, which is not good news for the world. 

Instead of taking a confrontational route, the United States should reorient its diplomatic assets in updating the old system. Given that the mistrust between the two countries traces its roots to the unknowability of their military intention, it would be prudent for them to undertake confidence-building projects. One obvious area of cooperation is sharing the responsibility to protect mutual interests. Secure sea lines of communication are of interest to both the United States and China, and there is no reason for the United States to unconditionally expend its resources on it when China is capable of shouldering some of the burdens. 

According to Xinhua, since 2008, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), operating off the Gulf of Aden, has escorted 51 percent foreign merchant ships. Citing various estimates, Colley points out that China is capable of expanding its presence by fielding some 18 warships to patrol the Indian Ocean region. Only by combining careful planning and coordination can the United States and China achieve their common goals while enhancing mutual trust.

In the end, cooperating with China and not forcing its Gulf trading partners to take sides in U.S.-China rivalry would be the best strategic bet for the United States in the long run. After all, the closer the Gulf and Asia come, the better for the people of the two regions and the lesser the costs for the United States to bear. 

Policy prescriptions like this are not typically put out by the U.S. foreign policy establishment — all the more reason why they should not be put aside, especially when U.S. strategic anxiety about China is frequently on display. Washington should pay heed to the panelists who stress that the Gulf allies want greater cooperation with both the United States and China, not to get stuck in the middle of an epochal competition between the two.

The Republic of China Navy
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest