Iraq: who might tip the balance?
Talk at embassy parties in Beijing has turned abruptly from gossip about the new leadership to questions over whether diplomats are prepared to accept China's growing role as an international power.
The world order, following the end of the war on Iraq, may be divided into nations unconditionally obeying the United States and those seeking self-determination. Germany, France and Russia represent the second camp, while smaller European countries are running for cover. The power to tip the global scales could lie with China.
At Wen Jiabao's inaugural press conference, the new premier dumbfounded journalists by talking about UN resolution 1441 as US bombs fell on Iraq. China's foreign ministry later demanded that the war be halted immediately and expressed 'deep concern over the present situation', as if America cared. Diplomats wonder whether China's new leadership realises the next travesties could happen on its doorstep - in North Korea.
Nations expressing support for, or condemnation of, America's new pre-emptive strike doctrine await China's position. At present, it is double edged. China calls for a peaceful UN framework solution, and it accepts military intervention as a last resort. It straddles both sides without committing to either. China, in fact, loathes unilateral intervention, but fears offending the US.
The unfolding campaign in Iraq raises concerns in China. The country's foreign-policy framework is ambivalent about a US 'international' era. Its debates move between hard, neutral and condescending approaches. Former president Jiang Zemin's US foreign policy - 'seeking commonalities, respecting differences' and 'strategic partnership' - was met with policies of containment, engagement, the Belgrade embassy bombing and the EP-3 spy plane incident.
All this has raised doubts over any eventual US acceptance of China's system and social values, and led to fears that China may take the place of former Cold War foes like the Soviet Union, at least in the mind of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
China's foreign policy has operated under the principle of economic advancement through conflict avoidance set by Deng Xiaoping a decade ago. Observing the Soviet Union's collapse, Deng borrowed Sun Tzu's philosophy to 'hide one's views until opportunity turns in one's favour'. But now that China is the world's fastest-growing economy, the world wants to know where it stands.
Myopic practicality governs China's foreign policy today. It wishes to sidestep the Iraq issue and is more concerned about whether its existing commercial contracts will be honoured by the new authority there, than the morality or principles of the war.
The Iraq issue now divides the world. China's foreign ministry continues to express 'sympathy for American security concerns' but 'serious concerns' over its invasion of Iraq, astonishing foreign diplomats in Beijing, who fear an indecisive China may become a lost country in a new international order.
Mr Jiang, now chairman of the Central Military Commission, raised concerns about North Korea when he spoke to US President George W. Bush last week. Unfortunately, China's three-point North Korea policy - a nuclear-free peninsula, maintaining peace and stability, and solving problems through peaceful dialogue - are unlikely to be Bush-compatible.
The problem is not Iraq, it is the US, a nation determined to extend its military-industrial economic model and its political theology. The problems created by this will land on China's doorstep next within two to six months. As the North Korean crisis bubbles, one thing is certain: Mr Bush will play with all chips on the table, including Taiwan.
Laurence Brahm is a political economist and lawyer based in Beijing
