COLUMN-In Syria, a rare Chinese foray into foreign policy

Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:29am EST

Related Topics

By Ian Bremer

Nov 20 (Reuters) - This month, a curious thing happened in the annals of diplomacy. A country offered up a peace plan to put an end to a seemingly endless civil war in Syria. This country was not one of the usual foreign policy suspects - it was not the United States, it was not in Europe, and it wasn't Syria's neighbor.

It was a country that has no real experience in playing the world's policeman. But, seeing a world filled with retired officers, it decided to try on the uniform for itself. China has taken another step into the spotlight of the world stage.

This is what happens in a G-Zero world - a world without any specific country or bloc of countries in charge. China has long been content to watch world events play out and then react, trusting that another country would step in to put volatile situations to rest. But that's not happening with the Syrian conflict and its spillover into the broader Middle East.

Americans feel that the issue doesn't affect them enough to intervene. Europeans, as a Union, don't seem to be particularly interested, even if some smaller countries are. And with those powers on the sidelines, suddenly the Chinese have a much bigger problem - a civil war that could metastasize into regional instability. The Chinese have far too much at stake in Iraq and Iran for that to happen: 11 percent of China's oil imports come from Iran, and it is on track to be the chief importer of Iraqi oil by 2030.

And so China stepped in, offering a peace plan. The details - cease-fire, a committee that negotiates a political solution to the war, etc. - are not as important as the plan's mere existence. It's symptomatic of China's new approach, one that Hu Jintao hinted at in one of his final addresses as Chinese president. He said China would "get more actively involved in international affairs, (and) play its due role of a major responsible country." In the wake of downturns in the West, there is a new diplomatic structure emerging. China is determined to be one of its architects.

This doesn't mean China necessarily knows what it's doing. Diplomacy is new for the Chinese, who have really only interjected themselves in regional politics and through economic investment abroad. Intervening in other countries' affairs is a tricky thing for a Chinese government that so resolutely believes sovereignty is supreme, even if human rights are being trampled. Beijing tries not to infringe on other countries' sovereignty because it would not allow others to infringe on its own. The one other time in recent years that the Chinese government has pushed for peace was in Sudan's dispute with South Sudan. But even then, when Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir visited Beijing, Hu Jintao said: "The Chinese side has always respected the will and choice of the Sudanese people." It's difficult to affect change when you're not sure if you even have the right to be affecting it.

The likelihood that China's plan is actually going to accomplish anything in Syria is basically zero. But just making an overture, as China has done, carries little risk. It pushes back at some of the scorn China's received, along with Russia, for vetoing U.N. Security Council sanctions on the Syrian government. If the Syrian situation doesn't improve, China has done no better than the West. If it does, China can perhaps claim a part, and, more importantly, ensure that its investments in Iraqi and Iranian oil are safe.

That China is wading into diplomacy here does not mean it will replace the United States in negotiations. But it does mean that the world is in transition - what was once America's domain is now no one's. It may take years for a new leader to emerge. China, despite having little history of foreign policy beyond its region, sees an opportunity there. It's likely to make mistakes, and its initial diplomatic attempts may not be entirely coherent. But it's filling a void. The question: is it a black hole or a blank canvas?

( Ian Bremmer is the president of Eurasia Group, the leading global political risk research and consulting firm. Bremmer created Wall Street's first global political risk index, and has authored several books, including the national bestseller, The "End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?", which details the new global phenomenon of state capitalism and its geopolitical implications. He has a PhD in political science from Stanford University (1994), and was the youngest-ever national fellow at the Hoover Institution. )

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
musicmouse wrote:
Unfortunately the Chinese made the wrong proposal. It looks like they were more influenced by Brahimi then by the situation on the ground in Syria. The Chinese plan foresees minimal talks after which some transition plan should be adopted. That is a nice idea when when you talk about dealing with a lonely dictator who is leaving. But in Syria there are millions of people who prefer Assad above the rebels and they include most of the middle and upper class, many city inhabitants (an estimated 70% of Aleppo) and most minorities.

In such a situation you need real talks and a compromise where every side feels safe.

Nov 20, 2012 1:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.