It is apparent from Chinese state-sponsored news publications that the Russian narrative around the war in Ukraine has found a home in Beijing. The message has been modified to reflect China’s foreign policy concerns, and confidently states that the United States is the country responsible for the war. It is worthwhile examining the narrative that is emerging from Beijing, as it may offer insights into the characteristics of the relationship with Russia, as well as with the US, in the aftermath of the war. The Global Times, while not necessarily reflecting consensus within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), does serve to provide an insight into the ways in which the war and its causes have been interpreted. For instance, on 27 March the outlet posted an article questioning the legitimacy of NATO stating, “NATO, under the leadership of Washington, is the real initiator and driving force behind the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, because what the US really needs is tense and conflicting Russia-Europe relations”. This type of statement is reflective of Russian attitudes towards NATO, which see the alliance as an extension of US power and a threat to Russian interests. The author, a scholar at the Shanghai International Studies University, closes by referring to China’s foreign policy of “win-win cooperation,” and asserting that the pursuit of US hegemony is short-sighted, given the international architecture that is “increasingly dominated” by this win-win model. Win-win cooperation is a concept promulgated by China, which has been present since at least 2009 and which aims to establish international partnerships on an equal basis. Its stated purpose is to encourage countries to treat each other as equals, and engage in mutual cooperation to benefit each other. The scholar’s reference to win-win may be considered a subtle nod in the direction of those countries considered to be China’s partners, with mutual interests in the US. It establishes the groundwork for arguing that US actions – perceived to be enacted through NATO – are counter to the concept of win-win cooperation which nations friendly to Beijing are reliant upon. A separate article published by the PLA Daily on 24 March refers to the security situation in Europe with a more conciliatory tone than the Global Times. It notes that European leaders conducted “shuttle diplomacy” to try and avert war, but could not overcome US promotion of NATO’s expansion. This, the author claims, has led European countries to pursue large and costly defence programmes at the expence of social welfare. The piece draws parallels between Russia and the US, noting the former’s permanence through its geographical location, and the latter’s tendency to lose interest in Europe. The author argues that a balanced and stable security architecture in Europe is nowhere in sight, and that “strategic autonomy” will require careful consideration. This interesting piece, which again mimics Russian claims about NATO expansion and a lack of European autonomy in its security, subtly raises the concept that Europe could enjoy peace - if only it was able to sever ties with the US. It also takes pains to associate US political machinations with the social pain that European citizens are now experiencing, and will experience in the future because of increased defence spending. One final article from the PLA Daily, published on 20 March, accuses Washington of forming “gangs to continuously create regional confrontation”. The author expands the analysis to the Middle East, where the US and its allies created chaos and a security and governance deficit. US policy in the Asia Pacific Region - from the Five Eyes organisation to bilateral military ties with other nations – is described as, “a disaster that disrupts regional peace and stability”. The author argues that the end goal is an Asia-Pacific version of NATO that will ultimately harm the interests of all involved, and concludes with a warning against the US continuing with a “Cold War mentality” or risk a shameful failure. This, of course, represents just three articles published in China since the war in Ukraine began. However, they are potentially indicative of a concerning trend in an anti-US narrative that stands to gain unity around the banner centred on the international harm caused by Washington’s fomenting of war in Europe. These articles begin to create the groundwork for linking US actions in Europe to the suffering of peoples around the world. Consider for example Nigeria, one of the poorest nations in the world, but also reliant upon wheat from Ukraine and Russia. How might its citizens respond to a narrative informing them that the increased price, and possible scarcity of wheat-based goods, is a result of Washington’s machinations in Europe. Nigeria is not the only country facing this dilemma: Jordan, Tunisia and Libya may be in a similar situation. Alternatively, how might Russia and China seek to gain from attitudes in the Middle East, which have hardened against the US since the conflict has begun? Oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have resisted US pressure to increase oil production to reduce the price of oil. Various analysts cite disputes between their ruling parties and the Biden administration as the reason for the friction. It stands to reason that, should China and Russia feel it expedient, they could affect some form of change in the international community, driving it away from the US. Watching articles such as those mentioned above, may serve as a valuable early indication of the direction that Beijing’s narrative takes, as well as a sign posting its intended goals. Sam Cranny-Evans Chinese Whispers 4 · MT 3/2022 Comment A research associate at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Sam Cranny-Evans frequently covers issues Chinese and Russian for MilTech.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=