The Challenge of Terrorism and War on Terror: Chinese Response
Responding to 9/11 and WoT – Chinese Considerations
In the wake of an aggressive response in form of WoT by America, it was not ideal for China as an emerging power to stay out of the matter ,where it had four major options: first, all out support i.e. taking part in the war with all its resources, without showing any reservations; second, conditional support i.e. asking something in quid pro quo; third, tacit endorsement of U.S. actions showing disapproval of the war while keeping itself away from the proceedings; and fourth, extending only political support for anti-terrorism measures voicing concern from the sidelines, not separating itself from the international atmosphere of sympathy for America and ‘supposed’ eradication of terrorism, but keeping a distance from US while saving itself from practically taking responsibilities and offering its human and economic resources in the war; this could also have presented the combat between America and Al-Qaida as an opportunity for China. Keeping in view the considerations discussed below it was not strange to see China going for the last option.
While 9/11 had followed a series of setbacks in Sino-U.S. relations, including 1998-99 allegations of Chinese nuclear espionage, the accidental U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999, and the collision between a U.S. surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter plane in April 2001, the incident itself provided the two countries, for their own reasons, an opportunity to invigorate their relations on the basis of an increased cooperation in War on Terror(ism) (WoT). China also took the opportunity to build its positive international image and refute charges of having any link with the states that ‘harbor’ or ‘sponsor’ terrorist groups and organizations .
In this backdrop, the initial Chinese response to the 9/11 attacks was one of a deep shock and sympathy. Speaking on September 12, 2001 to his US counterpart President Bush, Chinese President Jiang Zemin vowed Chinese readiness to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with the United States and the international community, in connection with the joint efforts to fight terrorism. He also made consultations with his Russian, British, and French counterparts; besides, Chinese Foreign Ministry made a quick denial of any formal links with the Taliban government.
However, China remained cautious towards the use of force in response to the 9/11 attacks. It did not join the coalition forces attacking Afghanistan, and later opposed resolutions in the UNSC sanctioning attack on Iraq. Beijing laid down several conditions for endorsing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, which included: actions should be based on “concrete evidence,” should strictly observe International Law, should not hurt innocent civilians, and should be carried out with authorization from the UN. This was in line with Chinese perspectives on the post-Cold War world which revolve around consistent themes of multi-polarity, a greater UN role in world affairs, territorial integrity and state sovereignty, and non-interference in domestic affairs as well as its focus on economic development.
Chinese perspective of international terrorism, while focusing on the origin, evolution, and characteristics of terrorist groups and activities, also seeks to address the root causes of terrorism and the links to international political, economic, and social justice. Acknowledging the impact of globalization and technological spread, and the issues related to fundamentalism in fermenting international terrorism, Chinese analyses also point to post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy because of which US is seen as an arrogant superpower protecting an unjust international political and economic order, intervening in other countries’ domestic affairs, and acting without regard for the concerns of many ethnic and religious groups.
China was also concerned about the U.S. pursuance of a broader agenda for its long-term presence in the neighboring regions of China and the likely expansion of a U.S. military presence closer to its doorstep. Military operations in Afghanistan brought U.S. and NATO forces to South and Central Asia, with which China shares over 5,000 kilometers of borders. Thus China wanted to remain cautious in its support to WoT, – keeping in view that while it wanted to be seen as firm and reliable in its political support for action against terrorism, it did not want to be closely associated with U.S. military actions that violate state sovereignty and invite retaliation. China also benefitted from the Changes in U.S. priorities, particularly the international focus shift of Bush administration from the possibility of a future challenge from China to the War on Terrorism (WoT).
Beijing’s political stand for strong anti-terrorism measures also reflected its concerns about its northwestern territories of Tibet and Xinjiang. Though terrorism is generally not a big threat to China since most of the so-called terrorist activities in Xinjiang, such as bombings, are carried out by individuals or small groups instead of any organized movement. Still the post 9/11 environment helped China getting the Uighur separatist movement recognized as an international terrorist threat, and thus, was able to describe itself as a “victim of international terrorism, ”, linking unrest in Xinjiang with Osama bin Laden and insisting the United States to include ETIM on its lists of terrorist organizations; the demand, initially refused by Washington, was however accepted later on when it (US) sought support for its activities in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.
The above analysis shows that China, along with expressing its principal stand has taken part in WoT in such a way that it has not played any role in the social, human, economic and environmental destructions caused by the war. Occasionally, particularly when it was targeted by Washington on human rights issues, Beijing came up with a harsh response exposing the US duplicity in general and in WoT in particular. It accused United States of human rights hypocrisy, as it branded the US invasion of Iraq the “greatest humanitarian disaster” of the modern world; it labeled the United States as arrogant, inconsistent with universally recognized norms of international relations and a country with a notorious record of trampling on the sovereignty of and violating human rights in other countries saying that “The invasion of Iraq by American troops has produced the biggest human rights tragedy and the greatest humanitarian disaster in modern world.” It also criticized civilian deaths in Afghanistan, secret prisons and torture of detainees saying that “‘Secret prison’ and ‘torturing prisoners’ have become synonymous with America,” Beijing however didn’t allow such harsh exchanges to disrupt the overall equilibrium of its relationship with the US as well as balance between its fundamental principles, long term objectives and the immediate policy responses..
On the other hand, utilizing its prudent approach, China has made optimum use of the time and opportunity to gain tremendous development on the political and economic grounds. Unlike America, China has gained a boost in the global standing. Many observers believe that the only country in the world that has benefited from the last decade of WoT is China; while the United States was spending huge amounts on War operations and devoted its military resources to the Middle East China remained focused on its priorities. And at present when the US appears to be mired in debt, China has become the second largest economy in the world during the same period. Now the IMF has announced that the Chinese economy would become the world’s largest in 2016. Of the numerous advantages it has gained, along with a focus on its national development, some of the significant successes of China include strengthening regional, trade and economic cooperation, solving border disputes with neighboring countries, cooperation in various parts of the world, participating in economic and development projects in Afghanistan, and evading the ‘terrorists’’ direct target.
Efforts to strike a balance between immediate and long term policy objectives in Chinese approach with regard to response to WoT seem continuing. Most recently following Osama bin Laden’s killing, Beijing renewed its appeals for international cooperation, though Chinese foreign policy experts have also voiced concern that the United States would then be able to devote more efforts to contain China’s growing ambitions .
