Libyan war accelerates Chinese debate over “non-intervention”

[Alamuti Lotus]

Libyan war accelerates Chinese debate over “non-intervention”

The NATO-led war on Libya is fuelling a debate in the Chinese ruling elite over its official foreign policy of “non-intervention” in the internal affairs of other countries. While the policy was always more of a myth than reality, China has used it as a convenient means for doing deals with repressive regimes and criticising, when it suited, the military interventions of the US and its allies.

The increasingly blatant use of military aggression by the US and European powers to further their economic and strategic interests, however, is causing Beijing to rethink. The US and European bombing of Libya has put Chinese investments worth billions of dollars at risk, along with the lives of 35,860 Chinese nationals working in Libya.

To evacuate its citizens, China mounted a major long-distance operation in the Mediterranean Sea involving its navy, military transport planes and civilian ships. Nevertheless, the 75 Chinese firms doing business in Libya were forced to leave behind substantial quantities of valuable equipment. Moreover, China’s ambitions to access significant Libyan energy supplies are now in jeopardy as the US and European powers seek to install a pliant regime more aligned with their requirements.

Sections of the Chinese military argue that China must have the military capacity to defend its rapidly growing economic and strategic interests in every corner of the globe. China Military, a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) newspaper, commented on April 4 that overseas investment by Chinese companies was increasing at an annual rate of 54 percent. “At the end of 2010, our foreign investing and cooperating firms numbered nearly 16,000, with 1.4 million personnel, and total overseas assets amounted to almost $US1.2 trillion… How to effectively protect these increasingly expanding overseas interests is a new subject before us.”

Libya, however, has become something of a turning point. The NATO bombing campaign has greatly undermined China’s economic position in the country and raised the question in Beijing as to how Chinese interests can be guaranteed. A section of China’s academic establishment is calling for the government to abandon Deng’s “low-profile” policy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/chin-a19.shtml

[David__77]

1. I disagree with this Trotskyist analysis.

I stress the Trotskyist pedigree not out of any "red-baiting," but because I think they are a bit blinded by orthodoxy and old ideological prejudices.

China does not cynically adopt "non-interference in others' internal affairs." It is a long-term strategic perspective and model for international relations in a world undergoing multipolarization of power. China says it "waves no flag" on the global stage. I think this is correct and a deeply-rooted position of the Chinese.

Now, what I think there is a debate about in China, is over whether China should use its diplomatic power to actively defend national sovereignty internationally. This could have meant, for instance, using the veto against the intervention authorization UN resolution. But I do not see the exercise of such power as casting aside the "non-interference" strategic perspective - not at all. It's a consolidation of such a strategy. China can stop biding it time, laying low, and still defend "non-interference."