Missing ingredient
Peter Chang says Washington and Beijing need a return to the pragmatism of 50 years ago
T he war in Ukraine has plunged the world into a period of instability. But, without the political fortitude for pragmatic compromises, the swift restoration of peace that the international community yearns for will remain elusive.
As Russia continues its open assault on Ukraine, the 20th-century Cold War gloom is once again casting a long shadow over Europe. This ominous turn of events coincided with the 50th anniversary of US president Richard Nixon’s visit to China.
Commentators could not help but notice the stark geopolitical contrast between then and now. In 1972, Richard Nixon successfully drove a wedge between China and the Soviet Union. Today, an increasingly bitter US-China rivalry has pushed Beijing towards Moscow.
After a meeting on the sidelines of the 2022 Winter Olympics, President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, issued a joint statement declaring that the Sino-Russia alliance was “a partnership without limits”.
But barely a month later, as the Ukraine invasion began, it quickly became apparent that this high rhetoric was facing a harsh reality check, as Beijing struggled to recalibrate its support of Russia.
Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine is a setback to Xi’s vision of a shared future for humankind. For over a decade, through schemes such as the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has meticulously laid the groundwork for a new global architecture that it had hoped would draw together democracies and autocratic regimes alike into harmonious coexistence.
But this carefully crafted geoeconomic vision is being upended by the Kremlin’s military adventurism. The antithetical Cold War paradigm is re-emerging, pushing China back to being one side of the “us versus them” binary world order that it had sought to rise above.
Nevertheless, at the UN Security Council, China chose to abstain rather than vote on a resolution to absolve or condemn Russia, even as the Ukraine invasion clearly violated China’s long-standing non-interference policy. By deciding to stay neutral, Beijing has become the accidental mediator in the brewing conflict, and has acted accordingly, asking all sides to return to the negotiating table.
In Taiwan, there is concern that the crisis in Europe will distract and undermine Washington’s pivot to Asia. With no American boots on the ground in Ukraine, many Taiwanese wonder if they would be abandoned, like the Ukrainians, to fight alone in the event of an assault from the Chinese mainland.
Last week, in a much-publicised visit to Taipei to reassert America’s resolve and solidarity with the island, former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo called for the recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty. Intended to reassure Taipei, Pompeo’s provocative call was undoubtedly also aimed at infuriating Beijing.
Historians have mixed assessments of Nixon and Mao Zedong’s legacies. Still, one of the principal achievements of the NixonMao detente was their pragmatic trade-off to leave the intractable Taiwan question “open-ended”, for the sake of pursuing greater common good. As a result, for the past 50 years, this policy of strategic ambiguity has enabled people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to achieve remarkable socio-economic progress.
But with a deteriorating Sino-US relationship, coupled with worsening fallout from the Ukraine crisis, this historic period of peaceful development and growth in East Asia could end abruptly.
At the recent UN General Assembly, 141 countries, including Malaysia, voted to reprimand Russia for invading Ukraine. Even so, Malaysia and the rest of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), minus Singapore, are reluctant to join the Western-led sanctions to punish Russia. This underscores the hesitancy among Southeast Asian countries to assign ultimate blame on any of the parties embroiled in the crisis.
Without question, the atrocities committed in Ukraine are a human tragedy. But the Ukrainians are a casualty of a broader conflict; namely, Russa’s dispute with Nato, where the contours of moral culpability are harder to delineate.
After the UN General Assembly vote, the Malaysian representative continues to urge all parties to negotiate for a peaceful resolution. The plea is consistent with Asean’s preferred approach to conflict resolution – hold back the impulse to take sides and keep every option open for as long as possible.
In the West, the Ukraine crisis has awakened the spectre of a new cold war. But there is one vital difference in this latest iteration. The free world today is also being threatened from within by an increasingly fragile US democracy.
Deeply polarised, America’s ruling elite have lost the capacity for bipartisanship governance. It is a lamentable loss considering Americans had long prided themselves as pragmatists, a trait identified and made popular by the works of Harvard University philosopher William James.
Americans today have become captive to ideological dogmatism and the country risks backsliding towards authoritarianism, with serious ramifications for the republic and the liberal world order.
The 21st century is entering a period of insecurity and chaos. What is certain, however, is that without the political fortitude of all stakeholders to strive for pragmatic compromises, security and order will elude Europe, with dire consequences for the rest of the global community.
Half a century ago, Nixon and Mao secretly struck an improbable geopolitical truce that heralded an era of peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. More than ever, the two leaders’ pragmatic instinct is urgently needed today.
Washington and Beijing must now dive deep into their historical reserves to restore their renowned acumen for pragmatism, and rise to the occasion to help pull the world back from the brink of disaster.
Nixon and Mao secretly struck an improbable geopolitical truce that heralded an era of peace and prosperity