FROM AUTHORS
Fatih Ceylan-Mitat Çelikpala

THE EMERGING ACTOR FROM THE MIDDLE EAST: CHINA

19 June 2023
PAYLAŞ

Mitat ÇELİKPALA-Fatih CEYLAN

 

CHINA IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARENA: FROM GLOBAL TO REGIONAL

The new era that began with Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 ushered in an era that plunged global politics into a maelstrom of instability and uncertainty. One of the characteristics of this period was the marked deepening of the strategic rivalry between the three great powers (the US, Russia and China).

After Xi Jinping took over the presidency from Hu in 2013, he set out to realise the ‘Chinese Dream‘ based on the revitalisation of the nation on the basis of China’s unique values. In 2013, the first year of his rule, he put the global Belt and Road Project on the agenda. The Belt and Road includes not only a railway corridor from China to the West, but also a Silk Road belt connecting China to various continents by sea. It also envisages multiple land, air and digital connectivity and is a comprehensive mega project based on multiple pillars. Therefore, viewing this highly ambitious future-oriented geopolitical/geostrategic project, which encompasses many geographical belts and components, as a mere Belt and Road design is an erroneous perspective. 

In addition to the Belt and Road Project, China has started to develop a global vision with the projects it has put on the agenda one after another.  Announced in 2015, the ‘Made in China 2025‘, announced in 2017

The ‘Artificial Intelligence Initiative‘, the ‘2049 Global China Initiative‘, the ‘Global Development Initiative‘ distributed at the UN General Assembly in 2021, the ‘Global Security Initiative‘ published in 2023, and the ‘Global Civilisation Initiative‘ announced in March 2023 are ambitious goals that envisage making China, already seen as a global economic power, a leading actor on a global scale. These projects and initiatives, which have been brought to the global agenda, have initiated intensive academic and policy-oriented discussions on whether there will be a change in the position and attitude of China, which has followed a path focused on its own domestic and domestic issues for many years and has kept its distance from global political and military issues. 

In the new millennium, with the growing realisation that the unipolar world order based on US leadership is coming to an end, China has taken preemptive moves in the face of the chaos and vacuum in the Middle East.   This situation should be seen as China taking concrete steps from global to regional. Indeed, in this context, China’s joint naval exercise with Russia in the Mediterranean in May 2015 is noteworthy as a first.  This was followed by the Sino–Egyptian military exercise in the Mediterranean in 2019. In March 2021, then Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s Middle East tour, which included Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman in addition to Turkey, was an important milestone in terms of China’s goals towards this region, which has entered a globally assertive lane. On the Iranian leg of this tour, the signing of a $400 billion investment agreement between China and Iran for a twenty-fiveyear oil-for-food deal signalled a remarkable move in terms of China’s regional ambitions.  Russia’s second wave of aggression in Ukraine in February 2022 brought the global power struggle to a new dimension and upset the balances. While China is facing the consequences of the spiral of conflicts in Ukraine on the one hand, on the other hand, it has not kept its hands off the vast Middle East and Africa basin in the southern belt, which covers the landsea-railway legs of the Belt and Road project and connects China to European markets.

Moreover, it has not refrained from continuing its moves to balance the US in the region.

FOGGY AIR DISPERSED BY CHINA IN THE REGION

From Ukraine to the wider Middle East, China has begun to take a hand in many issues and to influence ongoing uncertainties. In February 2023, China announced a twelve-point position paper aimed at ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. Almost simultaneously, in March 2023, China brought Saudi Arabia and Iran, who see each other as the main threat, together in Beijing, and led to the signing of an agreement on the normalisation of relations between the two countries. The groundwork created by this agreement, which signalled the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, was reinforced on the occasion of Xi Jinping’s third visit to the region as head of state in December 2022, when he signed investment agreements worth $50 billion with countries in the region, involving various sectors. The hosting of the visit by Riyadh and the participation of the heads of state of twenty Arab countries in this summit should also be kept in mind as a noteworthy development.

The fact that China’s Middle East expansion is moving in the direction of including Israel should be added to the current process.  Under the influence of the tensions in the US-Israel relations, the relations between the two countries were defined as ‘Comprehensive Innovation Partnership‘ on the occasion of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to China in March 2017.

The latest round of China’s moves towards the Middle East was the announcement of the China–Palestine strategic partnership made during the official visit of Palestinian President Abbas to Beijing in June 2023. On the occasion of this visit, Chinese President Xi put forward a three-point proposal for the resolution of the current conflict, including the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital on the basis of the 1967 borders.

In short, it is evident that the US-China rivalry, which has accelerated with the Biden administration in the US, will witness a spiral of continental-regional rivalry, including the Middle East, as well as new and groundbreaking technologies, especially artificial intelligence and chip production. Therefore, it would not be a prophecy to say that unlike previous periods, China will continue to deepen its competition with the US in the wider Middle East and North Africa. Closely following these developments, the US and the EU have taken countermeasures, especially since 2021, and to balance China on a global scale, the US has put forward the ‘Building a Better World‘ and the EU the ‘Global Gateway Initiative‘ projects.

In the context of these projects, limiting the US-China rivalry only to the tensions in the East and South China Seas and the Tawyan issue would be an erroneous and incomplete approach. In this respect, the Middle East leg of the China-US rivalry cannot be ignored. From this point of view, it can be stated that China has expanded its area of competition or struggle. In this dimension, the Middle East is on the radar of a large-scale global rivalry that will also cover maritime areas and natural resources. Therefore, countries that fail to read the dynamics/balances of the global politics, which is becoming more and more complicated every day, will not be able to save themselves from being worthless extras in the ongoing strategic competition.

TURKEY IN SMOG

Turkey must find ways to benefit from the strategic competition between the great powers, which is likely to continue in the long term. The way to realise this depends on developing a holistic strategy. Developing a strategy of this nature undoubtedly requires an approach to determining direction and position that is based on national interests and avoids daily drifts, as well as the abandonment of narrow ideological deviations, particularly in the economic sphere. In this process, Ankara needs to demonstrate its ability to move forward on an axis that focuses on its national interests, but is also based on the fundamental and inalienable set of values underpinning the international organisations (such as NATO, the Council of Europe, the European Union) to which it belongs or aspires to become a member.

Ankara should primarily advance connectivity projects that will play a key role in Turkey’s access to Central Asia via the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia) and the Middle East via the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syria-Iraq line. The way to achieve success in this area is to face the competition from Russia, China and Iran in the Caucasus-Middle East-Central Asia belt, to define the areas of cooperation with a focus on Ankara and to adopt a course that does not distance itself from the Western world. This path requires a comprehensive, unprejudiced perspective and the formulation and implementation of policies based on finely calculated details. On the basis of an understanding that prioritises long-term national interests, Turkey should take advantage of the force and economic multipliers that the West can provide in order to create a balance against the influence and interests of the two major actors (China and Russia) and regional actors, especially Iran. In order to move forward on a balanced and effective ground, the balances with the Western world, in which economiccommercial relations are intertwined, should be re-established on a solid, sustainable and healthy basis without delay. This ground does not mean marginalising or excluding China, Russia or Iran. On the contrary, it means dimensioning Turkey’s interests and increasing its capacity to act autonomously as much as possible. Preferences and pursuits to the contrary would be synonymous with undermining Turkey’s long-term goals in an environment where global competition dominates the international agenda, economic balances are deeply shaken, and polarisation prevails instead of consensus in the social consensus. In this context, it is imperative that Turkey’s foreign and security policies are based on a more realistic, sustainable and predictable basis, free from naive ideological impulses, in an era in which players such as Russia, China and Iran, which focus their attention on the Middle East as much as Western actors, are engaged in a direct or indirect long-term struggle for influence, interests and power.          

İlgili Yazılar

Milo’s Montenegro

10 April 2023

Milo Djukanovic, the Political Sycamore of the Balkans, Finally Dies

 

Montenegro is a charming, small, mountainous country known for its resort cities on the Adriatic Sea coast. When we look at the recent political history of this Balkan country with a population approaching 700 thousand, it is striking that one politician occupies an extraordinary place. From 1991 to the present day, we can say that Milo Djukanovic has governed Montenegro almost single-handedly. In 1991, at the age of 29, as a young communist leader, “Milo” took the reins of Montenegro and 32 years later, on April 2, 2023, he lost to his young rival in the second round of the presidential elections. After this defeat, he resigned from his party (DPS) and retired at the age of 61. And he did very well. All the best to him and his country. In terms of Montenegro, which I had the opportunity to get to know closely due to my assignment in Belgrade (2003-2008) and which I continued to follow after my assignment, I can easily say that an era has ended and a brand new era has begun.

 

Sea in Budva and Kotor; rafting on the river Tara: Montenegro

 

Montenegro’s original name Crne Gore, meaning black mountain, is known as Montenegro in the world. Montenegro is Italian for black mountain. Before the Ottoman Empire, Italian city states were dominant in the region, hence the name. Montenegro is a really cute, green country. Resort cities such as Budva and Kotor are very popular in the summer months. From the Albanian border in the south of the country, you can reach the Croatian border in 4-5 hours (294 km) by following the coastline northward, after a pleasant winding journey with sea views. As you head inland from the coast in an easterly direction, mountainous areas begin. With the Tara river for rafters, national parks, ski resorts, Montenegro is an undiscovered tourist attraction. Let us take this opportunity to remind you that Daniel Craig’s James Bond movie Casino Royal was shot in Montenegro. The Bosniaks of Montenegro settled in Rozaje and its surroundings.

Milo’s career : 7 terms as prime minister, 2 terms as president

The first time I met Milo, on a courtesy visit, was in the spring of 2003. At that time, Montenegro was one of the two republics, together with Serbia, that made up the Yugoslav Federal Republic. More precisely, they were the Yugoslavia that remained after the painful secession of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia from the Yugoslav Socialist Federal Republic (YSFC). A year or two later, the country was renamed Serbia and Montenegro. It is known that Milo entered politics at a very young age in the early 90s as the prime minister of Montenegro in the YSFC, with the support of Serbia’s fearsome leader Slobodan Milosevic. In the years that followed, Milo took advantage of Milosevic’s falling out with the international community and chose to distance himself from Serbia, but his star never made peace with Belgrade. Milo led his country for 32 years, serving seven terms as prime minister and two as president.

 

Milo owes his success to his stand against Milosevic and Serbian nationalism

Milo, 1.96 cm tall, is a charismatic, charming, overconfident politician from the former Yugoslav school. Although he was the leader of a small, non-independent country of 700,000 inhabitants, 85 percent of whom were of Serbian origin, he used to defy Serbia, a country of 8 million people. He effectively changed the country’s currency, abandoning the Serbian dinar and putting the euro into circulation. He emphasized the Montenegrin Orthodox Church against the Serbian Orthodox Church. I was surprised to see smuggled American cigarettes being sold openly on the streets of the capital Podgorica. It was said that the cigarette smuggling business was managed by Milo’s team. The cigarette issue was like a secret that everyone knew. Milo was also good at diplomacy: He developed good neighborly relations with Kosovo, Belgrade’s mortal enemy, sided with the bloc against the “Serbian butcher” Milosevic in the Bosnian war, established close friendships with Bosniak and Croatian leaders and gained the trust of all neighboring countries except Belgrade.

 

Montenegrin or Serbian?

 

If it is said that Montenegro owes its independence to Milo Djukanovic, this statement is a limited exaggeration. Milo was not satisfied with Belgrade’s efforts and concessions for the continuation of the common state of “Serbia and Montenegro”, and as a result of the referendum held in the spring of 2006 under the auspices of the European Union, Montenegro gained its independence (with 58 percent of the vote). I remember that on the occasion of the referendum, the identity of Montenegrins was intensely debated. Nationalist Serbs claimed that “there is no such identity as Montenegrins, they are Serbs”. Indeed, it is the same race, the same language, the same sect. However, despite these common elements, for a period of history (1878 to 1918) they existed as two separate Serbian states side by side, and remained two separate republics within the YSFRY. On the other hand, due to Milosevic’s policies, Serbia became a target of the international community, was subjected to sanctions, lost credibility, and the people of Montenegro distanced themselves from the Serbian identity. The debate on the identity of Montenegrin citizens, whether they are Serbs or Montenegrins, is still ongoing and is a sensitive issue that will not end today and tomorrow.

 

Milo reminds us of Boyko Borisov: Being both western and shady

 

After independence, Milo Djukanovic turned his country’s orientation completely towards the West. Under his leadership, significant progress was made towards European Union membership, with Montenegro joining NATO as the 29th member (2017). Montenegro’s choice for NATO naturally caused serious disappointment in Serbia and Russia. You might think that the unrivaled leader, who has marked the last 30 years of Montenegro by setting its direction and goal, would have established a throne in the hearts of the people. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Probably in line with the traditions of the political environment in which he grew up (YSFC), Milo has made deficits in terms of democracy, human rights, justice and law, has been subjected to intense criticism from within and outside, has often faced accusations of organized crime and corruption, and has been accused of authoritarianism. In the end, opposition parties with different views came together to eliminate the corrupt common opponent. No one can claim that Milo will not face a judge in the coming period on the above charges.

 

Milo and anti-corruption united the entire opposition

 

The first sign that the end of the Milo era was near was the parliamentary elections held in the summer of 2020. The Opposition, united in a broad alliance, managed to oust Milo’s party from power with a narrow majority in the Parliament (41 vs. 40). The local elections last fall were the occasion for the second sign, with Milo’s DPS party losing 10 out of 14 municipalities, including the capital Podgorica. And finally, the knockout blow came with the presidential elections on April 2, 2023, when his 36-year-old rival, the leader of the “Europe Now” party, economist Jakov Milatovic, supported by the united opposition, won 60 percent of the vote and sent Milo a retirement notice. All eyes in the country now turn to the parliamentary elections to be held in a few months. Probably, another defeat awaits the DPS.

 

Montenegro looks to Brussels, not Belgrade

 

While the electoral defeat of Milo, who has been distant and cold towards Belgrade for years, is welcomed in the Serbian capital, it should be emphasized that this result does not mean a victory for Belgrade. There is no doubt that Milatovic’s priority and goal is the European Union. As a matter of fact, we read that his first foreign visit will be to Brussels, not Belgrade. Contrary to Belgrade’s expectations, the future president announced that there is no question of reversing the decision to recognize Kosovo. Milatovic, who declared his goal to make his country a member of the EU within 5 years, announced that he would support the integration of the Western Balkans and pay attention to establishing good relations with all Balkan neighbors. It is understood that relations with Serbia will be organized in line with this understanding, neither too close nor too distant, and that a middle path will be adopted.

DOES MR BIDEN HAVE ANY WORDS TO SAY TO THE ARMENIANS?

18 April 2021

First Armenian act of murder against Turkish diplomats was committed at Santa Barbara, California, in 1973; Consul General Mehmet Baydar and Consul Bahadır Demir were martyred with cold blood. The glorification by the Armenians of the assassin Gourgen Yanikian went so far as to lift him to the level of a hero and, at  letters they sent to newspapers, they said Yanikian’s act was the outcome of the national Armenian revival and the murder must be considered as a revenge, while the murderer should be seen as the last victim of “Armenian genocide”. During the years that followed, Armenian terrorists killed dozens of innocent Turkish diplomats and their family members, among them five ambassadors. As a paradox, every year allegations of genocide put forward by the Armenians have brought into discussion whether or not the President of the United States would accept the Armenian demands.

 

Armenian allegations are based on a distorted historical narrative saying the Ottoman administration committed genocide against the Armenian citizens living in Eastern Anatolia in 1915. However, the truth is  quite different. Armed Armenian groups, with an aim to establish an independent Armenian state in Eastern Anatolia, despite the fact that the Armenian population did not constitute majority in any of the settlements there, incited rebellions and massacred large numbers of local people starting as early as 1870’s. As the First World War started they increased hostile activities with the support of Russia and Britain with whom the Ottoman Empire was at war. Furthermore, they expanded their assaults and captured the city of Van in April 1915, obstructing the movements of the Ottoman military by blocking the routes in the region.  Under such an emergency, in order to control the situation, Ottoman authorities decided to relocate the local Armenian people from conflict areas to safer regions of the country. Due to the conditions of war, however, this relocation was carried out under extremely difficult circumstances during which tragic events could not be avoided that caused thousands of people from various groups to lose their lives. It must be noted however that the Armenian nationals living in other parts of the country remained at their homes, which is in fact another strong evidence that there was no intention whatsoever indicating any “genocide”.

 

Genocide, which is a legal concept defined at the Geneva Convention of 1948, is a crime against humanity with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. According to the Convention, the “intention” with which the crime is committed is specially important: If, for instance, a group of people is being relocated for exclusively military reasons, this would not constitute a genocide. Moreover, a resolution from an international tribunal court is needed for a genocide recognition. The Convention is also not retroactive. Naturally, what in effect counts in listing an act of crime as genocide is the relevance with regard to the historical facts and documents and not of course the number of persons asking for such a labeling. Similarly, politicians’ maneuvering in some countries to secure “Resolutions of Genocide” from parliaments in order to please their constituencies does not have any value either. It is also wrong to accuse a whole nation for a genocidal crime whose perpetrators have been clearly defined.

 

Therefore it is not possible to label the events of 1915 as genocide. Nor is there a political, academic or legal consensus to this end. There are a number of well known historians in the world who believe that what happened in 1915 did not constitute a genocide: Stanford Shaw, Bernard Lewis, Guenther Levy, Andrew Mango, Sean MacMeckin, Justine MacCarthy, Edward Ericson, Norman Stone, Jeremy Salt are among them. A large number of Turkish intellectuals believe that such allegations might as well be part of an international conspiracy.

 

Faced with unfair accusations, Turkey proposed in 2005 to establish a Joint Historical Commission to be comprised of historians and specialists in order to conduct studies in Turkish  and Armenian archives, as well as in all relevant archives of the world and if necessary to open the ones which had so far remained closed. Turkey said such a move would greatly contribute to peace by bringing the Turks and Armenians together to let them look to the future through  a common perspective. Basically, the main purpose was to bring into daylight the relevant historical documents by virtue of the independent studies of both Turkish and Armenian experts at archives. Especially the so far unopened archives of the Armenian Dashnak Party and of the Patriarchate had great significance. Despite various efforts, Turkey’s proposal has not been accepted until now by Armenia who has chosen to abuse this issue for propaganda purposes.

 

Meanwhile, by a momentous resolution, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on 15 October 2015 that the Armenian narrative would not necessarily mean the absolute truth. It agreed that this dispute is a legitimate matter of discussion. The Court also ruled that no parallel could be established between the Holocaust and the events of 1915.

 

It is true that the number of people who want to approach this issue through studies at archives and under the light of historical documents is still not too high in the countries of the West where Armenians try to find supportive ground. A short look at the situation in some of them would be helpful to learn the situation:  Britain, for instance, could not find incriminative evidence regarding the 1915 events against the Ottoman officials it deported to Malta. The Chief Royal Crown Prosecutor declared lack of evidence in 1921. In this context, we should note that Britain is not among the states accepting the Armenian point of view. The United States of America, whose President is the center of a curious discussion  nowadays on whether he will accept the Armenian discourse or not, took during the Second World War a position quite similar to what the Ottomans did in Eastern Anatolia: When it was attacked by Japan, it immediately took action under military necessities and took from homes and detained in camps 120 thousand American citizens of Japanese descent living at the Pacific coast for fearing they might collaborate with the Japanese. In Germany in 2016 the Bundestag took a resolution recognizing the so-called “genocide”, while the Federal Government preferred not to use this word. Before the Bundestag decision, German newspapers displayed not a graceful example of “press freedom” by refusing to post  the paid campaign announcements of Turks. The Bundestag’s pro-Armenian resolution was also criticized for searching for a tool to “find an accomplice for its historical loss of face”. Quite naturally, there was an essential difference between the Holocaust and the events of 1915: the Jews of Germany neither tried to establish their own state nor cooperated with a foreign power.

 

The case of France, where from the beginning a pro-Armenian policy has been pursued, trying even to punish  those claiming there was no genocide, is more of an example of double standards. Ignoring and not supporting Turkey’s proposal of Joint Historical Commission, France had agreed to establish a committee comprising of 15 historians and specialists to investigate its responsibilities during the genocide of 800 thousand Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. The Committee, founded on Mr. Macron’s consent, accepted that France indeed had a heavy and irrefutable responsibility during the genocide.

 

While discussions continue about what Mr. Biden will say on April 24, maybe the final and the right thing to do is to open the Armenian archives and  recognize that this is an issue which should be studied by historians and researchers on  genuine documents. In this regard, we would like to hope Mr Biden might encourage Armenia for the formation of the Joint Historical Commission.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

@2025 – Ankara Politikalar Merkezi

Yayın Politikamız:
Ankara Politikalar Merkezi üyelerinin veya web sayfamızda yazıları çıkan APM üyesi olmayan kişilerin, APM web sayfasında yayınlanan yazılarında veya APM üyelerinin diğer mecralarda açıkladıkları görüşleri şahsi görüşleri olup Ankara Politikalar Merkezini bağlamaz. APM adına, yalnızca Yönetim Kurulu veya Yönetim Kurulu tarafından yetkilendirilmiş Yönetim Kurulu üyeleri açıklama yapabilir, APM’yi bağlayan açıklama veya görüşleri ifade edebilir.