Is China’s development juggernaut gasping for breath?

By: Azhar Azam

Into its 10th year, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) isn’t a project of just steel and concrete. Due to its collaborative features of connectivity, economic integration, infrastructure development and poverty alleviation as well as by institutionalizing concepts of clean, green and digital technology – it has developed into an iconic brand for mutual growth, prosperity and cooperation among the member states.
According to a report by Professor Dr. Christoph Nedopil, who simultaneously works with the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and leading international financial institutions such as Asia Development Bank, World Bank’s International Finance Corporation and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, cumulative BRI engagement by the end of 2022 had reached $962 billion. The lead author of the UDP SDG Finance Taxonomy reported a resonant 3,450% and 7,536% growth in finance and technology as well as 50% expansion in green energy engagement last year.

The world response to the BRI is overwhelming. Some 147 countries, covering roughly two-thirds of the world population and 40% of the global GDP, have joined the initiative. By 2022, trade volume between China and the BRI countries had almost doubled from just over $1 trillion in 2013 to more than $2 trillion in 2022 at an average growth rate of 8%.

Bilateral investments surpassed $270 billion; the Chinese companies created some 421,000 jobs for local communities, helping lift nearly 40 million people out of poverty. This is in line with the World Bank’s estimate that in a 2019 policy research working paper predicted the initiative had the potential to cut extreme and moderate poverty by 7.6 million and 32 million respectively.

The BRI projects are criticized for mounting heavy debt burdens on the developing countries Asia and Africa; this criticism disregards the destination states own penchant for trade-not-aid in an attempt to establish their "identity" as a trading nation. Latest findings that almost all countries have benefitted, whether it be the world-class infrastructure, improved connectivity or increased trade and investment with China, from the project.

In a sharp contrast to the prevailing wisdom in the West, “the project of the century” isn’t losing its luster, gasping for breath or running out of steam. Host countries such as Malaysia and Pakistan today are less incredulous and more unequivocal that the BRI is transparent, denying perceptions of the “Chinese debt trap” as “concocted.”

Even academics at top US institutions, who cite Chinese companies’ and the member countries' “overzealous engagement” as a reason for the BRI stagnation, do not buy the argument that the project involves “malicious or predatory lending.” Researchers of the China-Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at the John Hopkins University recently evaluated China’s participation in the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative for Africa and concluded Beijing “fulfilled its role fairly well as a responsible G-20 stakeholder.” Although the Chinese creditors accounted for just 30% of the claims, they contributed to 63% of the debt service suspensions.

Some developing countries such as Sri Lanka struggled in paying off their debts; it was largely because of their political decisions and domestic infighting. A briefing paper, authored by the Sri Lankan scholars Umesh Moramudali and Thilina Panduwawala and published by the CARI in November 2022, spurned the notion of branding Colombo as a victim of Beijing’s debt trap. Still, quite a few in America including the US State Department officials absurdly single out China for putting Sri Lanka “straight on a path toward Sino state-status” and piling up debt “elsewhere.”

Amid attempts to belittle the advantages of the BRI for Europe, the China-Europe Express Train (CEET), especially after the implementation of the BRI, has become an important trade route and a symbol of booming development for the region. The train as of 2022 had run 65,000 trips and shipped six million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) of freight valuing $300 billion in addition to connecting more than 200 cities in 24 European countries.

The CEET is thus helping to increase trade, boost economies of China and the Central Asia and the European countries as well as contribute to the well-being of the people across China, the Central Asia states and the European countries. In this vein, the BRI is a project of every participating nation and an insignia of peace for it also promotes people-to-people and cultural exchanges between the two continents.

A flurry of the European Union leaders’ visits to Beijing and the welcoming of the call between the Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy by Brussels demonstrate the two sides are willing to resolve the Ukraine conflict and strengthen economic relationship. As there isn’t a short-term solution to the crisis, leaders of the two leading economies should look to manage differences, foster engagement and work together for peace and economic resilience.

The US antagonism toward the BRI and propagation of the project as China’s “debt trap diplomacy” has an explicit motive. Many in the US see China’s rise as a threat to America's economic and financial dominance or Bretton Woods through which, officials of the developing states believe, the country accumulated the global wealth and imposed its political philosophy on them.

For most of these nations, Washington’s criticism of the BRI is meaningless rhetoric while offering millstone initiatives such as the G7's Build Back Better World (rebranded into Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment) that merely focus to rival the BRI in a bid to obstruct China’s rise without addressing their development challenges.

As the Chinese development juggernaut makes a sustained progress and powers global green and digital growth by leading in areas including renewable energy, high-speed railway and 5G networks – arguments, such as momentum behind the BRI is slowing due to China's own economic slowdown and its characterization as a “debt trap,” lead astray.

The upward revision of the international trade growth forecast from 1.0% to 1.7% in 2023, on the heels of the “pent-up” consumer demand in China, by the World Trade Organization last month as well as Beijing's robust trade with the world including Belt and Road countries challenge the idea of the country's economic downturn and substantiates the East Asian giant is steadily transforming itself from the "world factory" to "world builder."

*My article that first appeared in New Straits Times, the Express Tribune and Al Mayadeen.

Don't pin hopes on G7 Summit

By: Azhar Azam

The Group of Seven (G7), a collection of the world's most industrialized countries, asserts to share the fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights as well as claims to have jointly responded to global challenges. However, when one analyzes the group through a critical lens, they will see that, in fact, it's a selective group of white-majority, wealthy states that pursues their own interests and dominance on the rest of the world.

It has its roots in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war when the Mideast countries slapped an oil embargo on the United States of America in response to US President Richard Nixon's $2.2 billion in military assistance to Israel. Two years later, G7 (then Group of Six) emerged on the world scene as "a sort of coup" to take control of the world energy market and "counterattack" against the southern countries seeking liberation from the Western-dominated global economy and demanding a fairer share in international income. Even as the embargo was extended to the Netherlands, Portugal and South Africa, they were not part of the alliance of the richest.

Not once has the G7 possessed a common vision to cope with the global challenges and, over the years, it has become an instrument to advance nationalistic interests and protectionist policies. As a result of the group's theatrical comedy characteristics and improvised dialogue, it has been described as the renaissance of the "commedia dell'arte".

The 2018 "G6 plus one" summit ended in disarray when the former US President Donald Trump reached Charlevoix to straighten unfair trade deals with his allies and left the venue without endorsing the final communiqué over differences on tariffs, climate change, America's unilateral withdrawal from a multi-nation Iran nuclear deal and Russia's readmission to the G7.

Members agreed on a joint statement including trade protectionism and cutting trade barriers; divisions in the alliance were visible. Observers in Europe argued that the group lacked relevance without China and other emerging powers and saw "a mere vindication" of the long-held view the G7 had no reason to exist, calling on a need to replace it with a more significant Group of Twenty (G20).

After the Biarritz Summit next year, the event again was a moment when the US had "definitively" lost its role as the leader of the industrialized nations and was undermining the global economy, multilateralism, campaign against climate change and other global challenges. "Inertia" and "disunity" rediscovered the G-group was deeply fragmented and lacked the capacity to deliver a solution to crucial international issues.

Following the cancellation of the 2020 G7 Summit due to the pandemic, scheduled at Camp David, US President Joe Biden at Cornwall in 2021 led an effort to unite the G7 members in dividing the world on ideological, political and economic grounds. At a time of a raging Covid-19 crisis, the joint communiqué sought to impose its "shared agenda and democratic values" on the rest of the world and promised to "develop a new partnership to build back better for the world" to rival the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In the middle of a raging Covid-19 pandemic, this posture hid cold war overtones and threatened the global fight against the virus and efforts to protect the embattled nations from Covid-19's economic fallouts as the leaders again disagreed on several issues including producing electric power to rein in global warming and committing billions to counter China's global development, investment and lending initiatives.

Before the summit, the instance was being taken by the G7 as an opportunity to "show" and "advance" its democratic values to the world. With that in mind, the club of world's richest announced one billion vaccines to be delivered to poorer countries by the end of 2022, only after they had stockpiled enough shots to inoculate each of their citizens three times over as more than 130 other countries hadn't received a single dose.

Joe declared the gathering was "extraordinarily collaborative and productive" and America had reestablished some of its "credibility" among allies; the "inadequate" climate change and vaccination targets urged the watchers and former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to label the meeting as a "pointless exercise," "selfie summit" and an "unforgivable moral failure".

With European peace in shambles once the pandemic smashed the continental economy, the US president came out swinging in Elmau for the 2022 G7 Summit to take advantage of the Ukraine war and intensify cold war with Beijing. Prior to the summit, the White House claimed the crisis in Europe had firmed up the "democratic world" against Russia and China, promising Chinese alleged unfair economic practices to be "featured prominently" in the discussions. Biden's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also vowed to provide an "alternative" to the BRI.

Here again, Biden looked to exploit the peace crisis on the European shores and focused on raising Europe's dependence on the US. The Build Back Better World initiative was rebranded as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, which pledged to mobilize $600 billion by 2027 and attempted to win back influence in the developing world.

The joint communiqué marked accused China of distorting the global economy, sought Beijing to contribute to international security, recalled the importance of upholding the principle of the UN Charter, and urged non-Paris Club countries and private creditors to help low-income countries, facing debt sustainability challenges. It boasted of delivering 1.175 billion vaccine doses to the world but put the onus of debt restructuring on the G20, an acknowledgement of the G7 eminence in global affairs.

Needless to say, most of the G7 members as part of the US-led NATO have time after time violated the UN Charter and are responsible for bringing chaos to the developing world through their participation in America's wars. The crux of the matter is they propagate their values to the developing countries to score political points but have never really taken concrete steps to help them strengthen their security and counter health and debt challenges, obstructing their development.

An analysis ahead of last year's G7 summit dismantled the group's assertion of delivering vaccines to the developing world, placing the blame of 600,000 deaths (one every minute) in low- and middle-income countries on the "worst offenders" (Canada and the UK) as well as on the US and "Team Europe," each of whom had "betrayed" the poor countries by hoarding the vaccines, failing to meet their commitments and sending their leftovers.

The Oxfam International's report on the eve of the recent G7 summit in Hiroshima said the wealthy countries owe low- and middle-income countries $13.3 trillion in unpaid aid and funding for climate action. Instead of giving a timeline of extending the financial assistance to their former colonies, they are pressuring the global south to pay back $232 million a day in debt repayments through 2028.

This exposes the coalition's "deadly double standards" to confront the debt and climate challenges, as well as debunks their commitment to pull poor countries – struggling to spend on healthcare, education, gender equality, social protection and battle out climate change – back from the brink. This year's G7 summit would pay similar attention to global challenges such as climate change, health and development, yet real focus will be given to the group's economic resilience, Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific; debt crisis in developing countries is nowhere on the agenda.

America, which has a history of coercing other economies such as Iran, Syria and the European Union, would like to reform the G7 into an economic version of NATO to counter what the US alleges Beijing's "economic coercion" but not all countries are well-aligned in alienating their powerful trade partner - China. The wealthiest-only coalition is more plagued by internal differences than ever. For instance, Europe's overreliance on the US for energy and security has become devoid of a common vision as each of its member states pursue its own interests. There is nothing in it for the developing countries except for too much talk about helping them without actually strengthening their efforts to thwart overwhelming debt, economic and climate change challenges.

*One of my articles that first appeared in the "China Daily":

Japan's new 'scramble for Africa'

By: Azhar Azam

In his latest charm offensive to seek their support for the Group of Seven in the Ukraine war, the Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida wrapped up his trip to Egypt, Ghana, Kenya and Mozambique. During his visit to four African countries, he stressed the Global South was suffering from high food and energy prices due to Russia's crisis with Ukraine not because of the G7 sanctions on the Kremlin.

This "scramble for Africa" is part of his ambitious plan that in March pledged $75 billion in investments across the Global South to expand Japan's influence and Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy. As he warmed up for the tour, Kishida himself emphasized the importance of the strategy, upholding the international order and cooperation on climate change, energy and "opaque and unfair" development finance.

The geopolitics was at full blast as Japan's ambassador to Kenya Okaniwa Ken sold Kishida's narrative in African media that the strategy "promotes the rule of law and freedom of navigation in the seas, free from force or coercion and seeks economic prosperity." Meanwhile, the Japanese agency is pressuring the Kenyan authorities to bend the rules in favor of a specific bidder for the construction of a special economic zone.

So, after a gap of almost seven years when former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in 2016 visited Nairobi for the Tokyo International Conference on African Development and proposed the strategy, his successor is again wooing the continent's support for the blueprint by linking it with the promotion of "cooperation in maritime security and infrastructure development" in and around Kenya's Mombasa Port.

In March, Kishida unveiled an ambitious plan to promote the strategy – which cites Africa's abundant resources and potential dynamic growth to portray Japan as "a partner growing together with Africa" – encompassing billions of investments to expand influence in the developing countries.

"Transparent and fair" funding has been another focus of Kishida's visit to draw Africa away from China and Russia into the G7 camp. Most African countries have been neutral on the Ukraine conflict and want to engage both Beijing and Moscow. Yet the attempts to bully Africa into taking the Western side against Russia and making "choices" between China and the US are detrimental to the continental development and peace.

China over the course of decades has become a partner of choice for Africa by building airports, highways, hospitals, ports, railways, schools, stadiums, waterways and other critical infrastructure; developing cities, Westerners used to link with death and famine; and boosting trade and economic relations.

Beijing maintains a clean past and carries no history of colonization of the continent or being a "scramble for Africa" through which the region, during 1881 and 1914, was divided, occupied and colonized by the European states. As international powers raced for influence, Beijing's engagement in Africa has been centered on economic and social development.

The successful implementation of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation– emphasizing on reciprocal consultation, enhancing understanding, expanding consensus, strengthening friendship – and the Belt and Road Initiative demonstrates Beijing is contributing to the continental industrialization, agricultural modernization, infrastructure development, poverty reduction and peace and security.

Incorporation of the Global Development Initiative in the Dakar Action Plan 2022-2024 cemented the China-Africa partnership. The program, according to the UN, lent a fresh impetus to the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by revitalizing the global development partnership, mobilizing international development resources and bridging the North-South divide.

Africa also features prominently in the Global Security Initiative. The concept paper supports the continent's efforts to resolve regional conflicts through dialogue, fight terrorism, protect maritime security and gives a clarion call to the international community to strengthen the continent's ability in safeguarding its peace independently.

Kishida pledged to provide $500 million to Africa over the next three years to promote peace and stability. It is a welcome sign; this "reactive" rather than proactive approach should not undermine Africa's relations with other countries or curry its favor with the country's foreign policy goals such as garnering Africa's support against China or Russia and securing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Unlike other countries that instrumentalize aid for their own interests, Beijing has never attached political strings to its "quite effective" development assistance and played a vital role in Africa by strengthening trade and developing infrastructure. China's new push to increase imports from Africa expanded the bilateral trade to the tune of $282 billion in 2022 at an increase of 11 percent, helping it to cut reliance on "corrosive' foreign aid.

As Kishida steps up efforts in fear of "losing" Africa to China and says he will "relay" the talks to gathering of the richest countries in Hiroshima – studies have shown Beijing's projects boost Africa's economic growth as the G7 states "tend to channel more development assistance" to African countries receiving Chinese aid, shifting financing from social sector to compete with China for influence in infrastructure projects.

Beijing has a strong political and economic relationship with all the African countries including Kishida seeking to align. China continues to increase imports from and invest in Egypt, is significantly enhancing trade with Kenya, remains keen to resolve Ghana's debt crisis and has begun the construction of the world's second-largest floating liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique to help the country emerge as a producer and exporter of the LNG.

China pursues a policy of inclusion. Japan's decision to exclude South Africa from the G7 Summit on geopolitical grounds rings hollow for inclusivity and common interests. South Africa is a key regional country and an important global player as well as a member of Group of 20. Such steps may pose a risk to African development and security and threaten to weaken joint global peace efforts.

Africa's potential as a fast-growing middle class, large untapped mineral, agriculture and human resources and two-third of the world's uncultivated arable land is luring several countries to the world's second-most populous continent. This geopolitics around the continent in a disintegrating world risks Africa's development and peace and must be brought to a halt immediately.

*My article that first appeared in the "China Daily."

A multipolar world order is in the making and that’s good for international peace

By: Azhar Azam

Beijing is becoming the center of global diplomacy. In the last couple of months, it has hosted a number of international leaders including Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Union President Ursula von der Leyen, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as well as the foreign ministers of Central Asia.

During their stay, heads of state and diplomats from diverse continents and regions emphasized accepting China’s role in global affairs; warned of getting “caught up in crises”; sought to improve connectivity and strengthen relations with Beijing across the areas of economy, investment, trade and peace and pursued digital revolution and regional security with the Chinese support.

These realignments signal a trend is taking shape in which countries are seeking to lessen their over-reliance on the US-dominated world order in terms of their autonomy and economy. This global tilt is driven by the Biden administration's approach to compete with China, expand NATO, prolong the Ukraine war and raise the world's dependence on America.

Seeing the White House's objectives as belligerent, not just Global South’s but also Europe's view of the US as a warmonger and China's as a peacemaker is gathering momentum. While Macron questions whether it's in Brussels' interest to "accelerate" a crisis on Taiwan, expecting China to play a “major role” to bring back peace on the European shores, Spain's Sanchez has described Beijing as a “top-tier global actor.”

What has forced Europe to review its perspective on Beijing is Chinese President Xi Jinping's role as a "global statesman" after facilitating the successful peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Beijing's proactive peace diplomacy clearly has struck a chord with almost everyone within the Middle East and North Africa, where the regional factions and states welcomed the development, and beyond.

Beijing’s credentials as a peace mediator in the Gulf stoked fears in the US about the failure of American war diplomacy, end of the US-led world order and the advent of Beijing as the leader of the Eurasian bloc. This distress will intensify in the coming months as the US influence in Central Asia continues to decline and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky dubs his conversation with Xi as "meaningful" with the appointment of an ambassador in Beijing.

As part of a last-ditch effort, Czech President Petr Pavel came to insulate the US from diplomatic isolation by casting doubts on China's sincerity to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, alleging it was in Beijing's interest to "prolong the status quo." But his attempt to pass the buck of the conflict on China and camouflage America's war-ridden and conflict-staging history was exposed once he promoted the Biden administration's mantra of an alliance of democracies to counter Beijing.

Through decades, especially after the end of the cold war, the US delegated itself the authority to violate the sovereignty of every small country at will with the sole objective to export its governance model under the banner of liberal internationalism in a bid to impose its world order of liberal hegemony through an interventionist foreign policy of seeking world dominance.

All four key elements of the US extensive involvement in world affairs including ensuring Washington's global leadership and “prevention of emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia,” one that the country’s policymakers do not often state publicly, as well as NATO expansion covet the world dominance by containing China and threatening Russia, giving America unrestrained access to usurp global resources.

China’s active role in international affairs and Beijing’s transformation as the world’s “diplomatic capital” is a challenge to the US global leadership for this peace diplomacy threatens to replace a world order that’s built on wars and interventions across regions and offers a peaceful alternative to all countries.

Factors such as “extraterritoriality” and the outsized role of the US dollar are contributing to this novel phenomenon. America’s leverage to unceremoniously terminate any country’s access to a dollar-dominated payment system has created a stir everywhere. The US weaponization of its currency pushed the countries to reassess their policy of relying too heavily on the greenback, paving the way for the creation of a new multipolar international currency system, and urging states to gradually inch out of the dollar trade-and-finance system.

More recently, America is being isolated from key international developments owing to its core belief that peace in the world goes against its national interest and that wars and conflicts are the only way to retain the US influence and hegemony. This hostile mindset, backed by ceaseless arrogance, led to the formulation of doctrinaire policy that resulted in US deadly invasions and left millions of less-developed regions in undreamed-of political, economic and humanitarian crises.

But an evolving international consensus is now challenging the US war narrative of making countries its "vassal" states through economic and military power projection. In a changing world, countries seek to jettison their dependence on the US and do not want someone else to control their destiny. This transition from war to peace could take some time to transpire but would bode well for the global economy and security.

*This is one of my articles that first appeared ar "Al Mayadeen."

Central Asia shouldn't be a battleground of influence

By: Azhar Azam

China greatly values its relationship with the Central Asian countries. Beijing continues to reiterate its resolute support for the region's security and territorial integrity, opposes any foreign interference in the internal affairs of the regional states and stays keen to build mutual trust and expand cooperation in areas including trade and investment, infrastructure development, agriculture, healthcare and energy and minerals.

Underlying these key principles of independence, the Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councilor Qin Gang hosted top diplomats of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the fourth China-Central Asia Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Xi'an, northwest China's Shaanxi Province on April 27 to promote hexagonal cooperation and exchange views on international issues and prospects and contours of further engagement.

As all countries reciprocated their partner's trust by backing the Chinese vision of peaceful development, the relationship is set to solidify with the first-ever China-Central Asia Summit, comprising state heads of China and Central Asian nations in May.

Amid growing strategic coordination in the face of regional and global challenges, trade between China and Central Asia was estimated to exceed $70 billion in 2022 at a staggering increase of 40 percent compared to 2021. The surge is about 100 times over the past 30 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties and the Central Asian diplomats vow to make the next 30 years an era of golden cooperation.

The China-Central Asia Gas Pipeline is a fabulous model of multilateral energy cooperation. The 1,833-km gas transmission line – which runs from the borders of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and passes through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan – according to the PipeChina West Pipeline Company, had delivered more than 40 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China by the end of last year, giving Central Asia the access of one of the world's largest energy markets.

Kazakhstan's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Murat Nurtleu gave the credit for creating the China-Central format to Beijing that aims to improve political and diplomatic interaction and enhance cooperation in trade, investment, transport, healthcare, technology and other areas. This highlights China will be featuring prominently in Central Asia's economic ambitions over the next few decades.

Uzbekistan's Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov also hailed the format as an important platform to strengthen regional connectivity and deepen multi-layered cooperation. The Tajik Minister of Foreign Affairs Sirodjiddin Mukhriddin too was upbeat about the China-Central Asia relationship and bilateral strategic partnership.

As the Central Asian delegates explore areas of cooperation ahead of the China-Central Asia Summit and have attended the 10th anniversary of the China-Europe Railway Express and the Belt and Road Initiative, the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway Corridor could be one excellent example of intraregional infrastructure development and shared growth.

The 523-km long track has the potential to become an economic boon for the regional states and can bring the region out of the "transport impasse" in addition to connecting four billion people to promote cultural exchanges.

After years of neglect, America is suddenly cozying up to the Central Asian states. In March, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited the region to revivify the country's dormant C5+1 Diplomatic Platform, which was originally launched in 2015. Following the U.S. snub of Central Asia once it withdrew from Afghanistan, this re-engagement is mere reactionary. The goal is not to advance the shared goal of "an independent, prosperous, and secure Central Asia" but to counter China-Central Asia bolstering ties, as part of a great power competition.

Increasing trade, respect for territorial integrity and a number of economic and infrastructure agreements between China and Central Asia have alarmed the U.S. about a sharp decline of Washington's influence in the region. Yet America's approach to seeing the region in the context of competition with China would threaten the region's economic future and stability.

China's status as a big energy market, large economy and focus on peaceful development presents opportunities for Central Asia to further mutually beneficial cooperation with Beijing on trade, investment, industry, transport infrastructure, water and food security and culture, as well as regional security. The U.S. should stop any attempt to make the region a battleground of influence and let the region realize its true potential of a secure and prosperous Central Asia.

*My article that first appeared at "China Global Television Network."

Why is America lagging behind on key international diplomatic initiatives?

By: Azhar Azam

As Russia took over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the US said “a country that flagrantly violates the UN Charter and invades its neighbor has no place” on the body. In the same breath, the world’s superpower expressed its vulnerability by urging Moscow to oversee the Council “professionally.”

The US, of course, had no means to block Russia’s ascent to the most powerful UN organ, originally established to foster peace, achieve synchronization among nations across regions, and resolve international issues. Should there be any, Washington, with a history of serial invasions, lacked the fiber to demand such high moral standards.

March 2023, incidentally, marked the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. In 2003, the Bush administration lied to Americans and the international community that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons and stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and proceeded to invade Iraq with allies in a search for these weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Once Iraq was ravaged, not “one bit” of the US intelligence community’s assessments could be confirmed, according to the country’s own Commission’s report on Saddam's alleged WMD that characterized the lapse as “one of the most public – and most damaging – intelligence failures in recent American history.”

Both then-US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted the mass failure in detecting “the world’s most destructive weapons” and regretted a “terrible mistake on all our parts” in Iraq, but without any accountability for a war, which was described as "illegal" by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2004, as it breached the UN Charter.

These days, there are more instances of US hypocrisy, of the delusion of grandeur, and sanctimony than ever. For example, knowing that his own country didn’t recognize the International Criminal Court (ICC) and never ratified the Rome Statute, US President Joe Biden recently described The Hague-based institution’s arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes as “justified.”

If anything, the US has great detest for the ICC. Just a month after the court began operations in 2002, the US Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (The Hague Invasion Act) and authorized the US president “to use all means”, including the use of military force, to liberate any American or allied nation’s detainee from the court.

The World Court has no retrospective jurisdiction for crimes committed before July, 1, 2002. The ICC could have held America responsible for its war crimes thereafter, yet it focused on unfairly targeting Africans. In 2018, the court did make an effort to charge the US military with war crimes in Afghanistan; the body was dubbed “unaccountable” and “outright dangerous” by the US and was threatened with financial sanctions and bans, and the court's officials were threatened with prosecution in the US criminal system. A couple of years later, the US government accused the ICC of making “illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction” and banned its officials.

Over the years, the US has made serial invasions of a number of countries, with allies such as Australia and "Israel" being found guilty of slitting boys’ throats in Afghanistan and killing children in Palestine. Will international leaders and organizations cheering the ICC decision on Putin hold for a moment and ask the US to repeal the controversial legislation and make Americans and allies accountable for their war crimes? The sudden change of heart is certainly for non-allies and adversaries only; the US and allies still remain untouchable for what they did in Afghanistan and the Middle East with sheer impunity.

Just a brief assessment of the US approach toward the ICC could reveal that the Biden administration’s support of the court’s decision is simulated. History shows how for decades, the Democrats, Republicans and military establishment have been working hand in glove to assert the US hegemony the world over and to bury America’s bloodstained invasive past.

The US should stop playing geopolitics around the ICC, given that Russia isn’t party to the 123-nation agreement, and this approach thwarts peace efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war. Even John Bolton, who blasted the ICC as the US National Security Advisor in September 2018, says it is a “dangerous” and “fundamentally illegitimate” organization that may potentially threaten attempts at peace in Ukraine.

China has been targeted for its neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, yet over time, the European leaders are gradually realizing this impartial position, without getting into aggressor-victim debate, may be helpful to bring warring parties on the table for a negotiated solution. They now recognize that "the West against the rest" approach, and a tense political, economic, societal and scientific relationship with the world's second-largest economy isn't a viable solution.

By brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China has demonstrated its worth as a major international stakeholder and showed its muscle as a possible diplomatic interlocutor between Russia and Ukraine. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez recently called Beijing a "global actor"; French President Emmanuel Macron, visiting China along with the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, wants Beijing to "play a major role" in bringing peace back.

For the first time in many years, the US seems to be completely isolated from key international developments. Washington abandoned the Middle East to strengthen and/or expand its military footprint in the Indo-Pacific and focused on Europe to simultaneously counter China, America's "most consequential geopolitical challenge," and Russia's aggression. But in the end, it looks as if Washington is on track to concede all its allies to Beijing.

Not long ago, Washington sought a dialogue and comprehensive ceasefire with the Taliban in Afghanistan; the White House has been opposed to such an arrangement in Ukraine. This is not only because Biden fears any China-led peace will be a diplomatic victory for its strategic rival, but also because this would smite his effort of portraying the Ukraine conflict as part of a great struggle between autocracies and democracies.

Yet it is happening anyway. The Global South views China as a peacemaker and the US as a warmonger; the number of geopolitically non-aligned or neutral countries on the Ukraine issue is increasing as Russia musters support from the developing world. Even one of the closest American allies, Japan, is reportedly ditching the Biden administration by buying oil from Russia at a price above the $60/barrel cap.

As per a former British official, the Western-led international order began to actually crumble after the invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK in violation of the UN Charter, and this punches another hole in the US narrative of respecting international law and territorial integrity of other countries and upholding world peace.

Washington and London perhaps would never be made accountable for wreaking mayhem and humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Plowing the sands to hold Russia responsible for the Ukraine crisis will most likely meet a similar fate. However, by shelving the ideological approach and backing peace efforts, the US could still make a positive contribution to safeguard international stability and resolve a conflict threatening to shape into a "mother of all forever wars" for Americans.

*This is my article that first appeared at "Al Mayadeen"