Beijing plays for gains on Iraq showdown

Bush has been phoning world leaders seeking support on Iraq

(CNN) -- The brief dispatch from Xinhua, China's state-run news agency, reporting the telephone conversation between Presidents Jiang Zemin and George W. Bush last Friday said much about Beijing's ambivalence toward the Iraqi crisis.

According to the agency, "both sides exchanged views on the international and regional situation -- and how to develop and strengthen the Sino-American relationship of constructive cooperation."

Xinhua gave nothing away on what Jiang might have said in response to Bush's effort to persuade China of the imperative of toppling the Saddam Hussein regime.

By contrast, Russian President Vladmir Putin was quoted by international wire services as scolding Bush for upsetting peace and stability in the tricky Gulf area.

At least for the short term, China appears to be playing coy if not actually positioning itself on both sides of the fence.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has reiterated that the Iraqi problem "should be solved in a political and diplomatic way within the framework of the United Nations."

More by Willy Wo Lap Lam Eye on China archive     CNN NewsPass Video    •  Bush makes Iraq case to Congress    •  Iraqi minister scolds U.S. at U.N.   MORE STORIES   •  General: U.S. ready to attack Iraq   •  Iraq: No new U.N. resolutions   •  Bush outlines first-strike doctrine  EXTRA INFORMATION   •  Profile: Hans Blix   •  Gallery: Reactions to Bush's speech on Iraq   •  Timeline: White House states case for Saddam violations   •  Interactive: Chemical weapons   •  Timeline: U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq   •  Map: Area controlled by Kurds   •  Interactive Map: World stances on Iraq  RESOURCES   •  On the Scene: Rula Amin: Iraqi people relieved   •  Text of Iraq letter to U.N.   •  U.N. resolutions on Iraq   •  U.N. Security Council   •  Transcript: Bush address to U.N. General Assembly   •  In-Depth: The Unfinished War

The wording of Chinese diplomats, however, is tamer than the more colorful language used by the leaders of U.S. allies such as German Chancellor Gerhad Shroeder and French President Jacques Chirac, who have called the American war plan "mistaken," "unwise," and even "unilateralist."

The cadres' take on the subject is also considerably milder than that of Chinese academics, who have decried the preponderance of American "unilateralism and hegemonism."

For example, People's University international affairs professor Jin Canrong said Washington's Iraqi gambit signaled the "rise of right wing and military forces in the U.S.," even the advent of "American neo-imperialism."

Windfall

However, it is possible that during his summit meeting at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas next month, Jiang will dangle the possibility of some form of Chinese help -- or at least acquiescence -- in return for sizeable concessions.

There is little question that an American-Iraqi conflict would present China with a windfall of diplomatic and other opportunities.

This is evident from the improvement of Sino-US ties in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Before that "day of infamy", China was looked upon by a number of American officials and strategists as potential enemy No. 1 -- and there were scary scenarios that the world's only superpower and its most populous would-be superpower were heading toward an inevitable showdown.

Bin Laden's ugly exploits, however, had the effect of diverting Bush's attention from what he had earlier deemed America's "strategic competitor."

After September 11, Washington's priority is fighting terrorism, not containing China.

And as Beijing University expert Niu Jun pointed out, if the U.S. were to attack Iraq, "Americans will be bogged down and we [Chinese] shall have less to worry about."

Partly thanks to Beijing's acquiescence in Washington's Afghanistan campaign, China is perceived in many American quarters as a worthy partner in the global fight against terrorism.

'Strike hard'

China's help is much more valued this time around because of Washington's failure to win unqualified support for its Iraqi venture even among traditional European allies.

And should the U.S. decide to seek a UN imprimatur on its anti-Iraqi offensive, it must ensure that the Chinese will at least abstain from voting during Security Council deliberations.

It is perhaps for this reason that during his visit to Beijing last month, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acceded to long-standing Chinese demands that Washington declare the East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM) a terrorist organization.

While the ETIM is only one among a host of separatist groupings in Xinjiang -- many of which do not espouse violence at all -- Washington's move has been taken by Chinese officials as some form of tolerance if not tacit approval of Beijing's omnibus "Strike Hard" campaign against the underground Uighur movement in the restive region.

Western diplomats in Beijing said Jiang might bring along the following quid pro quo to the Crawford barbecue: Beijing will go along with Washington on Iraq in return for the latter showing restraint in the Taiwan Strait.

For instance, Beijing has repeatedly asked the U.S. to scale down its shipment of sophisticated weapons to the self-ruled island.

Taiwan wish list

At the same time that Jiang is preparing his Taiwan-related wish list to Crawford, however, his aides have warned him of the price of acquiescence.

After all, it is long-standing Chinese policy that, for reasons including securing a reliable supply of petroleum, Beijing must maintain an overall solidarity with the Middle East.

Beijing has since the Gulf War of 1990-91 kept up reasonably close ties with Baghdad despite the Western embargo on the rogue state.

Early last year, Washington accused Chinese state corporations of helping to beef up the fiber-optics network of the Iraqi air defense system.

Going soft

Perception by Iraq and other Middle East countries that Beijing is going "soft" on its opposition to American expansionism could hurt China's long-term ties with the Arab and Muslim world.

Moreover, the latest turn on the anti-terrorist front could afford Beijing an opportunity to exploit and play up the Iraq-related differences between the U.S. on the one hand, and the EU and Russia on the other.

This accords with the time-honored Chinese policy of gunning for a multi-polar world order through subtly driving a wedge between the U.S. and its traditional and newly acquired allies.

Then there is the Bush administration's claim that the U.S. is justified in launching pre-emptive attacks against aggressive, rogue regimes that are piling up weapons of mass destruction.

For many Chinese strategists, this apparently self-serving twist to Washington's anti-terrorist logic sounds ominously familiar to the pretext the U.S. and NATO had invoked in bombing Kosovo.

Rising power?

Back in early 1999, former president Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had argued that the principle of international humanitarianism overrides that of the inviolability of national sovereignties and boundaries.

And the "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May that year alerted Beijing to the possibility that NATO could one day interfere in Chinese affairs through excuses such as alleged Chinese suppression of the human rights of Uighurs and Tibetans.

In the final analysis, however, Beijing's response to the Iraq imbroglio may hinge on its perception of the trajectory of American prowess.

A number of U.S. specialists, including influential Jiang advisers, are convinced that the war on terrorism has strengthened America's position as the world's only superpower.

They have argued that it is wise to continue with late patriarch Deng Xiaoping's U.S. policy of "seeking cooperation and avoiding confrontation."

More nationalist analysts, however, think Washington's failure to cobble together a global coalition against Baghdad -- just as much as the September 11 attacks themselves -- may mark the beginning of the waning of America's global clout.

They contend that Beijing should help hasten the eclipse of American unilateralism by taking a loud and clear stand against Washington's bid to liquidate Saddam Hussein.