China’s rise should be seen as a normal behavior of a great power nation. The debate whether China is already surpassing the United States or otherwise should not centre in the discussion of International Relations. It was already a great power in the history of several dynasties, and should be contemporarily framed as an ascending power to be a supreme state in the world. Therefore, we must acknowledge that China’s behavior is organically similar as any other states which ascends to be a global superpower.
Historically, China established as an imperial power, enjoying its longevity over dynasties and huge territory. Its imperial power shows absence of any invasion to foreign land, but was very much troubled from the struggles within. Chinese dynasties faced internal rivalries more seriously than foreign invasions. Despite the struggles, China as a kingdom triumphs as an imperial power, having to expand its trading dominance all over the region, including to Melaka via the South China Sea. Today’s Belt and Road Inititiave displays China’s strategy of the past in expanding its reach via economic dominance towards its neighbours. It shall not be contended that China historically did expand the borders. They did so by conquering the lands of the neighbours as the Tang dynasty extends a physical area to include Annam (Vietnam), Central Asia, Korean peninsula and parts of Japan (Baginda, 2020: 20)
Ascending to be a global superpower is not abnormal behaviour of a modern nation state. United Kingdom once was a superpower, judging from its colonialism might that brought all Commonwealth countries under the premiership of the English Monarch. Following the World Wars, Japan and Russia projects to be a global superpower. Such intentions and moves are realistically logical to sustain one’s relevance in an anarchic politics. Therefore, China’s move and intent are not to be blamed, as what have been projected by other parts of the world. Regardless of the behaviours of other countries, China’s move is not met with an easy acceptance from the Western bloc. Part of it is due to the differences of democratic path, which Western blocs would attest heavily to countries which do not share democratic aspirations like them.
A more daring question we need to ask ourselves, is being different should be the basis of negativity? What could be the explanation of fear and prejudice towards China’s rise which is ideologically and culturally different from the established norm in the world? Must we fear differences?
As China’s neighbour, Malaysia should comprehend China’s insertion into Asian region, with specific reference to southeast region from the strategic view point. The Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI) have landed quite extensively in Malaysia’s soil, witnessing a massive import of Chinese technology and human resources. It is in the best interest of Putrajaya to analyse Beijing’s active control into the region, and project a response that will benefit a win-win situation. Putrajaya should ask,what would be the gain of China for BRI? At the same time, what would be the gain of Malaysia when it comes to the BRI? A fundamental question we need to be very certain, does BRI demonstrate a product of Chinese geo-economics, or would it be Beijing’s Grand Strategy to ascend as a global super power in the future.
The U.S. – China trade war which has been escalating since November 2019 with President Trump aggressively wanting to increase tariffs on all Chinese products and asserting a national emergency – locking Huawei out of the US market. Observers of U.S. and China relations have become more anxious on the future of this most weighty bilateral relationship. It worsens the relationship between the U.S. and China and this is a concerning issue because such quarrel is causing serious problems to many countries and there is no sign of it stopping anytime soon. Besides, it is a huge challenge for the U.S. to regulate the global power progression as the outcome of China’s rise. At current, the U.S. seems to aim at curtailing China’s development and perpetuating Washington’s dominance. As the U.S. and China competition aggravates, the whole world is probing into a huge uncertainty era. Malaysia as an exporting country to both, will find herself in between these big powers. Should Malaysia is brought and trapped into the Thucydides Trap, what would be the best response to safeguard our national interest? Such likelihood is not high, but Putrajaya could not afford to react abruptly when such scenario arises.
In the long term, are we preparing to accept leadership change from the Washington’s centric to the one based on Asian values, like Beijing? Malaysia shares the same Asian values when it comes to the society and governance, but its politics and system are very much influenced by the West, through its exposure with the British system for nearly more than 2 centuries. Malaysia upholds parliamentary democracy that mirrors the Westminster style of governance. Our separation of legislative, executive and judiciary bodies acts as a check and balance towards Malaysia’s democratisation.
In conclusion, Malaysia is at the crossroad towards power struggle between two big giants. Putrajaya will never attest to contest existence rivalry by becoming a third force, but for the nation to prosper, a clear strategic game plan should be constructed, in ensuring our national interests are well guarded. However, once we are clear with “what we want”, our foreign policy will be accustomed to project Malaysia’s national interest. We aim to construct a pragmatic foreign policy and diplomatic relations with Beijing, sustainably and consistently. China knows what they want, but do we know what we (Malaysia) want?
