China UNWAVERINGLY practicing PURE Realpolitik meaning UNAPOLOGETIC CHINA FIRST GENERAL POLICY : Part I
A TEXT BY ANGELO GIULIANO
● Why isn’t China coming to the rescue of the Palestinians who are being genocided ?
● Why isn’t China defending its Venezuelan partner from US agression ?
● Why isns’t China being more forthcoming to defend its close Iranian neighbor from the attacks of Israel and of the US ?
You have probably heard these questions on social media, and have perhaps asked yourself the same question.
In today’s Western mindset, unfortunately not molded by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers anymore, but by Hollywood producers, there is a disturbing tendency to ” wait for the cavalry to show up and save the day ” , for a superhero to right the wrongs in a sick world, or for some kind of Coalition of Willing Avengers to team up against Evil and save the poor and the weak, in the name of Justice and Greater Good.
Fortunately, international relations between sovereign states (that disqualifies NATO and EU member states, as well as US Asian proxies) are still based on national interest, not on cultural-specific concepts of morality and heroism.
Too many so-called “critics of the West” or “critics of Israel” are trying to ragebait China into picking a side on the Palestinian issue, and bring the hammer down on Israel, not unlike the US acts against its ideological rivals. If China was siding with Palestine unequivocally and provided military assistance to it, it would validate the Neocons’ theory of the upcoming “clash of civilizations”, whereby China will become first a rival, then an enemy of the West. A common theoty of Western China-watchers is that China is just like any other nascent empire before it : once it becomes rich, it first becomes assertive, then agressive, and finally prone to expanding its territory at the expense of its neighbors. Suggesting that China should get involved militarily in Palestine, Venezuela, Syria, or soon in Cuba to defend these sovereign nations of the Global South is naive at best, but is more likely to be a vicious trap set on China. It is basicallly asking China to become an auxiliary of the US to police the world, or suggesting that China’s economic might naturally makes it the next “policeman of the World”.
This is a Western concept in which China does not believe at all, and it is the root of the misunderstanding between Westerners who demand China’s military involvement in various causes.
Beijing will not fall into this trap, no matter how Western critics frame it : by stroking the Chinese ego (“you are a powerful nation now, and with power come responsibilities”) or by criticizing its moral compass (“how can China let little kids be blown up to pieces by Israel and do nothing ?”)
To be blunt, Beijing will not take out the garbage or save the World one conflict at a time.
THIS IS A TRAP THAT IS SET UP BY THE WEST : TO INVOLVE CHINA IN COUNTLESS CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD, AGAINST THE HOUTHIS, IRAN, SYRIA, SOMALIS PIRATES, etc. SO IT EXHAUSTS ITSELF BY STRETCHING ITS RESOURCES TOO THIN AROUND THE PLANET.
Xi Jinping and the head of Chinese diplomacy have repeated time and again : none of these conflicts originate in China, so it is not for Beijing to go out of its way, against its other national interests, and try to solve conflicts that were designed to last for decades or more.
China’s place in international relations is not that of a replacement hegemon or a global enforcer. It is the deliberate construction of a multipolar order rooted in sovereignty, mutual respect, and development rather than lectures. bombs or sanctions.
BEIJING DOES NOT SEEK TO POLICE THE PLANET OR IMPOSE ITS SYSTEM.
IT BUILDS QUIETLY THROUGH TRADE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIPS THAT OFFER THE GLOBAL SOUTH A GENUINE ALTERNATIVE TO THE CHAOS OF THE SO-CALLED RULES-BASED ORDER.
MULTIPOLARITY IS NOT CHINA TAKING AMERICA’s SEAT AT THE TABLE. IT IS THE REJECTION OF ANY SINGLE POWER CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO RULE THE GLOBE.
THIS IS STRATEGY, NOT WEAKNRSS.
History is full of powers that mistook restraint for fragility. China studied that history carefully and chose a different path.
THIS IS PURE REALPOLITIK : CHINA HAS A CHINA-FIRST POLICY.
The advocates of America First can understand that concept very well.
Because EU is not a nation, it cannot articulate such a sovereignist policy, and thus can only feel envious of and be hostile to countries that do. That is how one should look at the EU’s (feigned) defiance towards the US and (sincere) hostility towards China.
In Beijing’s highest circle of power, national interests come first, under any circumstance, and in spite of the attempts of a class of pro-Western “liberals” to sell the country to Wall Street.
IN BEIJING, THE PARTY CALCULATES EVERY MOVE THROUGH THE LENS OF WHAT ADVANCES CHINESE SECURITY, PROSPERITY AND LONG-TERM STABILITY. NO EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL, NO CRUSADES, NO PURITY TESTS — JUST COLD, CLEAR PRIORITIZATION OF CHINA’s OWN CORE INTERESTS ABOVE ALL ELSE.
ITS PREFERRED METHOD IS THE CARROT, NOT THE STICK.
China will engage with an enemy or competitor precisely because it knows engagement builds leverage over time and avoid unnecessary clashes.
This is the Chinese way : to set aside differences, and look for what unites. Focus on and expand the areas of consensus and cooperation so as to dilute conflict in a sea of collaboration.
No financial or military coercion, but rather patient engagement that gradually shapes the environment in China’s favor. Better yet, China’s diplomacy has been faithful to the traditional concept of the Middle Way, thus keeping away from extreme positions that close more doors than they open.
THE MIDDLE WAY — 中 庸 之 道 : Zhong Yong Zhi Dao — IS A CENTRAL CONCEPT OF CONFUCIANISM, CONSTANTLY CITED IN CHINESE POLITICAL THOUGHT, AS WELL AS IN DISCUSSIONS ONE CAN HAVE TODAY WITH MEMBERS OF THE CHINESE INTELLIGENTSIA . KNOWN AS THE GOLDEN MEAN IN THE WEST, THIS CHINESE CONCEPT WAS TRANSLATED BY EZRA POUND (who translated Confucius) AS THE ” UNWOBBLING PIVOT.”
FOLLOWING THIS FOUNDING BLOCK OF CHINESE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, CHINESE GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PERFORMATIVE PURITY TESTS or WESTERN-STYLE VIRTUE-SIGNALING.
China maintains diplomatic relations with almost every country on Earth, including Israel, the same way it does with the US, Saudi Arabia or anyone else.
THAT IS CALLED RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT, NOT “COMPLICITY” OF ATROCITIES, AS MANY PUNDITS TRY TO FRAME IT.
China has consistently voted for ceasefires at the UN, condemned the “collective punishment” (euphemism for genocide) dished out by Israel on Palestinians, pushed for a two-state solution, and refused to join the Western arms pipeline that actually fuels the killing.
BDS (Boycott-Divest-Sanction) is not Chinese foreign policy. Neither are sanctions. Turning Palestine into the sole pillar of its Middle East policy would be militantism, not state diplomacy. The same applies to Venezuela or Cuba : making these two nations the pillar of China’s Latin American policy would be amateurish and counterproductive, as it would sacrifice Beijing’s relationship with Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, all major trading and diplomatic partners.
CHINA CONTRIBUTES AT THE MACRO LEVEL : BUILDING A MULTIPOLAR WORLD THAT PROGRESSIVELY MIRRORS and OFFERS an ALTERNATIVE TO THE CURRENT “rules-based order (in fact perpetual chaos based on the law of the jungle) WHICH NO STATE IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH HAS EVER AGREED ON, MUCH LESS SIGNED FOR. THAT IS FAR MORE STRAYEGIC THAN SLOGANS.
THE WEST ARMS ISRAEL and UKRAINE to the teeth WHILE LECTURING OTHER STATES THAT WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. CHINA DOES NOT.
THE WEST’s SELF-AWARDED “moral clarity” IS NOT REAL POWER, IT IS JUST NOISE, WHILE CHINA’s NEUTRALITY and QUEST FOR FAIRNESS and JUSTICE IS THE REAL POWER THAT GRADUALLY SHIFTS THE GLOBAL BALANCE.
Beijing does not export ideology or demand allegiance. Its influence grows through the Belt and Road Initiative, through consistent non-interference, and through the patient creation of institutions and trade networks that reduce dependence on Western financial and military structures. This is not isolationism. It is disciplined engagement on China’s own terms.