Introduction
Prior to entering the great power competition (GPC) with China and Russia, the United States was embroiled in the Global War on Terror (GWOT), and before that was the Cold War. Now that the GWOT is over, America has returned to a situation similar to the Cold War, but with a difference: China and Russia are now far more sophisticated in their approach to international relations.
Instead of just using military power (hard power), China and Russia are using all the instruments of foreign power: diplomacy, information, military, economic, and cultural, which includes religion. China is especially adept at this, combining these instruments and coordinating their using their usage.
In this paper, certain methods of China’s approach to GPC are considered, in particular the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The operation and the motivations of the BRI are described. Next, the BRI is fitted into Nye’s framework of hard/sharp/soft/smart power. The consequences a country faces when it decides to enter partnership with China are listed. Finally, the role of religion in combatting the BRI is explored.
Sharp, Hard, Soft, and Smart Power
During the Clinton Administration, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a report entitled “CSIS Commission on Smart Power” coauthored by Joseph S. Nye, Jr.1 He was one of the first people to use the term “smart power”, and a four-fold classification of styles of implementing foreign policy was described: sharp, hard, soft, and smart power.
Hard power is the overt use of coercion to influence the actions of other nations. Here, “coercion” can include economic sanctions, coercive diplomacy, and military threats.
Sharp power uses subtle means to influence or manipulate through deceptive means including propaganda and information warfare. The goal is to not so much to change behavior but rather to change perception to cause political instability, change the opinion of the target nation towards the nation using the sharp power, etc. It is typically used by totalitarian countries like China to influence free(er) nations, taking “advantage of the one-sided openness of Western states and societies to Chinese capital, ideas, and actors. C.C.P. influence has entered through the open front door, eagerly courted by those in the West hungry for a large slice of the growing China cake.”2
Soft power can be defined as “the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals.”3. It involves getting a nation to behave in a certain way using culture, political values, and foreign policy. Soft power co-opts a nation by getting them to want what you want. It is difficult to wield since the needed tools (such as cultural tools) are not under government control, and that it does not produce immediate results since using cultural and political values need time to shape the diplomatic process.
Smart power is the use of sharp and soft power in combination to achieve America’s foreign policy goals. “Smart power means developing an integrated strategy, resource base, and tool kit to achieve American objectives, drawing on both hard and soft power.”4 The CSIS report recommended four broad strategies for implementing smart power: invest in a “new multilateralism,” global development, public diplomacy, and economic integration. From today’s standpoint the goal of these strategies might be called “pre-globalism,” and was the driving foreign policy of both Clinton and Obama.
The Belt and Road Initiative
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is China's global economic development strategy. It was advocated by Xi Jinping and adopted by China in 2013. BRI is implemented by heavily investing in a country's infrastructure projects which can include railways, highways, hospitals, port facilities, logistic hubs, real estate, power grids, etc.5 The BRI in called "One Belt Road" in China and is sometimes called the "New Silk Road." Transnational networks of highways and railways have been built, but the BRI is not simply a physical infrastructure program - it also includes trade agreements and streamlined border crossings as well as the creation of economic zones that favor adoption of Chinese technology. This network expands the use of Chinese currency and thus the political influence of China.
In 2024 there are 149 countries involved in BRI projects.
Should an infrastructure project be successfully completed in a country, China or state-owned businesses maintain a significant share in the project. Operation of that project entails that funds go to China, so that country becomes a vassal state to China. Further, requiring that transactions between the Chinese and the target county’s companies take place using Chinese yuan renminbi freezes the foreign company into a relationship with the Chinese one, since China’s yuan is a non-convertible currency.
When economic factors force a country to default on BRI loans, China could nationalize foreign assets and return them only should their “owner” perform certain actions. This results in the country going sovereign default, which happened in Ghana and Zambia. When Pakistan defaulted, they were bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. When Sri Lanka defaulted on a $435 million BRI loan to build a harbor there, China enforced a debt-for-equity swap giving China 70% stake in the harbor.
The Council on Foreign Relations maintains a "Belt and Road Tracker" website6 (unfortunately it has records only up to 2017) which shows the imports from China as a percentage of GDP, foreign direct investment from China, and the external debt owed to China. Foreign direct investment is the percentage of the country's incoming investment and is indicative of the control China has over the internal politics of that country.
Some examples...
- Imports from China constitutes 4.9% of Egypt's GDP
- 10.4% of Sri Lanka's inward foreign direct investment comes from China.
- 7.0% of Sri Lanka's inward foreign direct investment comes from China.
- 17.2% of Ethiopia’s GDP is debt to China.
BRI’s Relation to China’s General Model of Unrestricted Warfare
The BRI is part of China’s general approach to warfare, called “unrestricted warfare” by its inventors. The Chinese colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui developed and wrote Unrestricted Warfare7 in response to lessons learned from America’s victory in the First Gulf War. Qiao and Wang realized that China would be unable to match the United States’ technical virtuosity in kinetic warfare. Unrestricted warfare is an elaborate system involving redefinitions of terms such as “warfare” and “weapons.” For them, a weapon is not just a tool to kill or destroy. Instead, they realize that “everything that can benefit mankind can also harm him… The new concept of weapons will cause ordinary people and military men alike to be greatly astonished at the fact that commonplace things that are close to them can also become weapons with which to engage in war.” These weapons include:
- Financial
- Ecological
- Psychological
- Smuggling
- Media warfare
- Drug warfare
- Network warfare
- Technological warfare
- Fabrication
- Resources
- Economic aid warfare
- Cultural warfare
- International lawfare
Most importantly, unrestricted warfare redefines “victory” to mean that the enemy nation is forced to serve one’s own interest. “The best way to achieve victory is to control, not to kill,” they wrote.
The BRI would fit within financial, economic aid, and cultural warfare. This is explicitly stated in a 2015 paper written by Colonel Qiao8. Indeed, BRI forces the aid recipient to serve one’s own interest.
How the United States Builds Relationships with Non-Secular Countries
The relationships the United States has with other countries (except China, Russia, Iran, and DPRK) are based on trade agreements and mutual self-defense. Examples of the international trade organizations and agreements include the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Agreement, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. The US has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with numerous countries including ones in Central and South America, Israel, Jordan, etc. The US also has Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) with nations on six continents.
Examples of military alliances of which the United States is a member include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and the Australia, New Zealand, and US Security Treaty (ANZUS).
The relationships we make with nations that are strongly religious are usually covered under either trade agreements or military alliances. For example, many religious countries in Eastern Europe including Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Latvia, and Slovakia are members of NATO.
Using Religion as a Tool in Support of US Strategic Interests
Religion is about exploring and strengthening the relationship between individuals and God, so religion should not be used directly as a political tool. To further complicate this, a wide variety of religions are practiced in the Indo-Pacific Area of Operations. Here are some examples:
- Australia - Christianity
- Bangladesh - Islam
- Brunei - Sunni Islam
- Cambodia - Buddhism
- Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) - None
- India - Hinduism
- Indonesia - Islam
- Japan - Shinto and Buddhism
- Korea - Christianity or Buddhism
- Laos - Buddhism
- Malaysia - Sunni Islam
- Maldives - Sunni Islam
- Philippines - Christianity
- Thailand – Buddhism
Because of this variety of faiths, the United States cannot use a single approach to defend against Chinese influence in those nations. But there are alternatives that would appeal to the variety of faiths while staying true to the nature of religion.
Missionary work can spread American ideals to individuals of other nations, and in that way they would work to advance those ideals, and so US strategic interests would be served because the US embodies those ideals. However, many contemporary American churches or religions work against or subvert traditional American cultural values (such as individualism, freedom, honesty, decency, family, optimism, equality, generosity, charity, etc.) so those should certainly not be involved in any overseas work.
Another approach that doesn’t turn religion into a political tool is to inform a nation of the consequences of accepting BRI. These consequences involve decreased sovereignty for that nation including economic servitude and cultural replacement.
Religion is forbidden in Communist countries if for any other reason the government sees religion as a competitor. Presumably, China does not explicitly mention its suppression of Christians or Muslim Uyghurs within China or the suppression of Buddhists in Mongolia when it invites a country to join the BRI.
As China gains control over a country via BRI, it should be expected that religion would be suppressed in that country either through direct repression or advocacy of anti-religions secular ideas. Within China itself, believers are painted as enemies of the state, enemies of social order, anti-scientific, or members of cults. It would be expected that propaganda of this form would be used in BRI member countries, but gradually, at least at first.
How can the US counter China’s use of Religion as a Sharp Power?
As a nation that enforces atheism, China would not directly use religion as a sharp power. Religion there has been co-opted and exists there only in "approved" form. However, China would certainly use the religions of another country against that country by fomenting division between those religions.
Another way of stating this is that if China is indeed using religion as a sharp power, it will be in the form of a “package deal” – atheism will be only one part of their propaganda, and religion will be only one target.
Seen in this way, the question can be reformulated as follows: how might the US counter Chinese use of propaganda and other forms of sharp power? “The C.C.P. elites understood that almost anything in Western capitalist societies can be bought. There was hardly any protective layer that Chinese would-be “sharp power” had to pierce.”9
Some recommendations in Benner et al, 201810, include restricting foreign funding of political parties and limiting certain investments. More is necessary, however.
Politicians and administrators must be made aware of the symbolic and economic significance of interacting with the Chinese Communist Party. In another paper11, Benner gives two examples of how Germany failed in this aspect.
First was the acceptance of a statue of Karl Marx by the German city of Tier – this statue was a gift from China.12 Second allowance by the mayor of Duisburg to install or expand various technologies such as the city-wide WLAN network, broadband connections in Duisburg public schools, streetlamps, and eGovernment solutions.13
In the United States, a massive number of residential properties were purchased by China, including 40,600 properties purchased in 201714. There have been commercial properties purchased as well, but exact number of such properties is unknown. A large amount of agricultural land was also purchased, but the relevant law for tracking this, the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) of 1978, is not being enforced15.
In addition, there have been attempts to purchase land or place structures close to US military bases and other secure locations. For example, China attempted to donate a pagoda to the National Arboretum which could gather signal intelligence from the US Capitol and federal agencies. The FBI stopped the donation16. China has also purchased meat production plants such as Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer17.
China also ran police stations in major US cities18 in order to monitor Chinese nationals and have positioned Confucius Institutes on university campuses to spread propaganda19.
China also has considerable influence over American popular media. Consider how the plots or characters of Hollywood films are altered to present China in a positive light, or at least in a non-threatening manner20. An example of this is with the movie called “Red Dawn”. In the 1984 version, the US is invaded by the Soviets. The original script to the 2012 remake involved the Chinese invading the US. In the final release of “Red Dawn”, it was the North Koreans who did the invading.
Conclusion
As shown above, China is using economic means such as the BRI to extend its control to a global scale, but the BRI is not the only method it uses. China is also using a whole spectrum of approaches to extend its ideals of communism and atheism – this spectrum includes media warfare, land purchase, purchase of food production facilities, etc. There are ways of fighting this operation, but doing so involves engaging the interest of politicians and revitalizing the relevant federal agencies.
Footnotes
- Armitage & Nye, Jr., CSIS Commission on Smart Power.
- Benner, Ewert, Fulda, Siemons & Shi-Kupfer, “How to Fight China’s Sharp Power.”
- Nye, “Propaganda Isn’t the Way: Soft Power.”
- Armitage & Nye, Jr., CSIS Commission on Smart Power.
- Lew & Roughead, “China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States.”
- Steil, “Belt and Road Tracker.”
- Qiao & Liang, Unrestricted Warfare.
- Qiao, "One Belt, One Road."
- Benner, Ewert, Fulda, Siemons & Shi-Kupfer, “How to Fight China’s Sharp Power.”
- Ibid.
- Benner, Gaspers, Ohlberg, Poggetti & Shi-Kupfer, “Responding to China’s Growing Political Influence in Europe.”
- Carrel, “Marx's German birthplace unveils controversial statue of him.”
- N/A. “Huawei Deepens Cooperation with Duisburg to Transform Germany’s Industrial Heartland into a Smart City.”
- N/A, “Total number of residential properties purchased by Chinese buyers in the United States from 2010 to 2024.”
- Burack, “China’s Land Grab.”
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Office of Public Affairs - DoJ, “Two Arrested for Operating Illegal Overseas Police Station of the Chinese Government.”
- Yang, “Controversial Confucius Institutes Returning to U.S. Schools Under New Name.”
- Martin & Williamson, “Mapping Chinese Influence in Hollywood.”
Bibliography
Adelman, K. “Not-So-Smart Power.” Foreign Policy, 18 April 2011. Retrieved 8 October 2024 from https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/18/not-so-smart-power/
Armitage, R. & Nye, Jr., J. CSIS Commission on Smart Power. Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2024 from https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/csissmartpowerreport.pdf
Benner, T., Gaspers, J., Ohlberg, M., Poggetti, L. & Shi-Kupfer, K. Responding to China’s Growing Political Influence in Europe. Mercator Institute for China Studies, February 2018. Retrieved 10 October 2024 from https://www.merics.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/GPPi_MERICS_Authoritarian_Advance_2018_1.pdf
Benner, T., Ewert, I., Fulda, A., Siemons, M., & Shi-Kupfer, K. “How To Fight China’s Sharp Power.” ChinaFile, 20 August 2018. Retrieved 10 October 2024 from https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/how-fight-chinas-sharp-power
Burack, B. “China’s Land Grab: The Sale of U.S. Real Estate to Foreign Adversaries Threatens National Security.” Heritage Foundation, 9 May 2024. Retrieved 10 October 2024 from https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/BG3825.pdf
Carrel, P. “Marx's German birthplace unveils controversial statue of him.” Reuters, 5 May 2018. Retrieved 10 October 2024 from https://www.reuters.com/article/world/marxs-german-birthplace-unveils-controversial-statue-of-him-idUSKBN1I60J0/
Lew, J. & Roughead, G. “China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2021. Retrieved 9 October 2024 from https://live-tfr-cdn.cfr.org/cdn/ff/ocjY82x697hFr2wwfpEShIemYoUoRHQjGedMutfvyis/1617323169/public/2021-04/TFR%20%2379_China%27s%20Belt%20and%20Road_Implications%20for%20the%20United%20States_FINAL.pdf
Liu, X., “What Sharp Power? It’s Nothing but “Unsmart” Power.” USC Center on Public Diplomacy, 15 November 2018. Retrieved 11 October 2024 from https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/what-sharp-power-it%E2%80%99s-nothing-%E2%80%9Cunsmart%E2%80%9D-power
Martin, M. & Williamson, C. “Mapping Chinese Influence in Hollywood” Kennedy Papers on Indo-Pacific Security Studies 4, January 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2024 from https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Papers/KP_04_Martin_Mapping_Chinese_Influence_in_Hollywood.pdf
N/A. “Huawei Deepens Cooperation with Duisburg to Transform Germany’s Industrial Heartland into a Smart City.” Retrieved 12 October 2024 from https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2018/9/huawei-duisburg-germany-smartcity
N/A, “Total number of residential properties purchased by Chinese buyers in the United States from 2010 to 2024.” Statista. Retrieved 11 October 2024 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/611020/total-number-of-properties-purchased-by-chinese-buyers-in-the-us/
Nye, J. “Propaganda Isn’t the Way: Soft Power.” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 10 January 2003. Retrieved 11 October 2024 from https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/propaganda-isnt-way-soft-power
Office of Public Affairs – US Department of Justice. “Two Arrested for Operating Illegal Overseas Police Station of the Chinese Government.” 17 April 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2024 from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-arrested-operating-illegal-overseas-police-station-chinese-government
Qiao L. "One Belt, One Road." LimesOnline.com, 17 July 2015. Last retrieved 10 October 2024 from https://www.limesonline.com/en/regions/one-belt-one-road-14720766/
Qiao & Liang. Unrestricted Warfare. Shadow Lawn Press, 1999. Retrieved 8 October 2024 from https://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf
Spalding, R. War Without Rules: China's Playbook for Global Domination. Sentinel Press, 2022.
Steil, B. “Belt and Road Tracker.” Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, 1 June 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2024 from https://www.cfr.org/article/belt-and-road-tracker
Wilson III, E. “Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008; 616; 110. https://doi/10.1177/0002716207312618
Yang, L. “Controversial Confucius Institutes Returning to U.S. Schools Under New Name.” Voice of America News, 27 June 2022. Retrieved 12 October 2024 from https://www.voanews.com/a/controversial-confucius-institutes-returning-to-u-s-schools-under-new-name/6635906.html
No comments:
Post a Comment