I want to ponder the geopolitical ambitions of Russia and China, how they differ from each other and how effective they are.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, the eastward march of NATO, an American military bridgehead in Kyrgyzstan and much else has made Russia feel vulnerable and anxious to re-assert power. This has taken shape through their annexation of Crimea, support for the Assad regime in Syria, the renegade government in East Libya led by General Khalifa Haftar and for President Erdogan in Turkey. At first sight it appears to be pursuing more successful strategies than the West, where intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya have ended ignominiously. It is possible to imagine Russia playing a pivotal role in Middle East politics, wielding influence to the detriment of the West. However, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations 1998 – 2003, disagrees. He argues that American, UK and EU flawed policies left the door open for Russia but that Russia is not economically powerful enough to have a lasting appeal in the region, will not establish a long-term advantage and that Putin’s support for Erdogan will sow distrust in Middle Eastern countries.
Furthermore he contends that attempts to establish democracies in the Middle East have faltered and dictatorships are now being tolerated if not admired. He presents his case in a paper, Is This Russia’s Moment in the Middle East?, in Asian Affairs, the Journal of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs.
The role of China is beyond his remit but it seems to me that China has the economic muscle to build powerful, lasting relationships with Middle Eastern and African governments. Through investment in infrastructure and the extraction of natural resources China effectively controls the economies of many countries. Mugabe’s overthrow was certainly sanctioned by China and very probably instigated by China. The motives of China are somewhat purer than Russia. An analogy would be with British influence in India through the East India Company. China’s interest is to gain access to scarce natural resources and to do that they require stable governments. It is benign colonialism and of course China has no inhibitions over supporting dictatorships. In fact they are preferable to the Chinese to unexpected regime change through the ballot box.