We and others have long wondered how long it would be before China looks to flex its military muscle in the Mid-East under the “war on terror” banner.
Xi has been especially keen on demonstrating the PLA’s growing influence in 2015 especially as it relates to Beijing’s maritime might. Anyone who follows geopolitics is likely well acquainted with China’s land reclamation efforts in the Spratlys, where dredgers have been busy constructing some 3,000 acres of new sovereign territory on which Xi is building a number of things including runways and ports.
Importantly, China hasn’t limited its activities to the waters off its coast. Back in March, the world was surprised to see the PLA navy show up at the besieged Yemeni port city of Aden where Chinese soldiers evacuated civilians as the Houthis advanced.
In short, Beijing is looking to establish a true blue water Navy with the capability to operate anywhere in the world.
But China’s interests in the Mid-East go well beyond demonstrating the country's military capabilities. You’ll recall that Beijing has voted with Russia on the Security Council with regard to a 2014 motion to refer the conflict to the Hague. Here’s what the Chinese said:
For some time now, the Security Council has maintained unity and coordination on the question of Syria, thanks to efforts by Council members, including China, to accommodate the major concerns of all parties. At a time when seriously diverging views exist among the parties concerning the draft resolution, we believe that the Council should continue holding consultations, rather than forcing a vote on the draft resolution, in order to avoid undermining Council unity or obstructing coordination and cooperation on questions such as Syria and other major serious issues. Regrettably, China’s approach has not been taken on board; China therefore voted against the draft resolution.
In short, Beijing sides with Moscow and Tehran and should Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara decide to get more involved (i.e. put boots on the ground) in order to tip the scales in favor of various Sunni extremists battling Assad, it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if Xi decided to aid his allies, especially considering ISIS executed the first Chinese hostage last month.
Further, Beijing is no fan of Sunni extremists. “The announcement on the terrorism law came a day after China said that it would not renew the press credentials of a French journalist who wrote an article about ethnic violence in the nation’s northwestern Xinjiang region,” Bloomberg notes [8], adding that “Xinjiang is home to a large population of Muslim Uighurs, and has long been troubled by violence blamed by the government on militant separatists.”
“Uighurs are a Turkic ethnic minority, largely Sunni Muslim, who have become ever more discontented with controls on their religion and culture and with an influx into Xinjiang of ethnic Han migrants,” The New York Times reminds us [9]. “The government says that violent acts by disaffected Uighurs have been inspired and instigated by international extremist groups.” International extremist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra.
Sure enough, China appears to have opened the door to foreign intervention when, on Sunday, the NPC passed a new anti-terror law which makes it legal for the PLA to participate in counter terror missions overseas. Here's a bit more from Business Standard [10]:
The PLA and the country's armed police forces may carry out such operations with the approval from the Central Military Commission, the new law says.
Public security and national security authorities may also send personnel overseas for counter-terrorism missions, with the approval from the government and agreements from countries concerned, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.
Note how that's "slightly" different from the approach the US has taken in the past. That is, Washington and its regional allies aren't so concerned with obtaining the host country's permission before launching strikes.
As interesting as that most certainly is, there's more to the new bill than green light for the overseas deployment of the PLA. Here's The Times again:
China’s legislature approved an antiterrorism law on Sunday after months of international controversy, including criticism from human rights groups, business lobbies and President Obama.
Critics had said that the draft version of the law used a recklessly broad definition of terrorism, gave the government new censorship powers and authorized state access to sensitive commercial data.
The government argued that the measures were needed to prevent terrorist attacks. Opponents countered that the new powers could be abused to monitor peaceful citizens and steal technological secrets.
In the end, the approved law published by state media dropped demands in the draft version that would have required Internet companies and other technology suppliers to hand over encryption codes and other sensitive data for official vetting before they went into use.
But the law still requires that companies hand over technical information and help with decryption when the police or state security agents demand it for investigating or preventing terrorist cases.
The approval by the legislature, which is controlled by the Communist Party, came as Beijing has become increasingly jittery about antigovernment violence, especially in the ethnically divided region of Xinjiang in western China, where members of the Uighur minority have been at growing odds with the authorities.
So essentially China has finally gotten wise to what the West has known since at least 9/11. Namely that you can always justify the state's nasty habits by claiming authorities require new powers to fight "terror." For Beijing, this manifests itself in a law that permits stepped up censorship and may give the Chinese government more opportunities to hack US corporates - or at least that's what Washignton says. "In March, U.S. President Barack Obama said such requirements would let China install “back doors” in U.S. technology companies’ systems, adding that the Asian nation would have to change such provisions to do business with the U.S.," Bloomberg notes [8].
Of course you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house and The White House would do well to remember that when it comes to citing the war on terror as any excuse for government snooping and foreign interventions, no one does it like Washington.
Full text [11]
