China’s considerations and concerns

There has been quite a bit of curiosity about the intent and role of China in post-election Bangladesh.  It is not easy to read the minds of Chinese policymakers since they prefer to remain circumspect on most issues. Many policymakers, diplomats, politicians, business leaders, analysts and journalists around the world use contents of the Global Times, which is published under the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece People’s Daily and focuses on international issues from the Chinese government’s perspective, as a good proxy of official views of Beijing. In an interview with Quartz in 2016, its editor-in-chief Hu Xijin explained that the paper “often reflects what party officials are actually thinking, but can’t come out and say.”

The Global Times published an article in its 3 January 2019 edition, just four days after the recent elections, entitled “Bangladesh can unleash more potential by overcoming partisan politics.” A reading of this article, along with some other commentaries published in this newspaper during the past several months on the South Asian region, may help give some clues to the thinking of Chinese policymakers.

The article made a number of important observations on the elections and recommendations on what needs to be done in the aftermath. To summarise, it:

i.      termed the election results as “landslide victory” by the coalition led by Sheikh Hasina,

ii.     observed that the opposition rejected what it called farcical results and demanded new elections,

iii.    noted the denouncement by Western powers including the US and the EU of election day violence and other irregularities “further fueling the opposition uproar,”

iv.   warned that the country “should be vigilant about Western intervention as partisan confrontation may worsen,”

v.    considered such confrontation between parties as “negative effects of the multi-party system,”

vi.   stressed that Bangladesh is in the throes of transformative social and economic transformation. “At this moment, it’s particularly important for the country to curb political polarisation and maintain social stability,”

vii.  recommended that “Bangladesh should mull over how to build and strengthen consensus among relevant parties and reduce division,”

viii. to that end, urged Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to call upon Bangladesh’s political parties “to abandon confrontation and unite to build the country”, and

ix.   in a message to the opposition, underlined that the most effective way for political parties and politicians to win support “is not political struggle, but to improve the well-being of the people.”

That China is fully supportive of the election results was clear from the speedy welcome extended to the prime minister Sheikh Hasina by the Chinese president Xi Jinping and prime minister Li Keqiang, as if in competition with the Indian prime minister.  The Chinese ambassador in Dhaka Zhang Zuo raced to meet Sheikh Hasina the day after the elections to personally convey Xi’s message when he described Bangabandhu as “a great leader of the world.” The model boat he presented to the Prime Minister on that occasion was certainly not made overnight. It is therefore fair to contend that Beijing at least anticipated the polls outcome.  China has been advocating socio-political stability well before the elections. Continued stability is important to ensure security of Chinese investment and to keep Bangladesh solidly within China’s Belt and Road Initiative framework. 

Moreover, the capture of almost the entire electoral landscape by the ruling party and its allies appears in line with the development model advocated by China.  Beijing has criticised the liberal democratic framework as a failure in the context of developing countries.

In another commentary in 2018, Global Times argued that liberal ideas and institutions failed to solve the problems facing developing countries. “Many developing governments found it hard to govern their country well after copying Western political systems and were plagued by political and social woes,” it said. “In sharp contrast, the Chinese model is gaining popularity and giving hope to those countries longing for rapid development while maintaining independence,” it concluded.

In the specific context of Bangladesh, the 3 January article opined that “in developing countries like Bangladesh where a strong government, effective governance and consistent policies are of great importance to meet development demands, the negative impact of a multi-party system are more prominent.” A collapse of the western political model in Bangladesh, one of the largest democracies in the world, can therefore be seen as a significant ideological win for Beijing.

However, China sees the possibility of western interference as a key obstacle to realise its strategic and ideological goals in Bangladesh.  The word “interference” is rather strong and its use indicates the depth of China’s anxiety about the possibility of the use of Western countries’ multiple leverages on Bangladesh.  China may be concerned that the West’s professed engagement with the opposition in the aftermath of the elections may be aimed at setting an outer limit to China’s engagement in Bangladesh.

In another article last year, the paper warned that the West may not be able to thwart China’s rise in the South Asian region, but they can put regional peace and development at risk

It is also reasonable to think that China is apprehensive of possible teaming up of the West with India in this venture.  For example, in the same article the Global Times stated that elections in South Asian nations are seen by many as a head-to-head Sino-Indian battle for influence on the region, and asserted that the US supports pro-India forces in a country while denouncing others because US strategic goals often align with those of India based on Washington’s intention to counter China’s rise and export its own political standards. It claimed that China does not see elections in South Asian countries as a zero-sum game with India, yet it does not want to see India, along with the US, to view the region as their sphere of influence and woo regional countries to counter China.

In yet other commentary last year, the Global Times declared that cooperation with China will bring about new development opportunities for South Asian nations and asked India to adjust its mindset and let more South Asian nations such as Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka join the process. It warned that any attempt “to seek or sustain a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific region… or the US Indo-Pacific strategy, is doomed to fail, as it runs counter to the development demands of countries in the region.”

Despite China’s oft-repeated invitation to India to work together against perceived US pressure, these are fairly explicit warnings to India not to join forces with the US to contain China in the South Asian region.

If, in China’s view, opposition “uproar” provides the proximate justification for the West to interfere in Bangladesh politics, possibly with eventual Indian help, the absence of such uproar will deny the West its game.  This is perhaps one reason why China is prompting Sheikh Hasina to get opposition partieson board so that they “abandon confrontation.” For the same reason, it is discouraging the opposition from waging “political struggle” and to join efforts to improve the “well-being of the people.”

China should be well aware of the presence of India-friendly elements within the ruling party who might now face marginalisation with China’s ascendance, engendering a dynamic of contention and division.  To have dissatisfied people inside the party and disgruntled opponents outside may expose the prime minister to “political risk”. To minimise such risk and ensure that her domestic political space is not squeezed unsustainably, China sees the need to bolster her by co-opting those in the opposition camp that are China-sympathetic or cold to India.

China’s continuing investment in the “transformative social and economic change” in Bangladesh would require the country “to curb political polarisation and maintain social stability.” Such investment can take several forms, ranging from direct investment in infrastructure, to transfer of production facilities to Bangladesh (particularly in the context of trade tensions with the US), to significant improvements in market access of Bangladeshi products to China via duty-free and quota-free treatment which is expected to be finalised soon. Already, according to a Daily Star article, China’s $38 billion investment in Bangladesh, in combination with $ 24.45 billion in bilateral assistance for infrastructure projects, $13.6 billion in joint ventures and $20 billion in loan agreements that were made following the 2016 visit of President Xi to Dhaka, together represent the largest amount of financial assistance pledged by any country to Bangladesh since its inception.

The combined transformative impact of China’s investment and trade actions in favour of Bangladesh can be tantalising and impossible to ignore, especially by a government which considers development as the principal argument continue in power. Moreover, China has the ability to almost single-handedly resolve the Rohingya issue given its strong hold on the Myanmar regime, thus giving the prime minister an early foreign policy win.

China appears to be signalling that in order to seize this historic opportunity, Sheikh Hasina should thwart possible designs of the West and itsalliesin the region, and minimize risks or impact of adverse activities of their sympathisers by uniting the country through co-opting the opposition.

• Dr Khalilur Rahman is former head of economic, social and development affairs at the executive office UN Secretary General