Connect with us

OPINION

The Green-German Government’s China Strategy

Published

on

The German government’s strategy paper was adopted on 13.07.2023. The 64-page document clearly shows the German government’s huge information gap on China’s policy. The new change of course means protectionism due to bad advice from US think tanks paid billions that sabotage the German economy. 

China’s success is based on reforms. And in the last ten years in particular, the People’s Republic of China has achieved enormous milestones in the areas of the rule of law, high technology, poverty reduction, climate protection and the protection of people with disabilities. Development has never stood still and will never stand still. Chinese-style socialism aims to shape people’s lives in harmony, peace and prosperity, in harmony with nature and in mutual respect. In terms of world politics, humanity is seen as having a divided future, which is why it is important to work together to resolve the world’s conflicts. China does not intervene militarily in any conflict in the world and does not impose its will on any country in the world. All partners choose China because China respects the cultural, political and historical aspects of each nation – including and especially Germany’s will.

Germany itself has faced major challenges in the last ten years. Instead of successes, the entire EU and its transatlantic partners have been confronted with conflicts. For example, several wars for freedom, democracy and the preservation of the “rules-based world order” in Africa, the Middle East and most recently in Ukraine have led to refugee flows and economic instability. At the national level, massive misinvestment in social, transport, education and housing infrastructure leads to unrest. Not without reason, there are also massive protests in other European countries like France. The result is an energy crisis, high inflation and a badly damaged economy.

The German government’s strategy paper, which draws its core elements from the influence of American media in Germany, American think tanks and US green lobbies, now seals the economic and political distance to China. European companies may now find it harder to participate in China’s progress. The main reason is that the German government does not understand what is happening in China. It has not understood the progress China has made in the last ten years. The gap is widening, China’s rise is unstoppable. Instead of working together to tackle the world’s big projects, the German government is sailing into a violent storm.

Rhetorical wordplay undermines One-China principle and recognises Taiwan’s autonomy

The German government’s strategy paper is linguistically characterised by rhetorical-political wordplay that clearly aims at protectionism but superficially gives the appearance of cooperation. This becomes particularly clear in the example of the Taiwan question. Thus, while the German government continues to profess its commitment to the One-China principle, it explicitly refers to it as the “One-China principle of the EU”. Worldwide, there is only one common definition of the One-China principle, which recognises the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate nation of China. In the United Nations and all international organisations, the People’s Republic of China represents the whole of China, including the province of Taiwan. However, the German government is now speaking on behalf of the EU and explicitly mentions in the strategy paper that it wants to support Taiwan alongside the People’s Republic of China in participating in international organisations. This undermines the whole concept of the One China principle and leads to an indirect legitimisation of Taiwan as an independent state.

EU Global Gateway as a chaotic alternative to the Silk Road (Belt and Road)

The German government explicitly distances itself from the Silk Road project as well as from the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Forces Initiative. The BR sees the Belt and Road Project as a means for China to place itself at the centre and to make other countries “dependent”. The German government sees itself in the position of implementing an alternative to the One Belt One Road project. For example, the EU wants to invest 600 billion dollars by 2027 in the infrastructure of countries that pursue European values and interests. So there is no clear concept, but a watering-can-like distribution of funds, which has already not led to success in the last decades.

Here it becomes clear in the wording of the strategy paper that the green federal government does not know what the Belt and Road Initiative means. For example, the Belt and Road Project is supported voluntarily and enormously by all participating states. The Belt and Road Project has been able to contribute massively to poverty reduction throughout Africa and the Middle East in the areas of infrastructure, construction of schools, housing, hospitals, inclusion or technology development. Technology cooperation is being established, universities along the Silk Road are cooperating and logistics are becoming incredibly cheap. Under the project, African students, for example, receive scholarships and can study for free in China and then use their skills to build their country. A secure infrastructure brings stability for the people and stimulates trade. Local products along the Silk Road, for example from small farmers in Pakistan, can suddenly be sold on the Chinese market. It is a project for a common future of humanity in harmony with nature. China’s international policy stands for win-win cooperation, for a multipolar world, for respect for other cultures without lecturing them, and for what it means to live “right”. Nations that have been dominated by the West for decades and actively promoted instability now have a new alternative and are actively moving towards it. After talking to African students in China about the difference between the West and China, they explained that China gives the money to the government, which invests in infrastructure and builds schools etc. with Chinese know-how. The West, on the other hand, gives money to local, foreign organisations that are corrupt, finance warlords and want to determine policy without knowing the cultures.

Due to the distance of the German government and the lack of investment, Germany and the whole of Europe will not get a chance. German companies and technologies as well as German shareholders are excluded by politics and cannot participate in the development of the global community in the Belt and Road Initiative. This also makes it more difficult for Germany to negotiate its own policies in the respective regions. Germany excludes itself.

Protectionism in the area of raw materials, technologies and trade 

China is the second largest patent holder in the world after the USA. The key technologies are in Chinese hands. The People’s Republic shares these technologies with all partners and promotes the development of mankind on a win-win basis. The Federal Republic recognises China as a global leader here, for example in artificial intelligence, quantum technologies or autonomous driving. However, Germany wants to separate itself from the Chinese here so as not to become “dependent”. At the same time, the EU/BRD subsidises its own technologies such as AI. The EU chip law is being introduced. Chinese companies are to be excluded from any participation. New raw material partners are to be found. Only, according to the strategy paper, these technologies may only be used by states that represent the fundamental values of the Europeans. This disconnects these technologies from the world market, which is detrimental to competition and reminiscent of the technology ring of the Cold War. In contrast, BR is committed to the transatlantic alliance and wants to share such technologies with the USA, open the market for US companies and link it to security and military cooperation. It is also questionable whether protectionism equates to sanctions and the Chinese Foreign Anti-Sanctions Law could be activated, which would lead to countermeasures by China.

The Chairman of the Board of the Federal Association for Business Development (BWA) Michael Schumann, one of the few German non-political, rational business associations, comments: “We expressly do not welcome this so-called “strategy” of the Federal Government, as it puts additional strain on the relationship with Germany’s most important trading partner at a difficult time. The prioritisation, choice of words and recommendations for action in this document are not in the interest of our companies, which are successfully active in China and intend to continue to be so in the future.”

 Climate protection sabotaged by own protectionism

 One of the most important bilateral goals of the Federal Republic of Germany is cooperation with the People’s Republic of China in the area of climate protection. The People’s Republic is a global pioneer in renewable technologies. Anyone driving through the streets in China, for example, sees combustion engines less and less often. Paradoxically, the German government’s protectionist policy is aimed at making trade conditions more difficult for important technologies that can be important for climate protection. Research and development of proprietary technologies is also to be protected from Chinese access. In this way, the German government is thwarting its own climate goals and making cooperation more difficult. Chinese subsidies for coal-fired power plants in developing countries are also criticised. Here, the German government wants to slow down developments and work against national security interests in the sense of a “rules-based world order”. In addition, the EU has put the drafting of a new investment law on hold. BR also advocates granting China the status of a developing country, while at the same time criticising that many developments are still needed in China. Such paradoxical formulations can be found throughout the strategy paper.

Ignorance of China’s national development characterises the strategy paper

What is particularly striking about the German government’s strategy paper is the lack of knowledge of internal Chinese developments. As usual, national issues around Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjang, freedom of the press and also the more difficult access of German companies to the Chinese market are criticised.

As far as freedom of expression is concerned, constructive criticism is explicitly welcome in China.

Criticism and discussion are the guarantee for development in China. In the academic field, there is even explicit ongoing dialogue with the USA, Germany and internationally recognised organisations such as the World Bank in order to bring about new developments. The academic discussion is lively and criticism from abroad is also welcome in order to improve people’s lives. In addition to academic debate, the public is also strongly democratically involved due to the proximity of the party with its over 90 million members. For example, there are party neighbourhood committees in all housing estates, which look after the residents’ concerns on a daily basis and pass on needs to the relevant authorities. Residents can become party members themselves and thus participate in the democratic and discussion process. This is done at all levels up to the central government, in direct dialogue with the population.

An important component of the strategy paper, especially with regard to the economy, is fair, sustainable and reciprocal trade and the protection of human rights. For BR in particular, it is unclear what developments have taken place within China. The Supply Chain Law even sanctions Germany’s own companies that do not protect human rights abroad. The People’s Republic of China has enacted numerous new laws. Patent, copyright and other protection laws have been strongly aligned with German and international standards. The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) 2020 or the Cybersecurity Law, which almost corresponds to European data protection law, were also introduced. A new Civil Code was published in 2021, and here too the principles are very much based on the German Civil Code. China has its own labour law that excludes forced labour, even though the strategy paper talks about forced labour in China (Labour Contract Law).

In 2022, the anti-monopoly law in China was also renewed. Companies operating in China also have a special corporate social responsibility. This means they have to take responsibility for environmental protection, the protection of their employees and the protection of their industrial location. For example, a new land reform is currently taking place as an opening-up, in which foreign entrepreneurs can become quasi owners of land for the first time. However, they must safeguard the interests of the general public and protect the environment in rural areas. Private autonomy is also more strongly guaranteed in China than in Germany, where the hurdles are higher. It is quite questionable where the claim of backwardness comes from. Rather, there are more investment opportunities, which are used by the USA but not by the EU. The rule of law has also been expanded exorbitantly in the area of protection of the population and the individual. The training of lawyers is promoted, police officers, civil servants and ordinary citizens are increasingly trained in legal matters. The Chinese rule of law is based on international treaties and has many German features.

The criticism of the oppression of minorities is unfounded. On the contrary, the state promotes cultural minorities enormously and facilitates their access to public institutions, universities, schools or even professional life. In daily practice, this also means nationwide information campaigns about cultural minorities and their protection. Moreover, minorities are always represented in the National People’s Congress, China’s highest organ. In museums, art halls and in films, you can always find photos, statements about cultural minorities. They are respected and admired throughout the country with all 56 cultures.

Another misunderstanding concerns the Chinese party system. For example, the strategy paper says that China has a one-party system. This is factually incorrect. There are several parties under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. In the People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), which takes place parallel to the National Congress, these parties discuss new reforms. The parties reflect different interest groups. However, since the Communist Party represents all the people, the interest groups have a similar effect to consultative lobbies and are, for example, artists’ groups etc. that actively participate in the democracy and opinion process.

 The policy paper aims to protect women in the human rights dialogue. In socialist China, for example, women have long had equal rights according to communist understanding. Women take part in space missions, stand by their husband’s side and help lead the country. In the Chinese Basic Law and also in civil law, cultures and genders have long been equal.

Obstacles to Chinese activities in Germany

In addition to the economic blockade, cooperation with the Chinese side is also subject to more intense scrutiny. For example, Chinese institutions will be subject to tighter controls, as will Confucius institutes or organisations, while partnerships with institutions in the province of Taiwan will be continued. Universities in Germany are to cooperate more closely with Chinese institutions. The German government wants to establish more of its own soft-power institutions such as Deutsche Welle in China, while it wants to block and restrict Chinese media in Germany, just like Russian media.

Conclusion shows difficult future prognosis for Europe

The German government’s strategy paper makes it clear that a rapprochement with the USA is being pursued while at the same time activating protectionism for China. The choice of words in the paper superficially shows cooperation. However, all the important points for economic cooperation and mutual understanding are missing. The German economy will not be able to participate in the large-scale projects in China or in the Middle East or even in Africa. At the same time, Europe is sealing itself off. The German government allows itself to be misinformed by US think tanks and harms the German people, German economic interests and Europe as a whole. Ignorance about China’s internal affairs is a major communication deficit. As a solution, it is hoped that China will launch educational campaigns and explain profoundly to the West what socialism with Chinese characteristics means for the world. Europe’s initiative to open a new market for its products is to be welcomed, provided that these are made accessible to the world. However, according to the policy paper, this market is limited to allies, which further closes off the world and introduces protectionism in the 21st century.

If there are any further legal questions, readers can contact the lawyer and author of the article, Christian Wagner, an expert in Chinese law.

OPINION

G20 Summit could use a few extra pairs of chopsticks

Published

on

Li Yunqi, Journalist
CGTN Radio

“If there’s an extra guest, you have to prepare an extra pair of chopsticks,” – an ancient Chinese wisdom for the upcoming G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The global economic order is undergoing an obvious shift toward Global South countries, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that by 2030, developing economies will account for 60% of global GDP—up from already 50% in 2010. With emerging markets playing an increasingly prominent role at the global “economic table,” the question facing the G20 is clear: Where is the hospitality, and those extra pairs of chopsticks?

Formed in the 1970s, G7, the more “elite” club of G20, was designed to address the economic challenges of its time. At its peak, the G7 nations accounted for 60-70% of global GDP, with the U.S. alone contributing 25%. This dominance made the G7 a natural hub for global economic decision-making.

But as the global economy diversified, so too did the need for governance structures that reflected this reality. By the 1990s, the rapid growth of emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil reduced the G7’s share of global GDP. Recognizing the limitations of G7 as an exclusive forum, the G20 was established in 1999, incorporating a broader range of voices from across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Yet, despite its broader membership, the governance structures of the G20 still tilt heavily toward historically dominant economies, leaving the perspectives of the Global South underrepresented.

In 2023, developing economies attracted about 65% of global foreign direct investment (FDI). Many of these nations boast young populations, in stark contrast to aging demographics in Western countries. For instance, Africa’s median age is 18.8, compared to over 40 in many Western European countries. By 2030, the Asian middle class alone is expected to exceed 3 billion people.

These economic transformations underline the need for more fair and inclusive governance systems. Just as a gracious host ensures there are enough chopsticks for every guest, the G20 must adapt to accommodate the realities of a multipolar economic world.

This is not merely a symbolic gesture. Global South nations have legitimate demands for reforms in international institutions like the United Nations Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank, all of which remain skewed toward the interests of Western nations. The inclusion of perspectives from emerging economies isn’t just about fairness—it’s about crafting more effective and sustainable solutions to global challenges.

The rise of the BRICS is a case in point. Originally formed as a loose group of emerging economies, BRICS has evolved into a platform for addressing global imbalances, recently expanding to include nations like Argentina, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This expansion signals a broader desire among Global South countries for alternative frameworks to the traditional Western-led institutions.

The 2024 G20 Summit in Brazil offers a rare chance to recalibrate global governance. With a host nation that is itself a leader in the Global South, the summit is well-positioned to champion a more balanced approach to decision-making for global affairs.

This does not mean sidelining the priorities of developed nations; rather, it calls for recognizing that the inclusion of diverse perspectives leads to more innovative and equitable solutions. For Western countries, this shift will require letting go of long-held assumptions about leadership and embracing the legitimacy of different economic models and governance approaches.

The Global South’s rise is not about dismantling the established order but about evolving it to reflect the realities of today’s interconnected world. By preparing those extra pairs of chopsticks, the G20 can ensure a more inclusive future—one that respects the voices of all its members, regardless of their economic status.

Not having to share the table may seem convenient, but if we zoom out, we see that many in the world still struggle to secure even the basics, let alone a seat at the global table. Preparing a few extra pairs of chopsticks isn’t just a metaphor, but a call for a more balanced, diverse, and inclusive global order.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Türkiye’s “soft severance of diplomatic relations” with Israel has limited impact on the Middle East

Published

on

On November 13th, Turkish President Erdoğan announced that Türkiye has cut off trade and diplomatic relations with Israel. Anadolu Agency reported his statement during his return trip from visits to Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Erdoğan declared, “We currently have no relations with that country,” emphasizing that Türkiye has responded in the strongest terms to “Israel’s atrocities” by taking concrete measures, including halting all trade exchanges. He also stated that the ruling “People’s Alliance” firmly supports this stance.

Observers believe that Erdoğan’s remarks, coming just after the conclusion of the Arab-Islamic Riyadh Summit, aim to enhance Türkiye’s discourse power, express additional sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinian people, maintain sustained anger towards Israel’s belligerence, and exert pressure on Trump, who is about to return to the White House and is highly pro-Israel. This move may also serve to soothe strong anti-Israel public opinion domestically. However, it is conceivable that this posture will not affect the development of the current war situation in the Middle East, let alone change the geopolitical landscape; on the contrary, it may bring pressure on Türkiye from the United States and the European Union.

Erdoğan’s statements further highlight Türkiye’s tough stance and sanctions against Israel over the past year, attempting to demonstrate Türkiye’s political responsibility, humanitarian concern, and religious obligations as a major country in the Middle East, especially an Islamic power. Objectively, this will make the six Arab countries that still maintain policy relations with Israel feel embarrassed and will also enhance Türkiye’s discourse power in Middle East disputes, particularly in promoting the de-escalation process of this round of conflict.

Türkiye is not only a major country in the Middle East and the Islamic world but also a NATO member and EU candidate country, as well as the initiator and leader of the Turkic States Alliance. From the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in 2011 to the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, Türkiye has been a very active geopolitical actor and has played an important role in shaping the regional landscape. However, in the grand chessboard of Israel’s “eight-front warfare” triggered by the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the space for Türkiye to maneuver is very limited.

Erdoğan’s publicized severance of relations with Israel seems to be a kind of “salami-slicing,” or even a painless “soft severance,” and therefore will not cause significant shockwaves. Tükiye had already recalled its ambassador to Israel in November last year and announced in May this year the suspension of all imports and exports with Israel to punish the latter for exacerbating the humanitarian tragedy of the Palestinian people. In August, Türkiye formally submitted an application to the International Court of Justice to join the lawsuit initiated by South Africa against Israel’s alleged “genocide,” becoming one of the few Third World countries to use international legal means to challenge Israel.

However, Türkiye has not announced the closure of its diplomatic missions in Israel, nor has it punished Israel as severely or even rudely as it did in May 2018. Six years ago, when Trump announced the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing the latter as Israel’s capital, the Erdoğan government not only immediately recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Israel but also expelled the Israeli ambassador to Türkiye on the spot. The ambassador was subjected to a full set of humiliating security checks at the airport, including body searches and shoe removal, causing bilateral relations to plunge to a historic low, only beginning to recover slowly two years ago.

Israel has not made any response to Türkiye’s latest declaration of “severing diplomatic relations” and may continue to maintain a low profile or restraint. Perhaps Israel has adapted to Türkiye’s nearly two-decade-long “angry diplomacy,” or perhaps it currently lacks the energy and willingness to provoke Ankara and thereby create new enemies for itself. It is already overwhelmed dealing with the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” and the United Nations, not to mention the internal frictions and power struggles among its top officials.

Türkiye’s tough stance against Israel is actually facing very similar historical scenarios, making it seem powerless or even counterproductive when playing the Palestinian card. This is because the Arab world does not welcome the successor of the former Ottoman Empire changing the long-standing Western-oriented “Kemalism” to an “eastward and southward” approach. They especially strongly resist Türkiye’s deep involvement in Arab affairs, much like their strong aversion to Iran constructing a “Shia Crescent” in the Arab world. From this perspective, Middle Eastern countries, particularly the Arab world, exhibit an “Arab Monroe Doctrine,” opposing any external interference, even though they are incapable of fairly resolving the Palestinian issue.

Since the Justice and Development Party led by Erdoğan won the general election in 2002, based on the disappointment and dissatisfaction arising from repeated setbacks in pursuing EU membership, as well as a dual return to Neo-Ottomanism and Islamism, Türkiye has significantly elevated the strategic position of the East, especially the Middle East—its traditional sphere of influence—within its foreign policy framework. Ankara began by actively attempting to mediate the Iranian nuclear crisis, suddenly paying high-profile attention to the Palestinian issue, and in 2008, a public dispute erupted between then-Prime Minister Erdoğan and Israeli President Peres at the Davos World Economic Forum.

In May 2010, disregarding Israel’s warnings, Türkiye dispatched the humanitarian aid ship “Mavi Marmara,” attempting to forcibly cross Israel’s naval blockade to dock in the Gaza Strip. This led to Israeli special forces air-dropping onto the ship, resulting in a bloody conflict. Türkiye announced the severance of diplomatic relations with Israel, and it was not until Israel later apologized that bilateral relations were restored. However, due to the indifferent or even critical stance of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and even the PLO towards the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which was fighting Israel alone, Türkiye’s proactive “foreign aid” actions did not receive enthusiastic responses.

After the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in early 2011, the development model of the Arab world was widely questioned and even lost its future direction. The “Turkish model” received widespread international attention and was even considered a reference or option for Arab countries. Facing an Arab world mired in failure and chaos, the Erdoğan government was highly proactive, even being described as “attempting to act as the leader of the Islamic world.” Driven by such wishful thinking and strategic impulses, Türkiye not only supported Egypt’s “Square Revolution” in a high-profile manner, strongly backed the Muslim Brotherhood entangled in power struggles, sent troops to Syria and Libya, intervened in the Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas disputes, and openly supported Qatar in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, Türkiye’s relations with Arab countries deteriorated from the idealized “zero problems diplomacy” to a nightmarish “all problems diplomacy.”

It can be said that the decade or so during which the “Arab Spring” evolved into the “Arab Winter” was a period when Türkiye’s realist offensive diplomacy and “eastward and southward” strategy suffered major defeats. Türkiye not only lost its traditional ally Israel and offended more than half of the Arab world, but its relationships with Russia and the United States also faced unprecedented challenges.

The Middle East today has once again plunged into war and turmoil, but the causes, nature, conflicts, and opponents are vastly different from those of the “Arab Spring” or the Arab-Israeli conflicts during the Cold War. Several non-state actors from Arab countries are involved in what some are calling the “Sixth Middle East War.” However, countries that have normalized relations with Israel—such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, and even the Palestine Liberation Organization—have no intention of re-entering the historical stream of the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, Iran and its leadership of the “Shia Crescent” have become the main forces opposing Israel in this new Middle East war. Some non-state actors in Arab countries have formed a new “Axis of Resistance” in alliance with the Shia Crescent. This shift in geopolitical relationships makes the attitudes of Arab nations more nuanced. Yet, in balancing “interests and righteousness,” they still value the hard-won Arab-Israeli peace and the crucial Arab-American relations. Although Arab countries are deeply frustrated by Israel’s refusal to cease fire and feel powerless to change the situation, they are absolutely unwilling to accept Iran and Türkiye taking the lead in Arab affairs.

Therefore, Türkiye’s new round of Middle East diplomacy is bound to fall into an awkward position similar to that after the “Arab Spring.” It is unlikely to receive widespread and positive responses in the Arab world or have any substantive impact on the current “eight-front warfare.” Nonetheless, Ankara’s diplomatic efforts to support the rights of the Palestinian people are commendable, reasonable, and even resonate with mainstream international public opinion.

With the openly pro-Israel Trump team controlling the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, and the Republican Party—which has always been more favorable toward Israel—fully controlling the U.S. legislative, executive, and judicial branches, Washington’s Middle East policy will further tilt toward Israel. Even if the new U.S. government does not encourage Israel to escalate and expand the existing conflicts and wars, it will mobilize all resources and employ all means to exert maximum pressure on Israel’s opponents to force them to compromise. At that time, Türkiye’s relations with the United States will experience new friction and uncertainties due to its tough stance against Israel.

Not only will the new U.S. government’s Middle East policy fail to reward Türkiye’s hardline approach toward Israel, but major European powers—which generally support Israel’s security and hold unfavorable views toward Iran and its led “Axis of Resistance”—will also be dissatisfied with Türkiye’s intensified pressure on Israel. This could further affect the smooth development of Türkiye-Europe relations.

Therefore, although Türkiye’s stance toward Israel is tough, the pressure it can exert is nearly exhausted, and Israel has considerable capacity to withstand such pressure, especially from Türkiye’s “soft severance of relations.” Given that Arab countries do not welcome deep Turkish intervention and that the U.S. and Europe oppose Türkiye joining the anti-Israel camp, Türkiye’s role and space for maneuvering in the Middle East are very limited and unlikely to see significant breakthroughs.

Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Palestinian messages to the Arab-Islamic Summit

Published

on

Our people have endured decades of oppression, during which their rights were virtually destroyed and forgotten. In the post-Oslo period, when the Palestinian leadership opted for negotiations, settlement expansion accelerated while the foundations of national independence eroded under partition, isolation and prolonged blockades. Today, the occupation seeks to complete the historic Nakba by exploiting the Palestinian uprising that began on 7 October in response to escalating Zionist extremism, attempts at Judaisation and efforts to marginalise and eradicate the Palestinian entity. This existential challenge, backed by a broad coalition with regional and international dimensions that do not serve the interests of our people, obliges us to unite our efforts around common principles. Despite these barbaric attacks, limited resources and the imbalance of power with the enemy, we stand in solidarity with the resistance and determination of the Palestinian people. If these efforts are coordinated, we can put counter-pressure on the occupation, deepen its political and legal isolation and worsen its economic crisis. This will be an opportunity to force the occupation and its allies to stop the aggression and strengthen the ongoing struggle of our people.

Today, the Palestinian people are facing one of the heaviest Zionist attacks on the Gaza Strip, which reaches the dimensions of genocide and ethnic cleansing. According to unofficial statistics, the number of Palestinian martyrs since the beginning of the war has exceeded 186,000, and the environmental and health destruction caused by the attacks has directly contributed to this number. This scenario could, God forbid, be repeated in the West Bank, with radical settlers attacking Palestinian towns and villages through the occupation army or with the official support of the occupation government.

Historically, the Palestinians have paid the heaviest price for the Western approach to the Eastern question. The consequences of this approach have been disastrous for us: It not only led to the seizure of our land by the Zionist movement, but also paved the way for the establishment of a settler state. In this war, the Arab and Islamic countries acted with great responsibility, rejecting the international categorisation of the resistance as terrorism and insisting on presenting it as a national liberation movement.

Arab and Islamic countries have played a strong role in supporting our cause in international forums, with a growing regional awareness of a common destiny and the need for common security against a common enemy. This solidarity is a very important step in supporting our cause through the work of the Ministerial Committee of the Arab-Islamic Summit convened in Riyadh, which is expected to be an international framework for shaping a solution to the Palestinian issue in accordance with the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Internationally, unlike in previous crises, we have seen clear international positions condemning the genocide and crimes against humanity committed against our people, reflected in firm positions at the United Nations. We appreciate these positions of the nations and peoples of the world and see the path to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on international legitimacy as the result of more than a century of Palestinian struggle and the revival of their rights, which have historical and political roots. Since 1922, the foundations of a Palestinian state have been laid, and despite British and Zionist conspiracies, Palestine retains its political primacy on the world map.

Today, more than 150 countries recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of international resolutions such as the General Assembly Settlement Plan (Resolution 181), the Algiers Declaration declaring the State of Palestine in 1988, and Security Council resolutions on the illegality of settlements outside the 1967 borders. The most recent resolution demands that Israel end its ‘illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ within 12 months of the General Assembly’s request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine. The resolution was adopted with overwhelming support – 24 votes in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions – demonstrating the gains made by the Palestinian cause and highlighting the growing political isolation of the occupying state.

Despite the obstacles to sovereignty posed by the occupation, the Palestinian state remains a legal reality. We see current international efforts to revive these historic and entrenched rights, against the post-World War II trend of international powers favouring the establishment of a Zionist political entity at our expense.

These forward-looking initiatives, called the ‘International Alliance for the Realisation of the Two-State Solution’, include direct steps to organise the establishment of a Palestinian state, rather than merely negotiating its right to exist. This is an important step for regional security and international peace, a necessary way to stabilise the global system and prevent the spread of geopolitical conflicts, sometimes with a religious or cultural dimension.

Diplomatic and political efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood must be compatible with efforts to end the war, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian aid and address the consequences of the aggression through compensation and reconstruction. At the same time, Palestinian efforts to meet the conditions for a sovereign state consistent with the principles of regional security and global peace should be intensified.

In the midst of these efforts, it is clear that the Palestinian forces will respond sincerely to these initiatives and are willing to overcome differences over governance, elections and the so-called ‘day after’ issues. Palestinian behaviour shows that these disputes are now a thing of the past and that focusing on the future enhances the ability to build and govern the Palestinian state on the basis of national spirit and solidarity.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey