When the world is drawn in red and blue: Bloc politics, universal values and national autonomy through ‘Once Upon a Time in the Middle East’

Li Xinbo, Research Assistant, Center for Turkish Studies, Shanghai University

Introduction

The Chinese new film Once Upon a Time in the Middle East follows the experience of Xu Fu, who is a Chinese chef in the Middle East, shows how war intrudes into the lives of ordinary people. The protagonist Xu Fu first arrives in the region to pay off debts, but as war breaks out, he is gradually drawn into conflicts among different forces. He does business with the U.S. military while also forming ties with local residents and armed actors. He profits from the commercial opportunities the war creates, yet ultimately suffers its blowback. The film does not divide its characters neatly into good and evil; instead, it reveals the complex personal histories behind different identities.

The film not only relates to humanity in wartime, but also raises a central question in international politics: when states come into conflict, are we also prone to understanding the world through the lens of blocs? Once freedom, equality, human rights and other values regarded as universally significant enter the political competition among states, can they be assigned a particular bloc identity? And does this make it easier for states to justify intervention in the internal affairs of others in the name of defending such values?

One article published in The Economist, in its review of the film, coined the phrase “dragon-restaurant diplomacy” from Xu Fu’s dealings with various parties. In The Economist’s opinion, “dragon-restaurant diplomacy” is a diplomatic approach that prioritizes commercial interests and seeks to maintain relations with different countries, while it is also questioning whether such engagement is sufficiently deep. This interpretation of The Economist shows that the film can be viewed not only as an anti-war story but also as a window onto China’s diplomatic image and its international political implications. This article begins with bloc politics, discusses the use of universal values in international relations, and then responds to The Economist’s critique of China’s diplomatic approach in order to analyze the diplomatic principles China emphasizes.

1. From “blue on blue” to bloc politics: When identity obscures the concrete person

The term “Blue on Blue” in the film is a military expression that generally refers to friendly fire. The logic behind it is that a battlefield must distinguish friend from foe: only after determining which side a person belongs to can one judge whether that person poses a threat. Yet while this distinction is militarily necessary, it can also reduce complex individuals to a single bloc identity.

A similar logic operates in international politics. States need to assess security threats, identify allies, and decide their own positions in conflicts of interest. Especially in war and great-power competition, bloc division lowers the complexity of judgment, but it also makes it easy to understand international conflict as a struggle between two opposed wholes. In such narratives, one side is often described as defending order and justice while the other is portrayed as a threat and a source of chaos, while differences, contradictions and specific circumstances within each side may be ignored.

The film Once Upon a Time in the Middle East reflects on this logic to some degree. The film depicts violence by the U.S. military in war and the destruction it causes to local civilian life, yet it does not portray all American soldiers as identical figures. At the same time, one of the main characters Zaid is both a participant in violent conflict and a victim of war; his experience shows how an individual can gradually turn from victim into perpetrator in the cycle of trauma, hatred and violence. This is not the film excusing violence; it is the film showing that we cannot reduce a person to a stereotype based solely on the person’s bloc identity.

The problem with bloc politics is not that states should never distinguish friends from foes, but that this distinction must not become the sole explanation of reality. When a state or group is categorized wholesale as an enemy, the different voices within it, the lives of ordinary people, and the complex causes behind the conflict may all be excluded from international society’s understanding. Through the concrete interactions among people from different camps, the film reminds viewers that political identity can explain relations between people, but it should not replace specific perceptions of an individual.

2. From food to universal values: Can “non-aligned” things also be absorbed into bloc politics?

If “Blue on Blue” shows how war draws the line between friend and foe, food offers the film another way of observing the world. Food itself does not naturally belong to any political bloc. Xu Fu cooks for Arabs and for Americans; food has no camp of its own, and Americans can eat it just as Arabs can. But in war, food is also drawn into violence. Chili peppers can become an instrument of torture, and sprouted potatoes can become a means of saving lives in certain circumstances. The original meaning of objects is not entirely lost, yet it is reshaped by conflict.

This raises a question with greater significance for international politics: if something as everyday and concrete as food can be given friend or foe meanings by war, can freedom, equality, human rights, human dignity and other universal values also be assigned a bloc identity in competition among states, thereby facilitating interference in other countries?

Tocqueville noted in The Old Regime and the French Revolution that the ideas of freedom, equality and popular sovereignty advanced by the French Revolution were able to exert influence beyond French soil not because they naturally belonged to France, but because they touched on problems shared by many societies. From this we can conclude that universal values such as freedom, equality, human dignity and the right to life do not inherently belong to any one country. “universal” means that they should not fundamentally change according to nationality, ethnicity, religion or political bloc, and it does not mean that any one state has the authority to interpret “the universal.”

The problem is that when universal values are brought into competition among states, they may shift from shared normative principles into political criteria for distinguishing “us” from “them.” Once a state treats its own understanding of freedom, democracy or human rights as the only correct model and judges other states’ legitimacy on that basis, universal values may be given a particular national position and bloc identity.

The politicization of universal values does not mean that universal values themselves have lost their meaning; it means that we need to distinguish between value principles and specific political actions taken in the name of those values. A state’s claim to uphold human rights does not automatically prove that its intervention is legitimate; conversely, an emphasis on state sovereignty cannot be a sufficient reason to ignore severe humanitarian suffering. Whether external intervention is reasonable still requires examining its legal basis, the manner of action, the actual consequences, and whether the relevant states and peoples have space to express their own will. The key, then, is not to make a simple either-or choice between universal values and state sovereignty, but to prevent either side from monopolizing the authority to interpret legitimacy.

Of course, this does not mean that human rights and sovereignty must be opposed in international society. Sovereignty can provide institutional safeguards for a state to choose its own development path, while human rights remind us that state power itself should not become a reason to ignore individual suffering. The truly difficult question is how to avoid choosing on behalf of others in the name of universal values while also not equating respect for sovereignty with indifference to all internal problems.

3. From “which side are you on” to “respecting autonomy”: The principles and practical significance of China’s piplomacy

If bloc politics tends to simplify international relations into an either-or choice, respecting national autonomy offers another way of thinking. In handling Middle East issues, China emphasizes respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, respect for the right of the peoples of all countries to independently choose their development paths, and settlement of regional disputes through political dialogue and peaceful means. These principles are reflected in China’s Arab Policy Paper and The Global Security Initiative Concept Paper issued by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From the perspective of international politics, this position stresses that international cooperation should not be premised on acceptance of a particular political model and that differences among states should not automatically turn into confrontations in which one must take sides.

The Economist summarizes this diplomatic approach as “dragon-restaurant diplomacy,” arguing that China is able to maintain commercial relations with states in conflict and that its motive comes more from commercial interests than political ideology, while questioning whether such relations are sufficiently deep. However, setting commercial interests in opposition to political ideas cannot fully explain the actual significance of diplomacy. States certainly consider their own interests when conducting economic cooperation, but interest driven behavior does not mean that cooperation lacks political significance. For states with political differences, economic and trade exchanges can provide sustained links of interest, enabling them to maintain a degree of cooperation without having to agree on every issue.

The Economist also questions the depth of “dragon-restaurant diplomacy” by pointing to China’s cautious attitude toward security responsibilities. This criticism reflects a traditional Western assumption: must the depth of diplomacy be measured by military intervention or by becoming a regional security guarantor? Security guarantees are certainly an important issue in international politics, and economic cooperation cannot replace all security and humanitarian responsibilities. But diplomacy does not function only through military force; political dialogue, economic ties and multilateral cooperation can also create conditions for easing tensions and sustaining relations.

Conclusion

From “Blue on Blue” to a meal in a restaurant, Once Upon a Time in the Middle East presents two ways of understanding the world: one first confirms friend-or-foe identity and then judges the other side accordingly, while the other tries to see concrete people and their lives beyond political identity. Brought into international politics, this contrast reveals that bloc division also shapes how people understand universal values, evaluate war and judge diplomatic behavior.

Respecting sovereignty and autonomous choice doesn’t mean denying freedom, human rights or human dignity; emphasizing universal values does not mean that any state naturally has the right to choose on behalf of others. War can divide the world into different colors, but international politics should not therefore lose its understanding of concrete circumstances. Whatever differences exist among states, peace, life, human dignity and other universal values should not become the exclusive values of any one bloc.