The American perception of the Chinese Communist party has always been one shrouded with disdain backed by our foreign policy, but could this instead be an outlet for our jealousy? The United States' foreign policies’ commonly known motives are to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights. Washington habitually curates any and every action that the CCP does to fit an example of what the US stands against. The US Department of State makes its distaste for the CCP clear as they openly state, “The Chinese Communist Party poses the central threat of our times, undermining the stability of the world to serve its own hegemonic ambitions.” Now, this isn’t to say that Xi Jinping is some glorious and righteous leader who has never committed any atrocities, framed as a villain through the lens of the US, however, there is a kernel of truth embedded in this statement.
First, we must examine what the United States Department of State has commented on China’s ruthless expansion of control worldwide as of 2021, “Its One Belt One Road Initiative (BRI or OBOR) preys on other countries via unsustainable and corrupt lending while ignoring global labor and environmental standards.” The BRI as we know it today is an initiative that is essentially China’s version of foreign aid. This could very easily spiral to a debate rooted in statistics on the effectiveness of BRI, however, it is still too early as of 2023 to base our assumptions off of a measly 10 years in this larger long-term project. Now of course, the US calling out the BRI for being corrupt is hilariously hypocritical, considering our actions in Iran during the early 1950s, but we are zeroing in on the present, not the past.
Before we proceed to what Sir Arthur has to do with China and the US global efforts, let’s take a look at what the US believes China created the BRI for. Their main argument on China’s motives for supporting many third-world countries is Xi Jinping’s “own hegemonic ambitions.” There is no doubt that the CCP would not just give out their resources to less wealthy countries and would instead seek some sort of influence over the countries in return. However, this statement is just common sense at this point for any nation-state—there has to be some benefit. Sure, the US can act like they are purely generous and seek no benefits, then we wouldn’t get oil from Saudi Arabia for “aiding” them with arms. Because Washington sees China as a threat to our sovereignty, it is commonplace for the US to flip this ordinary philosophy on its head, portraying China as some gluttonous power pig feasting on the poor.
The Middle East has always been a point of contention within the political world. It is similar to the likes of the story of The Sword in the Stone; only the chosen one can pull the sword out—the US being Arthur’s stepbrother Sir Kay, who fails, and the CCP being Arthur, who ultimately succeeds. This analogy is lightyears away from the truth however at a very basic level it makes sense. The US has tried for decades to mediate the many Middle Eastern dissensions, one being the Iran-Saudi proxy conflict, however, it is nearly impossible for us. The US’ complicated history with Iran, one from friends to rivals, and the Russian backing of Iran have predisposed Iran to despise Western powers. Adding to the divide, Washington’s attitude towards Iran has not been welcoming either, as America has consistently aided Saudi Arabia with Patriot Missiles in return for oil, only increasing the rift (another hypocrisy of US hegemonic ambitions).
If Washington is Sir Kay in the Iran-Saudi proxy conflict, then the CCP must be Arthur. Early in the conflict, China has been known to be mainly backing the Iran side, a trade relationship dating back centuries. Of course, this relationship has changed over time, but it is safe to say that China and Iran are friendly at the least. In recent years, we have also seen China peeking its way into Saudi Arabia, helping build ballistic missiles, introducing BRI, etc. Just weeks ago China finally brought a resolution to this long-lasting conflict in Yemen, which has killed upwards of 233,000 deaths, many being children. This deal came to fruition possibly because of BRI. Obviously, this isn’t the sole reason why the peace deal happened, however, it contributes to the more significant cause. For the truce to happen, China would have needed to have a positive relationship with both parties. China’s use of BRI to gain close ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran, helped Xi Jinping achieve this. On the other hand, if the US were to attempt a peace deal like the one China did, it would end most likely less than optimal. Iran would probably release another statement criticizing the US for trying to interfere as they did back in 1953, and the US would shut down communications again.
In essence, the US has always commented on the global corruption that would occur if we allowed China to expand its sphere of influence, but this could be the byproduct of jealousy. For years we have tried to bring balance to the Iran-Saudi proxy conflict, and we have failed for years. China’s new yet unoriginal tactic of peacekeeping, by treating both parties well, has uncoincidentally ended in a truce. This recent development in foreign relations parallels that of the famous legend of The Sword in the Stone, in which the US mimics Sir Kay, a jealous stepbrother incapable of lifting the sword out of the stone, and China, which portrays Arthur, the protagonist that had the ability to liberate the sword from the stone. In no way is this a pro-China article or an anti-US article, as in Thomas Malory’s book, Le Morte Darthur, King Arthur takes many innocent lives as well and is not the "good-guy" the whole time. In the real world and certainly in foreign policy, there are no protagonists or antagonists, only how countries see each other. So as people, we should see the world from a balanced view, not one designed for us by different governments, but instead, one crafted by logic.
Here is an article that is inline with your assessment of the Sino-US relationship:
FP ARGUMENT：
An expert's point of view on a current event.
Why the U.S.-China ‘Cold War’ Framing Is So Dangerous
A Cold War crouch is inimical to a free, open, and flourishing society.
By Reid Smith, vice president of foreign policy at Stand Together.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/07/us-china-cold-war-competition-history/
What China has accomplished economically and politically in the last 30 years is undebatable to the world! It is debatable, especially to Western economists, how China has done it without being completely transformed into the so-called "superior capitalism, moralized with human rights and democracy," which is the only way known to lift people out of poverty, as understood by the Western "democracies." This article sheds some light on understanding China, its economy, and, most importantly, its mission for humanity, which is radically different from what has been practiced by the USA and its Allies in the last century, including regime changes and wars! I wish US politicians could open their minds and think outside their BOXES!