STEVEN KUO: Both East and West try to bully Africa

I called my mom in Taipei last week to ask how she felt about Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. I told her the US speaker of the house is not visiting Taiwan for the wellbeing of the Taiwanese people; that it has more to do with American self-interest and the US sphere of interest in the Asia-Pacific.

My mom knew this line of analysis well enough; Taiwan has over a dozen political TV talkshows churning out nonstop analysis across the political spectrum. She replied: well, we are small and weak, we need someone to lean on.

I am pretty sure my mom hadn’t read Greek historian Thucydides who, commenting on international politics 2,000 years ago, wrote: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Nor has she spent time thinking about the international relations concept of “bandwagoning” — where the weak align themselves with a stronger state for protection, even though they know the strong state will gain disproportionately. But as we all realise as we get older, mom knows best!

I follow a range of commentators on security studies and  Chinese foreign policy. I marvel at how American political scientist Ian Bremmer can always sum up complex issues so succinctly (“Pelosi’s trip exposes Taiwan dilemmas”, August 7). I admire former Australian prime minister and China specialist Kevin Rudd for his careful scholarship on the strategies of the Chinese Communist Party. I try to balance my intake of analysis from Western sources with a good dose of mainland Chinese media. But I find the best analysis on China comes from Singaporean and Japanese commentators.

Over the past week the only commentators I could find who argued that Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan was a good idea were Taiwanese political talk-show guests. I chuckled at the jokes made at the expense of Chinese politicians and enjoyed their bravado. But I am concerned, and feel that on balance the Pelosi visit demonstrates American policy confusion. Its muddled messaging has provoked a great deal of unnecessary anger in mainland China, with no measurable gain of improving stability.

If there is conflict, the best-case scenario is an embargo and a limited war, with a sea-lane embargo around Taiwan — one of the busiest in the world. This would cause another spike in energy prices, and we would see many times the disruption we’ve seen as a result of Covid restrictions and the war in Ukraine combined.

The worst-case scenario is full-blown regional conflict with global participation. On the US side, Japan and Australia are already allies. Probably India, maybe the Philippines, perhaps South Korea and even one or two Southeast Asian countries may be involved. Certainly, Nato members will be obliged to assist on the US side as the Nato treaty states that an attack on one is considered an attack on all. On the Chinese side, Russia and Pakistan will certainly be on side, and probably North Korea too. Note, each is a nuclear-armed country.

US secretary of state Anthony Blinken was just in Pretoria as he launches the “US strategy towards Sub-Saharan Africa”. The US is worried that half of Africa’s countries have not taken the West’s side at the UN on the war in Europe, and has come to the continent to shore up support. SA international relations & co-operation minister Naledi Pandor has openly complained as she hosts Blinken of bullying by Western countries in response to SA’s stance on the Ukraine war.

But what did she expect after SA sat on the fence and called for negotiations? Nobody will take her calls for peace seriously as long as that continues. She has the ears of both the West and the East. Both sides will attempt to bully SA in their own ways as the situation in the Indo-Pacific heats up. SA, and Africa as a whole, need to be more proactive in their stance against war and for peace.

• Dr Kuo, a former lecturer at the Shanghai International Studies University in China, is adjunct senior lecturer in the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business.