The US longs for the Cold War, but time is on China's side

Interview: Sercan Meriç

Political Scientist Prof. Dr. Barış Doster has penned a striking analysis of the world's future in his article "Global Civilization, Imperialism, and the Rising World," featured in the book 'Mutual Learning, Peace, and Prosperity' published by Kırmızı Kedi Yayınevi.

Describing how China conducts patient diplomacy with its "ancient civilization" heritage in a conjuncture where US hegemony is receding and Washington longs for the Cold War era, Doster made assessments across a wide spectrum, ranging from how the balance of power will be shaped after Donald Trump's new term to the Iran-Israel tension, from the Russia-Ukraine war to Turkey's new "counter-terrorism" concept.

- In your article "Global Civilization, Imperialism, and the Rising World" in the book "Mutual Learning, Peace, and Prosperity," you define the US as "a state that desires to return to the Cold War era but is also experiencing a decline in its hegemonic capabilities." How would you summarize this?

That book contains my article as well as articles by other Turkish scientists, Chinese scientists, and even Egyptian and British scientists. The common finding of them all is this: US imperialism is a state whose hegemony and ecological dominance have been weakening and declining for a long time. But ultimately, US imperialism is still one of the world's most massive and dominant powers on an economic, political, military, diplomatic, industrial, and technological scale. It is the largest economy... Its defense budget is approximately one trillion dollars. It has about 800 bases, large and small, known and unknown, in 150 countries around the world. It still possesses the world's most powerful navy—yes, while it is weakening, let me underline that—the most powerful navy. That is, a tremendous naval power with both nuclear-armed submarines and giant aircraft carriers. The US dollar, along with the US Navy, is among the strongest muscles of the US. However, this power is no longer the power of the post-World War II era, where it set the rules itself and established these power institutions itself. When the Second World War ended in 1945, the US of that period was a country that accounted for half of the global economic pie, producing roughly half of the total output. Today, it has regressed to a quarter, or even below a quarter, and this is not just a discussion held by us.

- It is a discussion also taking place in the US…

Yes… Even within the US, whether Republican or Democrat, many segments and many experts are identifying this. These discussions are certainly taking place there as well, in the form of, "How can we stop this trend? Can we get out of this situation by burning, destroying, and starting wars, or by turning more inward?"

- You define China as the "world's factory" and refer to its tremendous development since 1978. What is the situation from China's perspective?

China has achieved an economic miracle with the model they call "socialism with Chinese characteristics." We are talking about a state with a population of over 1.4 billion, right behind India, the world's second-largest economy, right behind the US, and one that has grown by an average of 10 percent every year for many years—roughly until the global economic crisis in 2008—and has been able to maintain this pace for a quarter of a century. Bringing 300 million people from the countryside to the city, turning them into the middle class, and urbanizing them every year is a significant task. And we are not talking about Malta; we are talking about a landmass on the scale of China, a population on the scale of China, and an economy on the scale of China. In that sense, it has tremendous investment capacity, production capacity, and trade capacity. Now, when we put these together, the US has Mexico on one side, Canada on the other, and the European Union on another, but China is also one of its largest foreign trade partners. When we look at Africa, we are talking about a scale that can provide more aid, investment, or credit to Africa than the IMF and the World Bank. We can certainly observe that China, due to initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, its position within BRICS, its leading role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and being one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, can now easily reflect this tremendous economic power into the diplomatic, political, public diplomacy, cultural, technological, and industrial spheres, and that time is working in China's favor.

- When you wrote this article, Donald Trump's second term had not yet begun. How did US-China relations begin to take shape after Trump took office?

It is known that China is the subject Trump is most obsessed with. Trump emphasized anti-China sentiment in his rhetoric during the presidential race against Joe Biden, whom he lost to, as well as in the election he recently won.

In the election he lost, he even said: "If Biden wins, all US citizens will have to speak Chinese..." The state that Trump has coded and positioned as the greatest adversary for economic, military, diplomatic, and industrial reasons is the People's Republic of China. This is the US reality. Many people within the US also say, "This sharp competition, including trade wars and high customs tariffs, is not giving us the results we hoped for."

Therefore, there are many US experts, politicians, bureaucrats, and academics who think, "Instead of engaging in sharp competition with China at a constant pace, perhaps we should leave the Atlantic-Pacific balance to ourselves, let China do whatever it wants in the rest of the world, and we should focus on our own interior and our immediate surroundings; there is no reason for us to engage in such sharp competition with China in other parts of the world, in Central Asia, or the Middle East." Because competing with China in every field and anti-China sentiment does not bring the US what it hoped for.

- What kind of path do these US writers and analysts suggest in relations with China?

We all know Henry Kissinger. There are those who say, "Let's read him in reverse." During the Cold War, the US had moved closer to China against Russia. There are those who ask, "Can we pull Russia to our side against China?" But this is not that easy either. After China brokered the normalization of Iran-Saudi Arabia relations, and after China established warm, lively relations with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the 22-member Arab League, and after the question of "Could China be a facilitator, a mediator, a moderator in Palestine?" was voiced by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas himself, China has repeatedly demonstrated that it also wants to be a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine issue. Under today's given conditions, while the US and Russia are negotiating directly to end this war without inviting Ukraine and the European Union to the table, would they need China? Russia might want it, but would the US? What would Ukraine say to this?

- What would the US and Ukraine say to this?

It is not very easy to answer this today. But regardless of how the US-Russia negotiations turn out specifically for Ukraine, regardless of which direction Israel's cruelty, barbarism, atrocities, and massacres in Gaza take, and regardless of how much Israel's influence over Syria increases, China's diplomatic visibility and diplomatic influence will inevitably continue to increase over a very wide geography due to its economic power, investment, production, and trade capability and capacity.

- We are witnessing a "cowboy style" in US diplomacy. How does China conduct diplomatic processes? For example, during the Russia-Ukraine War, everyone was in anticipation, wondering, "What will China say?"

It is impossible to handle the foreign policy and diplomatic style that China follows independently of China's ancient civilization. The US is a state that is a product of the last quarter of the 1700s. When we look at China, on the other hand, we are talking about an ancient civilization, a culture, a state tradition, and an imperial experience spanning thousands of years. Now, therefore, call this civilization accumulation, call it state wisdom, call it experience, call it wealth; it inevitably reflects on China's foreign policy style. And China is aware of this: time is working in China's favor. China is conscious of the fact that economic power inevitably feeds, strengthens, and reinforces political power, military power, and technological power. In that sense, when we look at its close relations with Russia—where the two leaders, Xi Jinping and Putin, are close friends and define their countries as strategic allies—I think China comes to the fore more in some issues in Central Asia and the Middle East, and stays a bit more in the background in others, due to conjunctural reasons or the preferences of the parties. But in the final analysis, China's emergence as a mediator in very different issues reveals its ability to solve problems.

- There is a debate about whether the US-Israel coalition will intervene in Iran. How can China play a role in this process?

China's relations with Iran are extremely strong. If there is a tension between Iran and the US—which I do not see as likely to turn into a hot conflict—would Iran want China's mediation, and would the US accept it? Or would they say to China, "My friend, you already have very close relations with Iran. You cannot be a neutral mediator. You cannot be a mediator"? Let's come to Iran now. After what happened in Syria, Israel is clearly the party that has gained the most, along with the US. It took the Golan Heights. Afterward, it took the neutral buffer zone. Israeli tanks approached within 15-20 kilometers of Damascus. It is obvious how brutally and barbarically they have acted against Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon. The massacres in Gaza are obvious. The party that has lost the most in Syria is clearly Iran. When we write down events such as the crash of the Iranian president's helicopter and the killing of Hamas leaders in Tehran by Israel, there is a very serious loss of power for Iran in its own geography and in the elements it uses as proxy forces. Although Iran is a state that has clearly lost in Syria and whose charisma has been scratched, Iran is still not an Iraq or Syria in the final analysis. I do not expect a hot conflict between the US and Iran in the classic sense, but Israel's air strikes against Iran and its assassinations against experts and scientists in Iran, and researchers who play an active role in Iran's nuclear activities, can certainly continue. I do not think there is a possibility of a US occupation of Iran as it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.

- Finally, let's finish with our country, Professor... A solution process began on October 22 with the call of MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli. March 19 was a critical date, and since that point, important breaking moments have been experienced in Turkish political history, and they continue to be experienced. What kind of plan does the government have in terms of both these geopolitical changes and domestic politics?

First of all, I was a friend of yours who was against the previous opening process in terms of both procedure and substance. Whether you call the new process a "new solution process," "solution process 2.0," or "Turkey without terrorism process," there are very serious differences from the previous one. In the previous opening process, Assad was in power in Syria. The current Assad has been overthrown and has fled to Moscow. In the previous opening process, the MHP was in the opposition. This time, the MHP is in the position of the element that started this process itself, the author. In the previous solution process, the PKK terrorist organization, supported by imperialism, had at least some power to engage in terrorist activities within Turkey—according to the statements of Turkish official authorities—even if it was decreasing. In this process, according to statements, especially from the Ministry of Interior, the PKK terrorist organization has no power, opportunity, or capability left to carry out any terrorist activity within Turkey. Now, this is one dimension of the matter. Let's come to the external dimension. We always have to ask this question: Would US imperialism give up on the PKK terrorist organization, which it calls its "ground force," which it trained, equipped, paved the way for in northern and northeastern Syria, which it tried to turn into an army and a state, with which it steals and sells Syria's oil to the world, with which it has a trade partnership, to which it gave tens of thousands of truckloads of vehicles, equipment, weapons, and ammunition, and which it described and defined as "freedom fighters" while deploying them to the front against another US-made terrorist organization, ISIS?

- Will it give up?

The US uses this terrorist organization against Turkey. It used it against Syria. Can it deploy it to the front in Iran or Iraq when necessary, under other names? Of course, it can. Besides being a useful apparatus for the US and a terrorist organization that the US can deploy to the front, does the PKK terrorist organization also produce a justification, a reason, or a cause for the US to come to the region? Of course, it does. Therefore, as long as the external source, external support, and external aid of terrorism—from intelligence to finance, from diplomatic support to its activities in Europe and the US, and there is also a narco-terrorism part, meaning as long as huge amounts of money are not cut off from narcotics—are not addressed, the Turkish state defeating the PKK terrorist organization and making it unable to carry out any terrorist activity within Turkey's borders is undoubtedly important. When we look at Syria and the power Barzani has reached in northern Iraq, completely neutralizing this within Turkey without cutting off the imperialist support behind it, primarily the support of the US and the European Union, is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Therefore, in this entire geography, in the Middle East geography, for the PKK terrorist organization and the PYD, YPG, SDG, etc., that it uses in Syria to be liquidated, Turkey must first be willing to struggle against the US and Europe.