“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far”

Theodore Roosevelt’s this ideology that formed the backbone of American diplomacy from the early 1900s was sincerely imbibed by the Chinese.

The quintessential culmination of this was in China’s realization that the endemic Panda could be a handy tool for diplomacy. As soon as the early 1970s China’s trading partners were generously gifted the animal as a momento of goodwill.

However, thanks to their dwindling numbers they gained greater attention from wildlife enthusiasts from all over the world leading to greater commercial value, countries showed interest in displaying the animal in their national zoo’s putting an end to China “handing out” free pandas. Rather, they were to be purchased now.

China would explicitly specify in the covenants that these pandas were not sold, but “rented” by the host country (for as much as $1 million per annum) what this entailed was that China had the power to not extend this “rent agreement” and recalling it’s pandas in order to showcase their dissatisfaction with the policies of the “host nation” pandas thus started functioning as diplomats stationed at zoo’s unlike their human colleagues at embassies or high commissions!

Thus, historically Chinese have been very nuanced with their foreign policy, taking well protracted steps their current position, explicitly threatening countries with economic and political repercussions if they “malign” China for their pathetic human rights record or lackadaisical transfer of information of the pandemic to the WHO thus comes as an unwelcome surprise for it is unprecedented for a country’s diplomats to take such a stance in peace times.

This growing agression diplomatically and militarily is being touted as a way to divert international attention away from growing pressure for an investigation on China’s handling of the pandemic and to by painting diplomats and military as “wolf warriors” motivated by a single minded dedication to uphold China’s interests in a hostile world prima facie looks like a rhetoric to instil nationalism amongst the Chinese masses who are increasingly frustrated due to unemployment in a lockdown ravaged economy and the dearth of human rights accorded to them.

This however, seems counterintuitive. China’s economy rests upon robust exports. With it’s global goodwill as a trading partner in murky waters resolution through meticulous tact and adroit diplomacy is need of the hour and not a futile bravado.

It is common knowledge that in a bid to restart their economies most countries will rely on protectionist trade practices, China in such a scenario could have relied on the World Trade Organization (WTO) since it’s decisions are binding, however due to the USA exploiting a loophole, the avenue for that is absent for China. The Appellate Body of the Dispute Settlement System (DSS) of the WTO requires at least three out of the maximum seven members in order to give a decision which is binding. Appointment to the Appelate Body is only done after consensus of all the parties present, it is this loophole that the USA has exploited, withholding consent, thus, making the WTO unable to pass any binding judgments. Here article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) which stresses on dispute resolution through “bilateral agreement” comes into play. Hence the need for “meticulous tact and adroit diplomacy” is reiterated.

Furthermore, China’s aggressive stance also puts the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative in a volatile turmoil. Opposition for China not only stems from the developed European countries, but African countries where China has invested a considerable amount of money in form of Belt and Road Initiative. African protests have been violent and not only vocal, there were reports of three Chinese officials being killed in Congo while the Nigerians are showing increasing resentment due to maltreatment and growing awareness about the nefarious Chinese “debt diplomacy”

With it’s economy circling the drain due to dearth of available markets in wake of protectionist trade practices and danger to the gambit of the Belt and Road Initiative failing such ill afforded foreign policy has the possibility of global ostracization of China and hence needs to be reevaluated.