New battleground for China-US competition: International organisations

From bilateral and multilateral diplomatic situations, to international economic organisations and non-economic organisations, the competition between China and the US has intensified in a different way during the pandemic, as new battlegrounds for influence are created. Chinese researcher Peng Nian presents the possible areas that the US and China might continue to clash, even after the pandemic eases.
As the US pulls out of certain international organisations, China stands ready to take its place. (iStock)
As the US pulls out of certain international organisations, China stands ready to take its place. (iStock)

Since the coronavirus broke out, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has become a fresh battleground for China and the US, signalling that China-US competition has expanded from bilateral and multilateral diplomatic situations and international economic organisations into non-economic international organisations such as public health. In the future, international organisations in the areas of health, law, and human rights are likely to become new arenas for China-US competition.

After US President Donald Trump took office, the US has pulled out or threatened to pull out of over ten international organisations and agreements, including UNESCO,  the Paris Agreement (a landmark agreement on climate change) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Recently, Trump announced at a White House press conference that the US will halt funding to the WHO while conducting a review on it, sparking discussion on whether the US will also exit the WHO.

Many academics see Trump’s great retreat as a lack of respect for multilateralism and a return to isolationism. On one hand, Trump does not want to spend more money and effort on international organisations, but is trying to focus resources on domestic issues in an approach he calls “America First”. On the other hand, Trump loves to either cut deals through bilateral talks, or take unilateral action to achieve his goals.

Other international organisations in the areas of public health, international law, and human rights will also gradually come within Trump’s radar, and very likely become a new battleground for him to “go after” China.

However, this does not fully explain why Trump is still sticking with some international organisations. For example, despite his frequent criticisms of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to the point that the appeals mechanism for trade disputes — the Appellate Body of the WTO — has ceased to function, the US has not pulled out of it and remains its most powerful member. The US also continues to retain its membership in international organisations relating to the global economy, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

WTO
US President Donald Trump has not pulled the US out of the WTO, despite criticising the international organisation. (WTO website)

America First

The main reason for Trump’s preference for some international organisations over others lies in how much impact they have on US interests. To put it simply, the US will support whichever international organisation is good for the US and does its bidding. The ones that have little impact on US interests would not catch Trump’s eye.

For instance, the international organisations that Trump wants to leave are mostly focused on areas that have little impact on US national interests, such as culture and climate change. As for those relating to the US’s economic hegemony, Trump does take them seriously. Other international organisations in the areas of public health, international law, and human rights will also gradually come within Trump’s radar, and very likely become a new battleground for him to “go after” China.

First, this pandemic has highlighted the unique role of international organisations in a major public health crisis, including its definition by an organisation such as the WHO, as well as their economic and political influence and their ability to lead public opinion in crisis management.

Trump is critical of the WHO for the following two reasons. First, the WHO refused to raise the epidemic level in China during the initial outbreak, leading to the US being implicated. As Trump said, in the early stages, the WHO objected to the US government imposing travel restrictions on China: “Other nations and regions who followed WHO guidelines, and kept their borders open to China accelerated the pandemic all around the world. Many countries said: “We are going to listen to the WHO.” The second reason is that Trump does not like the WHO speaking up for China.

At a daily briefing on 7 April, Trump declared that the US would “put a very powerful hold” on funding to the WHO, which he said was “China-centric”.

At a White House press conference on 14 April, Trump announced that his administration had been instructed to halt funding to the WHO. The US was the leading sponsor of the WHO, providing over US$400 million in funding last year. (N.B: This adds up to roughly 15 per cent of the WHO's budget.)

Trump has announced that the WHO review will include its role in “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus”, in a clear reference to China. And so, in the accountability process, Trump will draw on the WHO to go after China, while for China, standing by the WHO would be the most effective way of responding to the US.

The China-US competition in the ICJ and other international legal organisations might then become a new focus.

In fact, amid numerous threats from the US to cut WHO funding, China has given US$20 million to the WHO for the global fight against Covid-19 and has announced another donation of US$30 million on 23 April. And while the pandemic will come under control and eventually go away, this tussle between China and the US over the WHO will continue until there is a winner.

ambulance
The US Capitol is reflected on the side of an ambulance in Washington, DC, April 21, 2020. US politicians have long wanted to go after China. (Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg)

Second, Trump’s intention may not really be to seek accountability from the WHO, but from China. The fact is that political elites in the US have long wanted to go after China. Last month, the US Senate and House of Representatives proposed several motions to investigate China’s “mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak”, and calling on health officials of various countries to launch international investigations to quantify the damage done to the US and the world due to China’s cover-up of the initial outbreak, for affected countries to seek compensation from China.

We can see that as the pandemic eases, the US will gradually start to hold China to account. Unable to do it alone, the US will enlist the help of other countries and activate international organisations such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The China-US competition in the ICJ and other international legal organisations might then become a new focus.

The UN Human Rights Council and other non-governmental organisations involved in human rights issues might also become another battleground for the US seeking accountability from China.

Third, even with the support of the WHO and ICJ, it is completely possible that the US might play the human rights card again, and hold China to account on grounds of jeopardising human rights. On 7 April, seven Republican senators submitted a joint letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres opposing the appointment of Jiang Duan, Minister of Chinese Mission in Geneva to the UN Human Rights Council Consultative Group, claiming that China should not occupy the position of prestige or influence on the Council because of its "wilful deceit of COVID-19 outbreak" and "human rights abuses" in Xinjiang.

The UN Human Rights Council and other non-governmental organisations involved in human rights issues might also become another battleground for the US seeking accountability from China.

Related: Amid pandemic chaos, will China seize the chance to shape the global narrative? | China and the US battle for influence at the UN | Trading places: A confident China and an insecure America?