Description
What IR School best explains China’s developing relationship with the Middle East? Which one can best provide a framework for China’s actions there? On one hand, realism has provided a useful account, especially in relation to past state-based bandwagoning and balancing. On the other hand, it is unable to provide sufficient space for the role of the Belt and Road Initiative. For this, idealism provides a useful account, emphasising the importance of collective goals and efforts and collaboration. But it leaves gaps, especially in relation to conflict settings and rivalries at the regional and sub-national level. To bridge them, Chinese tianxia (“under heaven”) provides a third way, through the hierarchy as practice and harmony as the goal. But like realism and idealism before it, earlier understanding of tianxia is also limited and so requires an upgraded version to accommodate contemporary challenges in the region.
