Beijing’s Curious Silence on the Syria Withdrawal

Conspicuously quiet on the matter, however, was the country the U.S. increasingly regards as its chief rival—China. Beijing’s silence reveals how much, for all its bluster, it continues to rely on the U.S.-led international order to secure its own interests.

Across Asia, the Middle East and beyond, China has embarked on a massive program of infrastructure investment and other commercial activity which it calls the Belt and Road Initiative. Western officials worry, rightly, that this program is aimed at projecting Chinese influence globally. White House national security adviser John Bolton recently unveiled a U.S. strategy for Africa focused almost exclusively on countering Beijing’s influence there.

But for China, the Belt and Road Initiative also has a more practical purpose. It aims to foster economic development in the country’s restive West, which has lagged well behind coastal China’s progress, and where Beijing is seeking to subdue the local population. The initiative also aims to diversify China’s trade routes, particularly for energy imports. Today—as Chinese officials are acutely aware—most of China’s trade traverses seas under the control of the U.S. Navy. The Belt and Road Initiative would develop land routes around maritime choke points that the U.S. patrols like the straits of Hormuz and Malacca.

China’s soldiers have followed not far behind its traders. A 2015 Chinese defense white paper made clear Beijing’s plans to transform its navy into a global expeditionary force. It may not be long before China establishes additional naval bases in Belt and Road hot spots like Gwadar, Pakistan (near the Iranian border), where it could service or even base the new ships that are rolling furiously off Chinese production lines.

Yet for all China’s military ambitions, the reality is that the Belt and Road Initiative relies implicitly on an American security umbrella. Chinese industry runs on oil imported via the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea—shipping lanes protected by the U.S. Fifth Fleet. On land, the reality is even starker. Beijing has sought to find economic opportunity in conflict zones in dire need of reconstruction, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and—Beijing had hoped—Syria. In each place, the U.S. military provided gratis security.

The likelihood of a U.S. withdrawal from Syria or Afghanistan is a double whammy for China. It means increased instability in places where Beijing has not only economic interests but security concerns, given Afghanistan’s proximity to western China and Syrian jihadists’ connections with terrorist groups in China. To secure these areas, Beijing will either have to divert resources from its naval plans or establish partnerships with states like Russia or Iran, which won’t offer their services for free.

Even more worrisome for Beijing, U.S. withdrawals from the Middle East raise the prospect that the U.S. will increasingly devote military resources to East Asia, as foreshadowed by the most recent U.S. National Defense Strategy.

The Trump administration should not be too quick to take solace in Beijing’s dilemma. What’s bad for China can also be bad for America. The U.S. has been engaged in Syria and Afghanistan because successive administrations believed American economic and security interests were inextricably tied to stability there. Departing without a plan to protect those interests risks leaving them at the mercy of whoever remains.

What’s more, Beijing is sure to use the U.S. decision on Syria to underscore to American allies in Asia that Washington is an unreliable partner. And China is likely to find a receptive audience.

It is now broadly accepted on both the American right and the left that U.S. strategy needs to shift away from fighting insurgencies in the Middle East and toward competing with increasingly ambitious powers like Russia and China. But the fallout from President Trump’s Syria decision illustrates the importance of how the U.S. executes that shift.

The desire of some parties for U.S. troops to depart, and of others for them to stay, gives Washington leverage to craft political arrangements that can check the ambitions of its rivals and preserve the gains made by U.S. forces. But this geopolitical balancing requires patience and skill. If the U.S. withdraws impulsively and sacrifices that leverage, it risks ceding the ground to unfriendly actors and undermining its own credibility, effectively doing its rivals’ work for them.

Mr. Singh is managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.