Silk Road vs. Spice Road: China, India, and the Atlantic World

The BRICS and subsequently the G-20 have gone down in history as two significant meetings where China and India's stars shone brightly. BRICS, in a manner befitting China, represented a challenge aimed at diminishing the dominance of the Dollar in the world. In contrast, G-20, in a distinctly Indian style, emerged as a blueprint for how the new world would integrate.

Rome has a famous saying: "Lumini ex orient" - "Light comes from the East." We know that light is used here as a metaphor, referring to wealth, prosperity, and abundance. Indeed, for thousands of years, India and China were the two primary centers of wealth in the ancient world. (Alexander the Great's ambitious eastern conquests aimed to reach the source of these riches and possess them.) China represented a continental route through the Silk Road, while India opened up a maritime route through the Spice Route.

However, times changed. The accumulation processes of capitalism shifted the world's center of gravity from Asia to the Atlantic. Both China and India, in these processes of new centralization, fell behind, becoming impoverished and colonies for centuries.

It's worth noting that China and India have formed two contrasting cultural patterns in their colonial histories. China culturally resisted British culture and did not internalize it, while perhaps Britain did not exert a special effort in this regard. However, in India, the English language and British culture, starting with the comprador elites, gradually spread downward and continued to develop even after India gained independence.

Yes, in the mid-20th century, both China and India, under the leadership of leaders like Mao and Gandhi, achieved their independence politically and legally. Economically, India chose a mixed economy, while China opted for the strictest form of communism. India, in international politics, opened a third vein against NATO and the Warsaw Pact and advocated Non-Alignment. It even led this movement. It established close relationships with both the Atlantic and the Soviets. China initially leaned toward the Soviets but later became one of their fiercest opponents. The United States recognized this situation and began to approach China from the 1970s onwards. We later understood the reasons behind this rapprochement. The issue was not just about weakening the world communist movement. The main goal was to transfer capitalist production, which was experiencing a decline in productivity and suffering heavy cost increases through taxes and wages, to this populous, obedient, and hungry country where human life had no value and was ruled by force. Starting from the late 1970s, especially in the 1980s, industrial capitalism began to settle in China, beginning with the least efficient, labor-intensive sectors. The 1990s saw the start of China attracting capital-intensive sectors as well. Initially, this handover brought wonderful days to the West. The scenario was simple: shift production to China, attract this surplus with the Dollars printed limitlessly, and maintain the consumption standards of the public.

In the 2000s, we know that these cycles began to break down, and crude, narrow-minded calculations began to collapse. Moreover, China, as announced in historical Communist (!) Party meetings, had also started investing in techno-capital after its successes in labor and capital-intensive sectors. Through technology theft that infuriated Trump, China could claim inventions produced with great effort in Silicon Valley in the blink of an eye, and moreover, without labor. It also challenged the technological superiority that the US still held through 5G. (China's current weakness lies somewhat in the field of chips. The Taiwan chip issue is escalating partly for this reason.)

Taking these developments into account, the Atlantic world finally initiated a major war targeting China. In this war, they did not directly attack China. Instead, their goal was to undermine China's global initiatives, networks, and logistics centers. Initially, it was necessary to discipline the EU, led by Germany and to some extent France, which had made significant strides toward becoming China's largest trading partner. They encircled Europe, a region that China had poured a handful of money into and made substantial investments in, as the geography where the Silk Road aimed to reach and converge. They did this by antagonizing Russia and waging war with Ukraine. They severed the Europe-Eurasia connection. A belligerent Russia meant the collapse of the northern route of the Silk Road. They ended the energy relationship between the EU and Russia with applied embargoes. It was not enough; they sabotaged the Nord Stream and physically terminated this relationship.

In the middle belt of the Silk Road, it represented Turkestan-Türkiye. This route was sensitive for China. Therefore, although it did not completely abandon it, China did not take many steps to strengthen this route. On the contrary, it took a step forward by approaching Pakistan and exerting pressure on the Indian Ocean via the Gwadar port. (This route would also support China's other initiative, the Africa initiative). In short, China, with the damaged Silk Road, set its sights on the reciprocal Spice Road. It wasn't enough; they signed comprehensive agreements with Iran. They reached out to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They initiated the Persian-Arab peace. They extended to the Eastern Mediterranean, adding the ports of Haifa and Piraeus to their logistics network. (For the Haifa port, the US and Israel had a confrontation. Israel reassured the US by giving various guarantees).

In response to China's initiatives in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf, and the Eastern Mediterranean, the Atlantic powers did not delay in responding.

To be continued...