As a student of international relations, I have always been taught to look at the bigger picture and often through various lenses. The same approach can be applied in understanding the relationship between Malaysia and China, especially over the past few years where we have been receiving a generous amount of money as a means of boosting our economic growth and infrastructure.

The investments received have without doubt raised a few concerns and criticism by certain parties in Malaysia. The one that intrigued me the most was the accusation that Malaysia is “selling off” its sovereignty to the Chinese. But is this really the case?

It is important to highlight that my analysis here has little or nothing to do with Malaysia’s current domestic politics, so rest assured there won’t be any blame game or finger-pointing. I have chosen to approach this matter solely from an academic angle.

Now the real question is, what strategic interests does China have in Malaysia? Are we going to benefit from our engagement with China? Do we matter, or are we just another pawn? Before any attempt is made to answer these questions, it is important to understand how the international system works based on the international relations discipline.

The term “anarchy” is often used to explain how the international system works. It is defined as the absence of a governing body higher than the state itself.

Without such power to regulate the behaviour of states, it would lead to greater insecurities and heightened suspicions among the members of the international community.

According to Professor John Mearsheimer, a strong proponent of the theory of offensive realism, “there will be no one at the end of the line when the security of a state is threatened”. This insinuates that states are out there alone with the main goal of surviving.

Such responsibilities and uncertainties often act as a catalyst for states to behave aggressively to ensure their survivability against external invasion. The Peloponnesian War fought between Athens and Sparta is a classic case of insecurities and an arms race between two empires, which is partially portrayed in today’s China-US relations.

In today’s globalised world, such insecurities and uncertainties towards China could be observed during the Obama administration with its containment strategies such as the “Pivot to Asia” policy, the strengthening of military alliances and exercises with Japan, South Korea and Singapore, and also the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

But since Donald Trump’s inauguration, there has been little evidence of, or approach to balancing the rise of China, particularly in Asia. With the absence of the US in Asia, China has heightened and strengthened its military capabilities, especially over the South China Sea dispute.

Other than military and security, the One Belt, One Road (Obor) initiative also proves that China is serious about expanding its influence globally. Money has been pouring out of China, not just towards Malaysia, but throughout the region. Without the presence of the US in Asia, I firmly believe that fostering better ties with China would be a wise move for Malaysia.

China is Malaysia’s biggest investor and trading partner to date. This has invited critics to accuse Malaysia of “selling off its sovereignty” to the Chinese while only a few praise the government for seizing the opportunity to boost our economic growth and infrastructure.

But I believe that we should analyse this through a different lens – that we are in it not just for our economic growth but also our survivability. As elaborated earlier, states are often governed by fear and insecurities, and Malaysia is no exception.

The approach Malaysia is pursuing by making China its close friend could ensure better security and survivability, especially in the constantly shifting environment of world politics.

However, being a friend of China does not imply that we are neglecting our ties with the US. It merely implies that Malaysia is strengthening its security by having more friends on its side. Hence, getting on the good side of China does not imply that we are selling off our sovereignty, but that we are preserving it instead.

So to answer the question of whether or not we are a pawn – my answer would: be most definitely. We are a pawn in a chess game. But being a pawn does not imply that we are losing the game, because even kings can be attacked by pawns.

I believe our policymakers and political analysts are able to strategise well in this situation, which will benefit Malaysia in the long run.

Sharifah Sakinah Syed Alwi is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.