Since its establishment in April 2018, the Institute of Area Studies, Peking University (PKUIAS), under the support of the leadership of the university, has made remarkable achievements in platform construction, talent cultivation and foreign exchanges. Taking its fifth anniversary as an opportunity, the Institute has recently launched a “Master Salon” and “Youth Salon” series of activities, inviting well-known scholars and young scholars in various disciplines to share their insights.

The fourth lecture in the series was held on June 23. Kang Jie, an associate research fellow in the Department for European-Central Asian Studies of the China Institute of International Studies, was invited to give a lecture on the topic of “How the ‘New Intermediate Zones’ Became Possible—Attempts by Non-Western Middle Powers to Seek Strategic Autonomy under Hegemonic Systems.” The salon was moderated by Zhang Yongle, an associate professor of PKU’s Law School and deputy director of the Institute for Areas Studies, PKU. Zan Tao, a professor of PKU’s Department of History and deputy director of PKUIAS, Zhang Minyu and Xie Kankan, assistant professors of PKU’s School of Foreign Languages, Duan Demin, head of School of Government, Wei Nanzhi, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies at CASS, and Ge Xiaohui, an assistant research fellow at the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies at CASS, participated in the discussion.

Kang Jie first introduced the research origin of this report by reflecting on his previous research in the context of the Ukraine crisis. He pointed out that during the Russia–US-led “Western game”, some representative non-Western countries and countries within the Western alliance system had adopted a “neutral” diplomatic stance, and these countries constituted the so-called “New Intermediate Zones.” From this perspective, the main focus of the study was how to define the “Intermediate Zone” countries and how they had achieved strategic autonomy in order to counteract the strategic control of the US.

First, strategic autonomy is an external generality among the new Intermediate Zone countries. Specifically, these countries have a relatively autonomous security policy that opposes the new cold war and confrontation between camps, and a relatively autonomous economic and trade policy that opposes “de-coupling and chain-breaking” and bloc sanctions.

On this basis, Kang Jie further suggested that the inherent generality in the new Intermediate Zone countries is featured by “three independencies,” which constitute the internal basis for strategic autonomy. The first is political autonomy, namely a relatively stable political ecology, a relatively balanced political landscape, a stronger ruling bloc and a relatively autonomous political and policy process; the second is a certain degree of independence of its national economic system; and the third is a unique historical identity and civilizational tradition that does not blindly follow the US-style path and strong Western values.

Within the above theoretical framework and taking Türkiye as a case study, Kang Jie introduced how Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s regime had achieved strategic autonomy for his country since 2013. He mentioned that, after the Cold War, the US constructed a set of proxy networks in Türkiye centered on large consortia and pro-Western political parties, including various foundations, universities, media and NGOs. And after the Gazi Park protests erupted in Türkiye, in 2013, the struggle between Erdoğan’s authorities and US proxies became a decisive factor in the direction of Türkiye’s domestic politics and economy. To this end, Kang Jie detailed the main pro-Western consortia and umbrella foundations within Türkiye and analyzed the close ties with the Turkish political dignitaries and opposition parties behind them. Under this proxy network constructed by the US, the Erdoğan administration has made efforts to create strategic autonomy for the country in three main ways. The first is the limited cleansing of US-led Western proxies, typified by the arrest of Osman Kavala. Second, through the development of infrastructure and the military industry, the Erdoğan government has focused on cultivating the nouveau riche and consortia. The third is the creation of a group of pro-government umbrella NGOs that spread Islamic values.

At the end of the lecture, Kang Jie gave an outlook on the prospects of the new Intermediate Zone countries represented by Türkiye. He expressed his view that the rise of the new Intermediate Zone countries was an important symbol of the international system’s move toward hegemony and the post-Western era. But at the same time, we should also objectively look at the opportunities and challenges that Türkiye’s so-called “axis diplomacy” brings to China. Türkiye’s current more aggressive stance and policies reflect the country’s rising power and influence, but the impact of this diplomatic strategy remains to be assessed in the long term.

During the discussion, Zhang Yongle pointed out that Kang Jie’s report took into account strategic vision, mainstream concerns and research details, and on this basis the “strategic autonomy index” of each country can be further summarized. Zan Tao affirmed the novelty of the report in terms of its research perspective, pointed out that the chain of relevant evidence needs to be collected with more first-hand information, and expressed his view that those aspects in the report relating to Türkiye’s strategic autonomy were not only aimed at the interference of the US, but perhaps more importantly, were implemented by Türkiye in consideration of consolidating its own ruling position. Zhang Minyu pointed out that there is no contradiction between “strategic autonomy” and “opportunistic bandwagon” policies, and explained the autonomy of the Modi government in India and the considerations behind its policies toward the US and China. Wei Nanzhi emphasized the tension between the interests of transnational capital and the national interests of the US and made suggestions for improving the study. Xie Kankan, taking the current state of Malaysian domestic politics as a reference, raised the issue of the relationship between nationalist and Islamic identities in Türkiye’s domestic politics. Duan Demin asked about the primary and secondary relationship among the “three independencies” and emphasized the need to distinguish between structural and non-structural variables behind policies of “strategic autonomy”. Ge Xiaohui analyzed the deeper background of South Korea’s recent foreign policy from the perspective of South Korea–US relations. Qin Yanyang, a doctoral student at PKUIAS, suggested a vertical comparison between Türkiye’s foreign policy in the 1980s and Erdoğan’s foreign policy in order to better understand the current “strategic autonomy.” Kang Jie responded to the comments and questions of the participating experts and scholars.