Beijing now accepts the importance of being a global citizen - as long as it serves China’s interests
Minxin Pei 29 December 2008
For years, western leaders have been trying to figure out how to integrate China into the international system. It turns out that the western debate has paralleled one inside China itself. In 2005, when the west first started asking China to abide by international rules in Africa, take a lead in climate-change talks, contribute more to international security and abandon its mercantilist trade policy, Beijing didn’t respond well.
Who could blame it? Until recently, Chinese leaders had been obsessed with domestic priorities and rarely considered the foreign ramifications. When they did, they figured that their greatest international contribution would be to feed and house 1.3 billion Chinese.
A conspiracy-minded minority in Beijing still views the west’s requests with suspicion. This group is best represented by Jiang Yong, director of the Centre of Economic Security at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (an affiliate of the Ministry of State Security). Writing in mid-2007, Mr. Jiang warned that Washington’s calls for China to accept more international responsibility were really just a way to frustrate China’s rise.
Because the existing global economic order and its rules were established by the west, he argued, they serve the west’s interests, not China’s. Were China to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s intellectual-property protections, for example, it would trap China in its role as a low-tech, low-cost manufacturer. Rules on environmental protection and resource conservation, similarly, would hurt Chinese economic development. To Mr. Jiang, it all amounted to a subtle strategy of keeping China down.
Few prominent thinkers publicly embrace such theories. That said, none believe Beijing does things purely on the west’s terms, either. The furthest moderates are ready to go is to accept China’s new obligations as a reality and argue that Beijing should honour them as best it can. As Shi Yinhong , a professor of international relations at Beijing’s Renmin University, wrote in a People’s Daily online forum at the end of 2007, while China need not dance to the west’s tune, it risks alienating other countries - even in the developing world - if it keeps refusing to become a “responsible stakeholder”.
Liu Jianfei, a professor at the Central Party School in Beijing, echoed this perspective in a newspaper interview in March. The professors’ shared view, which has become dominant in Beijing, sees accepting a bigger global role as necessary, like it or not. The trick is to do so on China’s terms. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s statement to the National People’s Congress in March best reflects this “realist” perspective: that China should take on more international responsibility - but in an a la carte way that serves its own interests and that it helps define.
This idea has found many adherents, including Qin Yaqing, executive vice-president of the Chinese Foreign Affairs University. In a March interview with a liberal Chinese business publication, Mr. Qin noted that China and the west share more common ground on some issues (climate change, energy security and environmental protection) than on others (humanitarian intervention) - implying that China should co-operate on the former but not the latter. Other areas of co-operation might include promoting Asian economic integration and helping resolve the North Korean nuclear problem. China also needs to ensure that any important reform in the existing international system serves its interests. But, above all, Beijing’s foreign policy should continue to serve China’s key interest: economic development.
The dominance of this realist school is a mixed blessing for Washington. The good news is that Chinese leaders now understand that it is in their interest for China to act like a good global citizen. That means they will be receptive to overtures to co-operate in areas where US and Chinese priorities overlap.
The bad news is that China sees its international standing rising while America’s declines - and will drive a hard bargain before making any concessions. Gone are the days when the United States set the rules. China will now insist that its engagement with the international system proceed on its own terms. As experienced businesspeople will tell you, the Chinese are tough negotiators even when in a position of weakness. Now that the global balance of power has shifted in their favour, striking deals will still be possible - but the costs may be much higher.
Minxin Pei is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Copyright Newsweek Inc
1 comment:
Playing Ball
Beijing now accepts the importance of being a global citizen - as long as it serves China’s interests
Minxin Pei
29 December 2008
For years, western leaders have been trying to figure out how to integrate China into the international system. It turns out that the western debate has paralleled one inside China itself. In 2005, when the west first started asking China to abide by international rules in Africa, take a lead in climate-change talks, contribute more to international security and abandon its mercantilist trade policy, Beijing didn’t respond well.
Who could blame it? Until recently, Chinese leaders had been obsessed with domestic priorities and rarely considered the foreign ramifications. When they did, they figured that their greatest international contribution would be to feed and house 1.3 billion Chinese.
A conspiracy-minded minority in Beijing still views the west’s requests with suspicion. This group is best represented by Jiang Yong, director of the Centre of Economic Security at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (an affiliate of the Ministry of State Security). Writing in mid-2007, Mr. Jiang warned that Washington’s calls for China to accept more international responsibility were really just a way to frustrate China’s rise.
Because the existing global economic order and its rules were established by the west, he argued, they serve the west’s interests, not China’s. Were China to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s intellectual-property protections, for example, it would trap China in its role as a low-tech, low-cost manufacturer. Rules on environmental protection and resource conservation, similarly, would hurt Chinese economic development. To Mr. Jiang, it all amounted to a subtle strategy of keeping China down.
Few prominent thinkers publicly embrace such theories. That said, none believe Beijing does things purely on the west’s terms, either. The furthest moderates are ready to go is to accept China’s new obligations as a reality and argue that Beijing should honour them as best it can. As Shi Yinhong , a professor of international relations at Beijing’s Renmin University, wrote in a People’s Daily online forum at the end of 2007, while China need not dance to the west’s tune, it risks alienating other countries - even in the developing world - if it keeps refusing to become a “responsible stakeholder”.
Liu Jianfei, a professor at the Central Party School in Beijing, echoed this perspective in a newspaper interview in March. The professors’ shared view, which has become dominant in Beijing, sees accepting a bigger global role as necessary, like it or not. The trick is to do so on China’s terms. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s statement to the National People’s Congress in March best reflects this “realist” perspective: that China should take on more international responsibility - but in an a la carte way that serves its own interests and that it helps define.
This idea has found many adherents, including Qin Yaqing, executive vice-president of the Chinese Foreign Affairs University. In a March interview with a liberal Chinese business publication, Mr. Qin noted that China and the west share more common ground on some issues (climate change, energy security and environmental protection) than on others (humanitarian intervention) - implying that China should co-operate on the former but not the latter. Other areas of co-operation might include promoting Asian economic integration and helping resolve the North Korean nuclear problem. China also needs to ensure that any important reform in the existing international system serves its interests. But, above all, Beijing’s foreign policy should continue to serve China’s key interest: economic development.
The dominance of this realist school is a mixed blessing for Washington. The good news is that Chinese leaders now understand that it is in their interest for China to act like a good global citizen. That means they will be receptive to overtures to co-operate in areas where US and Chinese priorities overlap.
The bad news is that China sees its international standing rising while America’s declines - and will drive a hard bargain before making any concessions. Gone are the days when the United States set the rules. China will now insist that its engagement with the international system proceed on its own terms. As experienced businesspeople will tell you, the Chinese are tough negotiators even when in a position of weakness. Now that the global balance of power has shifted in their favour, striking deals will still be possible - but the costs may be much higher.
Minxin Pei is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Copyright Newsweek Inc
Post a Comment