The West’s fears about a ‘rising’ China mostly reflect anxieties about itself rather than policy shifts in Beijing
Da Wei 29 March 2011
Since the end of 2009, many observers outside China have asserted that the world is facing an increasingly “arrogant” or “tough” China. Many argue that China’s rise and the global financial crisis have changed its assessment of its own strength and role in the region, resulting in it adopting an inflexible diplomatic position. This oversimplified explanation probably misses more significant changes both in China and some related countries. Only by seeing these changes can one better understand the real story and the profound challenges facing Chinese and foreign leaders.
China’s assessments of its own stage of development and international standing have not fundamentally changed. In the communique for the Fifth Plenary Session of the Communist Party’s 17th Central Committee, which was convened in October, the party once again reaffirmed that it would “continue to seize and take advantage of China’s important, strategic developmental period of opportunity”. In other words, China’s party and government did not alter their determinations on the country’s place within the international community or the state’s main tasks. The theme of the party’s statements suggests a continued emphasis on resolving domestic issues and not adopting a too tough or even “arrogant” foreign policy.
The real change of note is that in recent years, China’s diplomatic policymaking environment has become increasingly pluralistic. The lens of pluralism has much greater explanatory power than simple criticism of “arrogance” or “toughness”.
One of the most important changes is that public opinion has had a growing influence. Chinese policymakers are increasingly swayed by public views, and the media’s voice on China’s foreign affairs is becoming more pluralistic, even clamorous.
At present, there are more than 400 million internet users in China, the highest number of any country. More importantly, compared with internet users in developed countries, China’s are younger and more dynamic. They also pay a lot of attention to international issues. At the same time, the market for traditional media reports on international relations and China’s diplomacy is expanding rapidly. The space for newspapers like Global Times to operate independently is growing.
The concept of “people first”, proposed and implemented by the government in recent years, has promoted the expression of popular will. The fact that China’s highest leaders have had exchanges with netizens in online chat rooms shows the importance they place on this channel for the direct expression of popular will. Under this pressure from public opinion, or perhaps imagined public opinion, government departments refuse to be seen as too soft when making policy decisions.
The development of the media has also provided a platform for varying voices. In order to attract readers, the media sometimes seek out extreme voices. At the same time, Chinese academics are more and more courageous about expressing differing viewpoints, and some government officials and high-level military officials have started to express their “personal views” in the media. It is important to remember that, in all countries, controversial or even extreme viewpoints are more marketable than moderate ones.
The strained relations between China and Western nations as well as its neighbours last year were not solely the product of changes on the Chinese side. China’s rapid development has given rise to anxiety, misgivings and insecurity in the West and China’s neighbours.
Much of what they see in China is a reflection of their own worries about global strategic rebalancing in an increasingly multipolar world. It is as if their own facial features have changed and the reflections they see in the mirror have changed accordingly.
This mirror effect was seen when the Obama administration announced the sale of weapons to Taiwan in January 2010. China protested and severed military exchanges, but did not carry through with new countermeasures.
In other words, China’s reaction should not have come as a surprise to Washington. But mainstream American opinion still holds that China’s reaction to this round of arms sales was particularly intense. In reality, the United States’ own strategic psychology played a greater role in this interpretation.
A similar effect can be seen in South China Sea issues. There was no major change in China’s stand on the issue before reports emerged in US and Japanese media that China claimed the South China Sea as a “core interest”. Even if the reports were true, it does not suggest a change in policy since the official Chinese view is that all territorial issues are related to China’s core interest.
The US made a mountain out of a molehill when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton raised the issue of the South China Sea in Hanoi last July. By taking advantage of the insecurity and misgivings neighbouring countries had about China’s rise, the United States tried to show that the US was needed in the region to balance China’s influence. To that end, the US has promoted - or at least capitalised on - theories of an increasingly intransigent China.
As China’s foreign policy becomes increasingly pluralistic, it creates new challenges for the country’s leaders. These include how they can accurately assess and shape public opinion, maximising its potential to make national policy more flexible and steadier.
This presents the problem of differentiating between the “loud minority” and the “silent majority”. Although all in society can freely express their views, a clear mainstream viewpoint on major issues must eventually emerge.
Western countries and China’s neighbours need to adjust their ways of thinking to prevent their own misgivings from becoming negative assessments of China’s strategic intentions. Otherwise they will create a vicious cycle of negative relations and self-fulfilling prophecies. During this sensitive time, leadership in both China and its peer countries will be crucial.
Da Wei is a research professor at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.
2 comments:
Mirror effect
The West’s fears about a ‘rising’ China mostly reflect anxieties about itself rather than policy shifts in Beijing
Da Wei
29 March 2011
Since the end of 2009, many observers outside China have asserted that the world is facing an increasingly “arrogant” or “tough” China. Many argue that China’s rise and the global financial crisis have changed its assessment of its own strength and role in the region, resulting in it adopting an inflexible diplomatic position. This oversimplified explanation probably misses more significant changes both in China and some related countries. Only by seeing these changes can one better understand the real story and the profound challenges facing Chinese and foreign leaders.
China’s assessments of its own stage of development and international standing have not fundamentally changed. In the communique for the Fifth Plenary Session of the Communist Party’s 17th Central Committee, which was convened in October, the party once again reaffirmed that it would “continue to seize and take advantage of China’s important, strategic developmental period of opportunity”. In other words, China’s party and government did not alter their determinations on the country’s place within the international community or the state’s main tasks. The theme of the party’s statements suggests a continued emphasis on resolving domestic issues and not adopting a too tough or even “arrogant” foreign policy.
The real change of note is that in recent years, China’s diplomatic policymaking environment has become increasingly pluralistic. The lens of pluralism has much greater explanatory power than simple criticism of “arrogance” or “toughness”.
One of the most important changes is that public opinion has had a growing influence. Chinese policymakers are increasingly swayed by public views, and the media’s voice on China’s foreign affairs is becoming more pluralistic, even clamorous.
At present, there are more than 400 million internet users in China, the highest number of any country. More importantly, compared with internet users in developed countries, China’s are younger and more dynamic. They also pay a lot of attention to international issues. At the same time, the market for traditional media reports on international relations and China’s diplomacy is expanding rapidly. The space for newspapers like Global Times to operate independently is growing.
The concept of “people first”, proposed and implemented by the government in recent years, has promoted the expression of popular will. The fact that China’s highest leaders have had exchanges with netizens in online chat rooms shows the importance they place on this channel for the direct expression of popular will. Under this pressure from public opinion, or perhaps imagined public opinion, government departments refuse to be seen as too soft when making policy decisions.
The development of the media has also provided a platform for varying voices. In order to attract readers, the media sometimes seek out extreme voices. At the same time, Chinese academics are more and more courageous about expressing differing viewpoints, and some government officials and high-level military officials have started to express their “personal views” in the media. It is important to remember that, in all countries, controversial or even extreme viewpoints are more marketable than moderate ones.
The strained relations between China and Western nations as well as its neighbours last year were not solely the product of changes on the Chinese side. China’s rapid development has given rise to anxiety, misgivings and insecurity in the West and China’s neighbours.
Much of what they see in China is a reflection of their own worries about global strategic rebalancing in an increasingly multipolar world. It is as if their own facial features have changed and the reflections they see in the mirror have changed accordingly.
This mirror effect was seen when the Obama administration announced the sale of weapons to Taiwan in January 2010. China protested and severed military exchanges, but did not carry through with new countermeasures.
In other words, China’s reaction should not have come as a surprise to Washington. But mainstream American opinion still holds that China’s reaction to this round of arms sales was particularly intense. In reality, the United States’ own strategic psychology played a greater role in this interpretation.
A similar effect can be seen in South China Sea issues. There was no major change in China’s stand on the issue before reports emerged in US and Japanese media that China claimed the South China Sea as a “core interest”. Even if the reports were true, it does not suggest a change in policy since the official Chinese view is that all territorial issues are related to China’s core interest.
The US made a mountain out of a molehill when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton raised the issue of the South China Sea in Hanoi last July. By taking advantage of the insecurity and misgivings neighbouring countries had about China’s rise, the United States tried to show that the US was needed in the region to balance China’s influence. To that end, the US has promoted - or at least capitalised on - theories of an increasingly intransigent China.
As China’s foreign policy becomes increasingly pluralistic, it creates new challenges for the country’s leaders. These include how they can accurately assess and shape public opinion, maximising its potential to make national policy more flexible and steadier.
This presents the problem of differentiating between the “loud minority” and the “silent majority”. Although all in society can freely express their views, a clear mainstream viewpoint on major issues must eventually emerge.
Western countries and China’s neighbours need to adjust their ways of thinking to prevent their own misgivings from becoming negative assessments of China’s strategic intentions. Otherwise they will create a vicious cycle of negative relations and self-fulfilling prophecies. During this sensitive time, leadership in both China and its peer countries will be crucial.
Da Wei is a research professor at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.
Post a Comment