As China, projected to be the dominant state of the next century, continues to grow exponentially, many regional and global powers are concerned about China’s economic, political and military trajectory.
China’s global laundry list does lend to concern: its long history of isolation; 30 years of communist rule under Mao Zedong; relationships with unsavory regimes; policy towards Taiwan; involvement in the Korean War; insistence on clinging to its communist one-party rule; activity in Africa and South America; negative attitudes towards human rights; and isolated incidents like Tiananmen square in 1989 have all contributed to the international community’s mistrust of China, making many suspicious about the country’s future intentions. While some are not as pessimistic about China’s future, the unique relationship between China and the United States has been a source of confusion and quiet discord. Because they are clearly headed in two different directions – despite their economic dependence on one another – many analysts find themselves wondering whether the increasing competition between the two global powers will cause disruption to the current international order. Is Chinese foreign policy really based on an attempt to increase Chinese influence within the international sphere? Is it really an effort to upset the global balance?
From a realist perspective, China’s foreign policy is based on three assumptions about how the world works: survival in a competitive and anarchist environment; acquiring and safeguarding its own self-interests at any cost; and ensuring it has the necessary control and resources it needs to maintain the appropriate balance of power. To remain relevant on the world stage, China has departed from its traditional foreign policy of isolation and self-imposed alienation to one that has allowed itself to adapt to the modern world, transform economically into a prosperous and industrious society, and ultimately, emerge as an elite global power.
China’s newest incarnation of foreign policy was first introduced in 2005 and is built around an idea dubbed “harmonious world” by former President Hu Jintao. The idea behind this new policy is about lasting peace and common prosperity in a world where “all civilizations should coexist and accommodate each other.” Chinese leaders expressed the desire to “close the wealth divide and ease growing social tensions,” both internationally and domestically, by implementing four distinct features: embracing multilateralism, economic cooperation, preserving diversity through equality and democracy, and reforming the UN in a rational way when necessary. China, however, has not yet matched these lofty ideals with explicit courses of action.
China’s leaders have claimed they believe it is morally wrong to interfere with the domestic affairs of another sovereign country, that interventions are historically unsuccessful, and that it is in no position to criticize others because, domestically, it is similar to many other “developing” countries. Militarily, China appears to be more concerned about keeping the “barbarians” out rather than encroaching on the territory of others, South China Sea controversy notwithstanding. This theory does have some merit because China indeed lives in a rough global neighborhood. In any case, Beijing is no doubt aware that these practices are causing friction between China and the United States. However, its need to sustain a rapidly growing economy and maintain rising standards of living for its immense population – by obtaining precious resources like oil, metals, and water – may be the most powerful driver behind China’s foreign policy than anything else.
China still embraces the Marxist/Leninist model of authoritarian rule and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the only political party allowed within China. Its authority is basically unchallenged. Even though China has abandoned the formal socialist economy so characteristic of old communist societies and has embraced a “controlled” Western-style system of capitalism, China’s government has made it clear that any organized challenge to its one-party rule will not be tolerated. While many Chinese people are experiencing a new degree of personal, economic, cultural, and intellectual freedom, it is understood – to the concern of the United States – that these new freedoms are contingent on whether the party’s jurisdiction and power remains unchallenged.
Perhaps China’s leaders are motivated to reform their foreign policy in an effort to reclaim what they view as their rightful place among world powers, a position that slipped precipitously during Mao’s reign. Maybe the harmonious world foreign policy is an attempt to appeal to the United States and other international actors and to prove it has no intention of challenging the existing U.S.-centric international system. Perhaps the constant threat of economic sanctions serves as a reminder that China is vulnerable due to its reliance upon the markets of more advanced countries. It may be the case that the country fears a resurrection of an American containment policy. Despite all of these plausible perspectives, it is more than likely that Chinese foreign policy is heavily shaped by its concern that it is not yet a true global power, much less a global leader. This is self-imposed inferiority concern seems to hold great sway within influential corridors in Beijing.
While the United States does, at times, express anxiety about China’s future intentions, it no longer regards China as a bitter enemy. Since the Cold War the two have become close trading partners and have become dependent on one another economically. Despite these economic, military and political ties the two countries share, the United States simultaneously holds deep reservations about China’s relentless economic growth which is partly fueled by China’s economic espionage activities and theft of intellectual property. Paradoxically, despite fears that China might one day become a more aggressive and expansionist international player, the United States finds itself frustrated with China’s unwillingness to become a more “responsible stakeholder” in the international community. It is not so much, therefore, that America does not want an active China on the global stage so much as one that listens to the directing of the United States as concerns the entire play.
China’s distrust of these paradoxical American attitudes stems from the viewpoint that the United States is often defined by the terms containment and double standards. It is a widely-held belief among the Chinese that the U.S. wants to weaken China by obstructing its economic and military development and that it plays by two differing sets of rules. They feel America fails to live up to its own standards by promoting ‘interventionist democratization’ abroad, continues the war on terror, and critiques human rights conditions in other states. Needless to say, this apprehension creates an unclear partnership that is expected to continue deep into the future. History tells us that as a state increases in power and influence, the temptation to expand its dominion in order to modify the international system in accordance with its own set of interests becomes irresistible. Certainly, China has the potential to use its wealth, military assets, and sheer manpower to become the next global colossus. It is only natural the current global colossus might take issue with this.
While it remains highly unlikely that China will use its vast reserves to flood world markets, call in the many loans in which it has invested, or decide to stop financing American debt, the fact that the international community has to even worry about this possibility is highly disconcerting. While it is not yet clear in what direction China’s leadership wishes to move, those in favor of the so-called ‘Pax Americana’ can for now take a collective sigh of relief: while China focuses on its own domestic growth and stability, the status quo shall continue to rule.
