Geopolitics has undergone significant transformations over the past decade, with the most striking one being the meteoric rise of Asian countries, especially China. The growth of the Chinese economy has allowed Beijing to gain international clout, making it capable of challenging the existing world order. China’s rise is often seen with a suspicious eye, leading several traditional world leaders to question its intentions. Articulated by Chinese leaders in 2003, the “peaceful rise” doctrine has been central to this transformation. This foreign policy doctrine claims that China can maintain a peaceful environment while thriving in the global world order. Beijing has used this to settle border skirmishes, strengthen ties with regional organisations, and expand trade relations (Maizland & Faskianos, 2006).
Given China’s expanding footprint in global geopolitics, economics, and technological realms, analysing the doctrine of peaceful rise provides critical insights into how the nation projects itself as a global leader while managing internal and external pressures. This doctrine plays a pivotal role in shaping global perceptions of China’s growing influence and assessing its diplomatic and military strategies, as well as economic policies. This essay explores the doctrine of peaceful rise and analyses its foreign responses. It will examine how the doctrine is used as a propaganda tool. The essay will inspect how Chinese diplomacy has changed since the coining of the “peaceful rise.”
Understanding the Concept
Zheng Bijian, former vice-president of the Central Party of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is known for coining the notion of peaceful rise during 2002-2007. In his article for Foreign Affairs, he stated that through its achievements, China had taken a new strategic route suiting its national atmosphere while confronting its Century of Humiliation. According to him, this path toward modernization could be called “the development path to a peaceful rise” (Bijian, 2005). Bijian suggested that this path enables China’s emergence peacefully without plundering the resources of other countries through “invasion, colonization, expansion, or even large-scale wars of aggression” and that its emergence has been driven by resources acquired through peaceful methods (Bijian, 2005). This was spearheaded by Bijian to counter the “China threat” theory prevailing in the West regarding the country. The crux of this concept is stated in his claim:
China does not seek hegemony or predominance in world affairs. It advocates a new international political and economic order, one that can be achieved through incremental reforms and the democratization of international relations. China’s development depends on world peace—a peace that its development will, in turn, reinforce. (Bijian, 2005)
The doctrine of peaceful rise assures the rest of the world that China will not challenge the existing global powers through coercive or aggressive means but will advocate for the country’s international consolidation and cooperation. Many argued that the term “rise” generated anxiety among China’s neighbours. Hence, it was replaced by “development” when the government published an official White Paper titled China’s Peaceful Development, emphasising the peaceful nature of Chinese foreign policy. However, the terminology is still used in government and academic discourse across China (Deepak, 2012; Lau, 2022).
Peaceful Rise as Propaganda
Beyond the rhetoric of peaceful rise, this narrative can be viewed as a propaganda tool to mask China’s ambitions for a multipolar world order while shaping global opinions. For instance, in a 2004 Shanghai TV appearance, Bijian had quite a slip of the tongue when he stated that the peaceful rise doctrine is advantageous in obtaining sympathy and winning “discourse power in international sphere” (Deal, 2009). This seems ironic since he touted peaceful rise as China’s present and future in the international power structure. From 1992 to 2008, then-Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping wanted China to focus on economic growth and conceal its capabilities until the time arrived to turn economic power into hard power. This time frame was termed as “hide and bide.” From this point of view, the doctrine of peaceful rise indeed appears as propaganda (Uljevic, 2020).
Through a deliberate selection of words and images, the state’s media has been framing international opinions to minimise the perception of the “China threat” (Okuda, 2016, p.125). Media outlets have run journalistic stories about its peaceful rise, focusing on the Xinjiang province and highlighting the importance of unity and peace in the region (Saxena, 2020). Chinese media has been deleting social media posts criticizing the CCP by conducting heavy surveillance to control the narrative regarding its actions and policies (Samphel, 2022).
Under Xi Jinping’s presidency, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has claimed to uphold the principles of the doctrine of peaceful rise by stating that the nation will always be a “builder of world peace.” Xi has called for greater international cooperation on matters concerning regional conflicts, terrorism, and cybersecurity, among others (Tian, 2021). However, this claim has struck as ironic to several scholars who argue that the doctrine of peaceful rise is propaganda since China has not followed its fundamental principles. Such a breach of principles can be witnessed in the escalating tensions on the Taiwan Straits, where Chinese military measures have been used to seize Taipei (Chansoria, 2021). Additionally, Beijing has also been assertively claiming the Aksai Chin region (disputed with India), the South China Sea (disputed with some Southeast Asian countries), and certain islands in the East China Sea (disputed with Japan) (Tian, 2021). Keeping these unresolved skirmishes and aggressive actions in mind, the nation has been manufacturing rhetoric regarding its peaceful nature.
Foreign Responses
The peaceful rise doctrine has attracted diverse responses from the international community, reflecting optimism and skepticism. Initially worried about China’s “rise” in status, Asian countries have welcomed this approach and taken the opportunity to enhance trade with Beijing. China has signed a treaty of amity and cooperation with ASEAN and begun bilateral negotiations. It has also established economic and diplomatic relations with South American and African countries. Additionally, it has settled territorial disputes with Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines (Maizland & Faskianos, 2006).
Critics argue that China’s peaceful rise stops at the Japanese and Taiwanese borders. These countries have been reluctant to buy into China’s claim of ‘rising peacefully’ (Maizland & Faskianos, 2006). Taiwan’s skepticism stems from Beijing’s “strong national sentiment for reunification,” with the government stating that it is willing to “bear any costs for that goal” (Medeiros, 2004). Similarly, Japan has been reluctant to accept this doctrine due to increasing military activities in the disputed waters between the two nations, where China is aggressively staking claims (Medeiros, 2004).
The United States (U.S.) response to China’s peaceful rise has transformed through administrations. When the doctrine was first proposed, former President Barack Obama welcomed a peaceful, stable, and responsible rise in China’s international status. However, this took a turn when President Donald Trump took charge and labeled China as a “strategic competitor” and a “revisionist power” (Lau, 2022). Under Joe Biden, policies countering China have been put forward, showcasing that Washington is equipped for a power competition. The changes in the U.S. attitude toward China are against the backdrop of Beijing’s changing strategies in its approach to foreign relations and diplomacy (Guyer, 2022).
A ‘Rise’ in Chinese Confidence
With Xi Jinping taking over as the Chinese Premier, China has not been practicing what it has been preaching. While the CCP claims to uphold the principles of the peaceful rise doctrine, its behaviour says otherwise. According to Xi, the nation has achieved “a tremendous transformation.” It has “grown rich and is becoming strong,” indicating that the new leadership sees no reason for China shying away from taking centre stage in the international arena (Lau, 2022). With Xi’s aim to achieve the “Chinese Dream,” i.e., the national rejuvenation of China, Beijing has adopted a proactive approach to foreign affairs. In one of his speeches, he stated that Chinese citizens need confidence in the path, theory, system, and socialist culture. This growing confidence instilled by Jinping has led Beijing to act more assertively in its foreign policy and move away from Deng’s approach of “hide your strength, bide your time” (Lau, 2022; Das, 2016).
China’s willingness to defend its self-proclaimed national interest has led to an evolution of a low-key foreign policy to a “muscular” one, directly confronting the Western powers and neighbours (Lau, 2022). Let us examine a case study on an assertive form of diplomacy undertaken by the CCP to understand China’s aggressive stance in the international power structure.
Case Study: Wolf-Warrior Diplomacy
A practice that has taken shape in recent years has been that of “wolf-warrior diplomacy,” i.e., the active promotion of China’s stories by Chinese officials through regular (sometimes hostile) appearances in local media around the world (Tiffert et al., 2020). Twitter (now X) has been the preferred platform for Chinese diplomats since Zhao Lijian, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, gathered a large audience on the platform (Nawrotkiewicz, 2021). Resorting to this behaviour, Chinese officials, during the COVID-19 pandemic, took to Twitter to criticise other countries and promote Beijing’s response to the pandemic. Twitter has also been used as a weapon to protect the image of China’s flagship project – the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor – via the “wolf-warrior diplomacy” tactic by monitoring the narratives surrounding the CPEC and aggressively fighting against those who questioned it (Afzal, 2020).
This tactic has led scholars and policymakers to question its underlying motives and impact on China’s image abroad. Evidently, this tactic goes against the principles of the “peaceful rise” narrative. While this approach emphasises being unassertive and not interfering in the internal matters of other countries, the wolf-warrior tactic is characterised by aggressiveness, public confrontations, and pushing back against criticisms (Yuan, 2023). Wolf-warrior diplomacy can be interpreted as China’s challenge to the status quo, highlighted by the Power Transition Theory in International Relations. According to this theory, the international order is hierarchically organised, with the dominant power at the top and new powers regularly rising. A conflict will likely occur when a displeased rising power challenges the existing dominant power (Rauch, 2018). Against this backdrop, scholars argue that this shift from a peaceful diplomatic method to an assertive one is due to China’s growing international influence. The assertive behaviour of Chinese officials is perceived as a “reflection” of the country’s growing confidence and discontent with the existing international order (Yuan, 2023).
Wolf-warrior diplomacy displayed the negative consequences of an aggressive tactic, such as trade conflicts, diplomatic isolation, and rising international tensions, leading to a reassessment of their diplomatic strategy by Chinese policy-makers. This compelled a pivot towards an accommodative approach. Beijing is now participating in international forums, addressing global challenges, and has renewed its commitment to multilateral organisations (Yuan, 2024, pp. 2222-2223).
Conclusion
The doctrine of peaceful rise has been crucial in shaping Chinese foreign policy since its introduction. Through this doctrine, China has sought to foster a positive international image and curb fears regarding its growing influence. However, this narrative has not been universally accepted. It has drawn several responses from other countries, particularly the U.S. and Asian nations. As illustrated, China promotes this notion through its media; however, its actions contradict the principles of peaceful rise, heightening tensions and distrust in the international community. Utilising the doctrine as a propaganda tool, China counters narratives of threats emerging from its growing power and portrays itself as a responsible power. The state’s diplomatic tactics have shifted from “peaceful” to more assertive. Under Jinping, China has resorted to techniques like the “wolf-warrior diplomacy” tactic to shape its international image.
As China continues to ‘rise’ globally, the effectiveness of the peaceful rise doctrine will depend on its ability to align its actions with its principles to promote stability and cooperation. The future trajectory of this doctrine and China’s diplomatic approaches remain uncertain. If Beijing wishes to maintain credibility, fostering a cooperative international environment amidst growing skepticism and navigating regional challenges thoughtfully is paramount.
