http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/oped/china-fear-real-or-imaginary.html
Saturday, 26 December 2015 | Makhan Saikia | i
Beijing hates being lectured, but demands its rightful place as an equal and honourable partner in global decision-making which is still under the clutches of the advanced nations
The idea of China’s “peaceful rise” (heping jueqi) as a responsible, peaceful and non-threatening world power was enunciated by a formidable Chinese intellectual known as Zheng Bijian in November 2003. In a speech titled “A New Path for China’s Peaceful Rise and the Future of Asia” made in the plenary session of the Bo’ao Forum for Asia, he notes, “In the 25 years since the inception of its reform and opening up, China has blazed a new strategic path that not only suits its national conditions but also conforms to the tide of the times. This new strategic path is China’s peaceful rise through independently building socialism with Chinese characteristics, while participating in, rather than detaching from economic globalisation.”
This carefully underlines China’s intention to marshal its journey forward to international politics in a peaceful manner which does not pose a threat to the rise of any other power or to the status quo. But then why there was a need to pronounce its rise in an international forum through an official intellectual of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Even then General Secretary Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao used this term in the same year and they argued for exploring it to be a part of the country’s foreign policy. But in the very next year, Hu, while delivering his speech at the Bo’ao Forum, highlighted about “peace and stability”, “peaceful co-existence” and “peace and security” but not at all about “peaceful rise”, rather the centrality of the theme of his speech was on “peace and development” (hepingyufazhan). Indeed “peace and development” was always at the heart of China’s foreign policy during the days of legendary Deng Xiaoping.
However, when the regime passed on from Hu to Xi Jinping, who has popularised the concept of a “China Dream”, it took the world by surprise. He is much discussed as one who is doggedly following the footsteps of Deng. His recent stand on the dispute in the South China Sea has earmarked a more assertive defence of China’s territorial rights. He has also underlined the involvement of outside powers (meaning the US) in the dispute as unwarranted claiming that these islands belong to China for centuries. Even the involvement of any UN effort to mediate the conflicting powers would not be acceptable to China. China’s recent moves, particularly during the reign of Xi has brought much of a fear in the continent, and many Asian neighbours like Japan has already made formal announcements to build up its defence forces and go international. Many of these nations also strongly favour an ever active US presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Beyond this, China’s phenomenal economic growth in the last three decades has not only offered boundless opportunities to the rest of the world but also inspired many developing nations to rope in Chinese-style entrepreneurship in their development dictionary. China also plays a predominant role alongside the West in stabilising the West Asia, aiding Africa, containing global warming, neutralising Islamic terror, and finally making peace and order with rogue States like North Korea.
Whatsoever it may be, the rise of China is increasingly becoming a “threat wave” to its neighbours and the countries which are at loggerheads with it. It seems people across the globe would attain justice, peace and order only under a universal standard upheld by the US-led West. There has been a presumption as Ling (2014) writes, “The US-West offers our best hope for an open, rules-based liberal world order. It alone has the right set of norms, institutions, and practices to forestall anarchy in international system,” but he contends that this “Westphalia World” surely “perpetrates a profound violence”. When China registers continuous rise in an American-made world, it is perceived as fear by most of the advanced nations, particularly the US. Most insidiously deep inside the Westphalia World, the very acceptability of a multipolar identity has denied its rightful place, wherein China plays a decisive role. Again the rise of China and other nations like India, Brazil, Russia and even a resurgent Germany signals more precisely a multipolar world. What former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “multi-partner world” is emerging faster in world politics because of the complexity of the issues and their interlinks which demand multipolar action than a unipolar one. Once former US President Bill Clinton commented that a prosperous China is less of a threat than a weak and poor one, meaning the later would be a burden on the world economy.
America’s approach to China should never be “containment”, rather it can be a “counterbalancing”. It has to grow and accept the rightful place for China in an international political system, whether it likes or not. China will neither accept the US primacy as the foundation of the Asian order nor would it allow
the US to reshape the world order without it. It is increasingly felt that China no longer accepts the US primacy, and makes foray into a globalised world, even at the heart of its former and current allies. It wants a bigger role in the global order and that is what has been aptly described by Xi as “a new model of great power relations”.
It is plain and simple that Beijing hates being lectured but demands its rightful place as an equal and honourable partner in global decision-making which is till now under the clutches of the advanced nations. But what China brings forth through its “peaceful doctrine” is aptly described by Robert Suettinger as “…the peaceful rise debate, while in some ways ephemeral, does draw on deep emotional wellsprings of Chinese thinking on China’s appropriate role in the world, its prospects for global leadership, and the nature of external influences on its behaviour. How the debate ends, and where it goes from here, will make a difference in how Beijing defines its foreign policy goals in the years to come”.
(The writer is an independent political analyst based in Delhi)
Saturday, 26 December 2015 | Makhan Saikia | i
Beijing hates being lectured, but demands its rightful place as an equal and honourable partner in global decision-making which is still under the clutches of the advanced nations
The idea of China’s “peaceful rise” (heping jueqi) as a responsible, peaceful and non-threatening world power was enunciated by a formidable Chinese intellectual known as Zheng Bijian in November 2003. In a speech titled “A New Path for China’s Peaceful Rise and the Future of Asia” made in the plenary session of the Bo’ao Forum for Asia, he notes, “In the 25 years since the inception of its reform and opening up, China has blazed a new strategic path that not only suits its national conditions but also conforms to the tide of the times. This new strategic path is China’s peaceful rise through independently building socialism with Chinese characteristics, while participating in, rather than detaching from economic globalisation.”
This carefully underlines China’s intention to marshal its journey forward to international politics in a peaceful manner which does not pose a threat to the rise of any other power or to the status quo. But then why there was a need to pronounce its rise in an international forum through an official intellectual of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Even then General Secretary Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao used this term in the same year and they argued for exploring it to be a part of the country’s foreign policy. But in the very next year, Hu, while delivering his speech at the Bo’ao Forum, highlighted about “peace and stability”, “peaceful co-existence” and “peace and security” but not at all about “peaceful rise”, rather the centrality of the theme of his speech was on “peace and development” (hepingyufazhan). Indeed “peace and development” was always at the heart of China’s foreign policy during the days of legendary Deng Xiaoping.
However, when the regime passed on from Hu to Xi Jinping, who has popularised the concept of a “China Dream”, it took the world by surprise. He is much discussed as one who is doggedly following the footsteps of Deng. His recent stand on the dispute in the South China Sea has earmarked a more assertive defence of China’s territorial rights. He has also underlined the involvement of outside powers (meaning the US) in the dispute as unwarranted claiming that these islands belong to China for centuries. Even the involvement of any UN effort to mediate the conflicting powers would not be acceptable to China. China’s recent moves, particularly during the reign of Xi has brought much of a fear in the continent, and many Asian neighbours like Japan has already made formal announcements to build up its defence forces and go international. Many of these nations also strongly favour an ever active US presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Beyond this, China’s phenomenal economic growth in the last three decades has not only offered boundless opportunities to the rest of the world but also inspired many developing nations to rope in Chinese-style entrepreneurship in their development dictionary. China also plays a predominant role alongside the West in stabilising the West Asia, aiding Africa, containing global warming, neutralising Islamic terror, and finally making peace and order with rogue States like North Korea.
Whatsoever it may be, the rise of China is increasingly becoming a “threat wave” to its neighbours and the countries which are at loggerheads with it. It seems people across the globe would attain justice, peace and order only under a universal standard upheld by the US-led West. There has been a presumption as Ling (2014) writes, “The US-West offers our best hope for an open, rules-based liberal world order. It alone has the right set of norms, institutions, and practices to forestall anarchy in international system,” but he contends that this “Westphalia World” surely “perpetrates a profound violence”. When China registers continuous rise in an American-made world, it is perceived as fear by most of the advanced nations, particularly the US. Most insidiously deep inside the Westphalia World, the very acceptability of a multipolar identity has denied its rightful place, wherein China plays a decisive role. Again the rise of China and other nations like India, Brazil, Russia and even a resurgent Germany signals more precisely a multipolar world. What former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “multi-partner world” is emerging faster in world politics because of the complexity of the issues and their interlinks which demand multipolar action than a unipolar one. Once former US President Bill Clinton commented that a prosperous China is less of a threat than a weak and poor one, meaning the later would be a burden on the world economy.
America’s approach to China should never be “containment”, rather it can be a “counterbalancing”. It has to grow and accept the rightful place for China in an international political system, whether it likes or not. China will neither accept the US primacy as the foundation of the Asian order nor would it allow
the US to reshape the world order without it. It is increasingly felt that China no longer accepts the US primacy, and makes foray into a globalised world, even at the heart of its former and current allies. It wants a bigger role in the global order and that is what has been aptly described by Xi as “a new model of great power relations”.
It is plain and simple that Beijing hates being lectured but demands its rightful place as an equal and honourable partner in global decision-making which is till now under the clutches of the advanced nations. But what China brings forth through its “peaceful doctrine” is aptly described by Robert Suettinger as “…the peaceful rise debate, while in some ways ephemeral, does draw on deep emotional wellsprings of Chinese thinking on China’s appropriate role in the world, its prospects for global leadership, and the nature of external influences on its behaviour. How the debate ends, and where it goes from here, will make a difference in how Beijing defines its foreign policy goals in the years to come”.
(The writer is an independent political analyst based in Delhi)
No comments:
Post a Comment