By Minxin Pei
The Chinese Communist Party’s placement of regime security over national security interests is typical of autocracies. It’s also very dangerous.
Veteran China watchers have always wondered what kind of foreign policy China would have adopted had the country been a democracy. There are two schools of thought. One, the realist school, insists that it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. States pursue power and seek security regardless of the type of political regimes in control. What influences the behavior of states is the amount of power they possess and the external constrains on the use of such power. From this perspective, Chinese behavior is determined by its power, not by its political regime. For example, China’s abandonment of its low-profile foreign policy in favor of a more assertive one in recent years is the result of growing Chinese power, not a change in its domestic political system (which has remained the same).
The other school argues that differences in domestic political regimes are fundamental to understanding state behavior. Democratic states and authoritarian ones view the world from decidedly different lenses – their threat perceptions aren’t the same. The foreign policy decision-making processes are completely different in two systems. Democracies have far greater transparency and openness, in sharp contrast to the opaque and closed nature of decision-making in autocracies. Most importantly, there’s no conflict between regime security and national security in democracies because in such systems the democratic political regime is fundamentally legitimate and accepted by all the key players. Governments may fall due to a lack of public support, but the democratic system always endures. As a result, leaders in democracies don’t have to sacrifice national security in order to ensure regime security.
In contrast, in autocracies, regime security and national security often conflict. Because in such systems the fall of government also means the collapse of the regime, the ruling elites characteristically assign a higher priority to protecting regime security than national security. In other words, regime interests override national interests in autocracies. Moreover, threat perception by autocracies is notable for its political nature. While democracies perceive external threats exclusively in terms of physical security, autocracies see such threats in both political/ideological and military terms. Consequently, autocracies tend to devote costly resources to defending against external political threats and make unnecessary enemies of democracies not because of their military threat, but because of their political threat. So in their pursuit of regime security, autocracies simply can’t avoid undermining the security of the nation, both in terms of wasting national resources and antagonizing major democratic powers they otherwise should befriend.
This perspective may help us better understand the constant tensions between the regime security of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the national security of China. Chinese foreign policy today is frequently torn by these two conflicting objectives. Two examples can serve as illustrations.
China’s policy toward North Korea should be exhibit A of this conflict. Chinese national security interests dictate that China shouldn’t tolerate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program or aggressive behavior toward its neighbors. Yet, because the ruling CCP regards a reunified democratic Korea that is a close military ally of the United States as a greater threat to its regime security than a nuclear-armed hereditary dynasty (which is a threat to Chinese national security, but not the CCP regime’s security), Beijing has pursued a policy of keeping the Kim dynasty in power almost at any cost. The price China has paid in terms of diminished national security is exorbitant – an untrustworthy neighbor armed with nuclear weapons, heightened risks of regional war, real danger of being dragged into another conflict on the Korean peninsula, alienation of South Korea as a long-term strategic ally, Japan’s rearmament and antagonism toward China, and increase in American offensive capabilities in the region.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Liang1a
Quote from the article:
For example, China’s abandonment of its low-profile foreign policy in favor of a more assertive one in recent years is the result of growing Chinese power, not a change in its domestic political system (which has remained the same).
——————————
Liang’s comment:
Actually the official policy of the Chinese government has not budged an inch from the “hide the light” dictum of Deng for decades. It is the Chinese people who have been disgusted with the 奴才外交 (lackey foreign policy) and called vocally for some more nationalistic assertiveness. The minimally stiffer Chinese response to foreign aggressions is a reflection of Chinese vox populi and not the growing strength of the Chinese military. The Chinese military itself is growing stronger due to the Chinese popular sentiment that a stronger military is needed and not because the Dengists want to develop a powerful military. The Dengist clique has been emasculating the Chinese military for decades. And the Chinese military had to support themselves by growing their own food and making their own uniforms and support themselves in any way possible such as selling arms internationally.
Butter
Liang1a is correct. Just because China doesn’t have a formalized democratic system yet, it doesn’t mean the Chinese people doesn’t have a voice. Beijing may not be perfect but it does try to listen to the people as a matter of connect with them. Western anti China propagandists gives scant regard for the voice of the Chinese. They are just determined to bring down China’s rulers or government, or as they put it in their selectively negative words – “regime”. Take a poll on any issue and see what the Average Chinese think of the many international issues that has Washington’s signature all over it. The attacking of the government of China by foreigners is akin to attacking the Chinese people and the intent is seriously in doubt especially when it is from racist b*st*rds on the internet, Congress, the American newsmedia and other opportunistic politicians.
Leonard R.
China would be much more populous and perhaps richer, if it had not lost 60 + years to communism.
There would have been no Korean War. But ultimately, I don’t think its foreign policy would be very different. There has never been a shortage of paranoia and xenophobia in the Middle Heavenly Kingdom.
So put me in the ‘realist’ camp Professor Pei.
Donnylima
The dominant powers in the U.S want a limited war with China. (Anyone remember Afghanistan and Iraq? Same guys.) A new cold war is will be highly effective in isolating China.
The chinese people lack education and are naive. It’s leadership incompetent and corrupt. They will take the U.S bait and react with military aggression.
The U.S is too corrupt on the military, voting, intellectual and corporate level, to follow it’s constitution, keep China peaceful and keep its U.S allies safe. Australia, a white english speaking nation and faithful U.S ally, is hedging their bets as we speak, engaging the U.S, India and China simultaneously, we’re preparing our nation for a U.S betrayal.
U.S public military arrogance (and hysteria = 9/11) can be reliably counted upon to take the bait too. Cementing a autocratic neocon leadership into power, if a star wars type missile defense system works, don’t write off a nuclear war. The New World Order starts off with a bang.
John Chan
@Donnylima,
The US having a limited war with China make a lot sense, like a pressure valve to blow out steam as long as the USA understands it is a limited war to gauge the real strength of each other. It is also good for the world, because other nations can hedge on facts instead of guesses and conjectures.
It seems you are highly racist, bad mouthing other people baselessly, China is on the rise while the Westpac nations are on the decline, such fact slap your face the lie you made “It’s (China) leadership incompetent and corrupt.”
Lack of westerners in the science and technology classes is taken in the East that it is a sign of poor quality of westerners.
asa
That’s right!, USA can have Nuclear weapons, the chosen country as righteous world ruler, for the balance of world stability, while Russia will control the other side of the world, not mighty China, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, for they are not to be trusted. And any country against US doctrine are not allowed to have nukes, only US,UK,France side, but not allowed to produce any,especially Germany, Japan, Korea..they’re too smart, fought against UN, can be dangerous! Furthermore,Israel, India,Pakistan must give up their nuclear weapons, should destroy their nuclear bombs, for in case of any dispute, the world’s supreme powerhouse, USA will take care of it, trust USA.. Note: USA is the only country so far, use the atomic bombs during WWII against mighty Japan, when losing,wanted finish the war, it’s only two times!! and moved on to Korea, then to Vietnam, Arab world,etc. to dumb their bombs, war surplus, tested for new weapons.. now move on to Asia again,
and most importantly, make the economy get going.. Hahaaaaa!
asa
That’s right!, USA can have Nuclear weapons, the chosen country as righteous world ruler, for the balance of world stability, while Russia will control the other side of the world, not mighty China, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, for they are not to be trusted. And any country against US doctrine are not allowed to have nukes, only US,UK,France side, but not allowed to produce any,especially Germany, Japan, Korea..they’re too smart, fought against UN, can be dangerous! Furthermore,Israel, India,Pakistan must give up their nuclear weapons, should destroy their nuclear bombs, for in case of any dispute, the world’s supreme powerhouse, USA will take care of it, trust USA.. Note: USA is the only country so far, use the atomic bombs during WWII against mighty Japan, when losing,wanted finish the war, it’s only two times!! and moved on to Korea, then to Vietnam, Arab world,etc. to dumb their bombs, war surplus, tested for new weapons.. now move on to Asia again, and most importantly, make the economy get going.. Hahaaaaa!
ari
Pei Minxin’s viewpoints are unconvincing. Not only that but lacked depth, splayed in his discussion lack persuasive reasoning.
The abject failure of Beijing’s foreign policies is simple : Incompetent and ignorant leaders who are more concerned with preserving their own seats of power and comfort zones than national interests. In short, irresponsible, cowardly and foolish.
Frankie Fook-lun Leung
China worries more about social and economic unrest within her borders than foreign aggression. It is anticipated that unrests of small scale are increasing in number, especially in areas like guangdong and the coastal areas. Incidents can no longer be covered-up because of the internet. Also Chinese travel to Hong Kong and abroad will learn about them. People going into China will also inform them. Censorship no longer works like in the past.
50 cents bridgade
Is this article about China Foreign Policy or Democracy vs China Political system? If this is the case, China has proven to the world that its political system is truly a better model then what is being advocated by the west. In fact, Democracy is a dismay failure. In Democracy, its leaders are elected not by his/her merit but by account of lies and sweet promises for fool its voters. What better leaders are those who works as lawyers. As everyone in the world knows that lawyers are the most deceitful people next to the politicians themselves. If you do a survey, you will find politicians will top the list follow by lawyers as the most undesirable people and profession. Look at US, most of its leaders are either have a law background or just full time politicians. You don’t find their leaders with an engineering background unlike China. Look at India, its leaders are crooks who get elected so that they can steal and rob the government. In Taiwan too, its leaders are known to have mafia connections. Just look at some of the images of fist fighting in Taiwan legislative parliament. Democracy is like a religion that tells it flocks of fool that GOD (inverse DOG) exist, entices his/her flocks with the Garden Of Eden and yet they cannot prove the existence of GOD. Unfortunately, the world is full of fools. They blindly follows and never really question themselves if Democracy really works. Give me a democratic country that really works. More wars in the world was fought and started by democratic countries. On the other hand, China within 3 decade have proven many times over that their political model, economic model and it’s foreign policies really works. Their economic track record under its political model have propel China to be the 2nd largest economy and help transform China into what it is today. Poverty has dropped. No democratic country are able to copy this feat. This is a testament that China political model is the right one and they should continue working to fine tuned it. What is the most important is the results. Amen
Wolf B Litzer
It is extremely funny that you have signed your post “50 Cent Brigade”. Unless you are being sarcastic (and I wish you were, but I don’t detect sarcasm within your post) this is the most unintentionally hilarious post I’ve read all day.
Grant
It’s true that China’s authoritarian government makes security matters less simple* but what can the Chinese government do? If they cede power they run the serious risk of being put on trial for their crimes. They are convinced that they are the strong government needed to protect China and make it prosperous. Just as the U.S is stuck protecting Israel, China is bound to its own less than favorable surroundings.
Incidentally the problem is larger than the Korea’s, Japan and the U.S. Russia is hardly a friend of the U.S but it’s certainly not going to be an unflinching ally of China against the U.S**. Sri Lanka is the same with the additional problem of not wanting to be trapped as an enemy of India. Burma may or may not be serious about liberalizing but it is not a perfect ally and enjoys good relations with India as well. Nepal has made it clear that it doesn’t want to take a side between India and China (even if that’s less possible these days). Mongolia seems to enjoy flaunting the differences between it and China and making deals with nations besides China. Pakistan is friendly to China but has increasing trouble holding itself together and even if it survives there’s still the chance it will become a radical state just as unfriendly to China as it is to the U.S.
Writers constantly mention how China’s buildup could destroy the American navy but it seems to me that it’s in China’s strategic interests to avoid any major wars with the U.S.
*It is notable that democratic nations almost never go to war with each other.
** Note that despite the power of the U.S there has not been any real organization created to counter it. A few anti-American states like Venezuela and Iran but nothing formal or serious.
John Chan
@Grant,
Chinese leadership runs China in according laws permitted, and any official will be prosecuted if they break laws. China leadership has been trying their best to improving the living standard of Chinese; meanwhile the USA leadership has been enriching the greedy Wall St. bankers and leaving tens of millions of USA citizens withering in poverty and living on food stamps. It is the USA leadership should be faced crime against humanity, China leadership should be one praised with compassion for the humanity.
If there is anyone can protect the neighbours of the USA from the wrath of the USA brutality, all those nations around the USA will be just vocal and mean spirited against the USA. It is simply the nature of geopolitics. Citing more obedient lackeys as basis of seizing the moral high ground is simple an old trick USA played during the cold war.
Bigger group of gangsters does not legitimize their crimes, nor their expensive suites make them less gangsters.
Grant
Considering how far rule of law seems to apply for the poor of China and China’s continued support for North Korea I’ll take the U.S.
Also I note you didn’t really address my main point.
John Chan
@Grant,
Because you said so, so people have to take what you have fabricated geopolitical situation as given truth? What you fabricated is the old trick used in the cold war, that is to create a sense of fear and confusion among the general public and in the community, so that the predatory imperialist USA can destabilize a nation it targeted, and to enslave the victim for good.
USA is not a democratic society, and it never intends to be one. USA is a polyarchy. Its people are so manipulated that they have the illusion that they live in a free society, yet they do not know that their right to freedom of speech, their right to freedom of assembly and their right to freedom of fair trail are no longer protected by the law since the pass of Patriotic Act which was not debated in the public and in the Congress.
USA is a police state; its citizen can be arrested without warrant, detained forever without trail, tortured without recourses in the name of anti-terrorist.
Fighting of democracy and freedom in the USA is way more useful effort than inciting acrimony in places far from the USA homeland.
Grant
Once again my main point was ignored. This isn’t a debate, it’s more like someone shouting incomprehensibly.
Speaking of shouting, in the U.S I can shout ‘the president’s an idiot’ at the top of my lungs and I don’t have to worry about police beating me or my parents being punished. I can, and have, taken part in several protests and I never even was given a warning. A few years ago, even though a candidate I volunteered for lost a race I could still get a job on regulating housing laws and no one punished me for supporting the wrong side.
Incidentally can you provide a single example of ’slaves’? Maybe South Korea, a rich nation that’s far better off than North Korea? Maybe India, which votes as it pleases at the U.N? What about Brazil, a nation that decided in the 1980s to move away from the U.S and the U.S didn’t order a coup? If people actually thought about it for a moment instead of simply reading anti-American propaganda they’d realize that if the U.S was really that powerful it wouldn’t have the problems that it does. But no, that would require independent thought and access to uncensored news that doesn’t rely on government approval.
Liang1a
Grant wrote:
Incidentally the problem is larger than the Korea’s, Japan and the U.S. Russia is hardly a friend of the U.S but it’s certainly not going to be an unflinching ally of China against the U.S**. Sri Lanka is the same with the additional problem of not wanting to be trapped as an enemy of India. Burma may or may not be serious about liberalizing but it is not a perfect ally and enjoys good relations with India as well. Nepal has made it clear that it doesn’t want to take a side between India and China (even if that’s less possible these days). Mongolia seems to enjoy flaunting the differences between it and China and making deals with nations besides China. Pakistan is friendly to China but has increasing trouble holding itself together and even if it survives there’s still the chance it will become a radical state just as unfriendly to China as it is to the U.S.
Writers constantly mention how China’s buildup could destroy the American navy but it seems to me that it’s in China’s strategic interests to avoid any major wars with the U.S.
——————————–
Liang’s comments:
No country will ever be any other countries’ “unflinching” ally. But if Russia feels itself being harassed and endangered then it will use China against the US and be China’s “unflinching” ally for the duration. Now Russia is feeling itself hard pressed by the missile shield in eastern Europe. It is also feeling pressed by what is happening in Syria and Iran. If the US gained dominance in these 2 countries will it increase the danger of Russia? Probably. So it is to Russia’s advantage to have China as its new ally. So even though Russia may not selflessly stand “unflinchingly” by China when its own interests are not involved, yet Russia will always feel itself endangered by the West, especially by America, therefore it will stand unflinchingly by China for the foreseeable future.
Mongolia is a part of China’s sovereign territories and will be returned to the motherland. There is nothing to say about this. Mongolians have no more say in this than “Taiwanese” can say about Taiwan independence.
As to the other countries such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh, etc. These are small countries. Their sentiments can change with the changing power of China. If they perceive China to be weak, then they will side with India or Japan or the US. If they see China to be strong then they will side with China. If China can wipe out Vietnamese military in a matter of hours, then there will be major shift in sentiment in all countries of the region with the result of many of them moving closer to China. If China can push India out of Zhang Nan in a matter of days, then Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, etc. will all declare themselves eternal friends of China. This is just practical politics as well as simple human nature.
With respect to China, I’ve always said that it is in the best interest of both countries to be close allies. But it is also not going to happen as long as America sees itself as superior than China. But when Chinese economy exceeds 200% of America and its military is twice as powerful as America then the relationship will change dramatically from the current situation. Imagine China with 20 aircraft carrier groups to America’s 11, 5,000 4th and 5th generation fighters to America’s 2,200, 200 nuclear attack submarines to America’s less than 100 crusing in the Mixican Gulf, etc. It will make no difference to China’s strategic interests whether it is at war with America or not. It will then be in America’s strategic interest to avoid war with China. Things change. Americans really haven’t truly waken up to the implications of a resurged China to its fullest potential. Most Americans are living in denial that China can ever be more powerful than America let alone many times more powerful.
Fu Man-chu
“Mongolia seems to enjoy flaunting the differences between it and China and making deals with nations besides China”.
Mongolia with such a small population, has no business having such a land area. I am all for it being annexed into China proper as it was before.
Douglas
@Fu-Man, your thinking is a typical Chinese CCP thinking, ie. Land grabbing. The view of an expansionist and agressively, bullying behaviours.
Liang1a
Douglas wrote:
January 26, 2012 at 11:11 pm
@Fu-Man, your thinking is a typical Chinese CCP thinking, ie. Land grabbing. The view of an expansionist and agressively, bullying behaviours.
———————–
Liang’s comment:
Mongolia is a part of China for hundreds of years. Repatriating Mongolia is not “land grabbing.” It is defending China’s sovereignty. It is the sacred duty of all Chinese to defend the sovereign integrity of the Chinese motherland. And if Douglas doesn’t like it then why doesn’t he do something about it?