The military strikes against Libya following the establishment of the UN-backed no-fly zone have taken many Chinese by surprise. Most of the media in China had understandably been focused on covering the earthquake in Japan, but the commencement of air strikes has meant attention has quickly shifted.
There are two main reasons for the interest in the Libya situation here in China. First, if Col. Muammar Gaddafi—who has ruled Libya for 42 years—steps down because of the military attacks, there could be serious repercussions in an already unstable part of the world that affects Chinese interests. Second, the use of military force by the West to express support for democracy will likely have a ripple effect in other nations.
The latter reason is likely weighing most heavily on people’s minds, and is the reason why China recently (albeit briefly) took the initiative in reaching out to officials in several North African countries.
Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, for example, visited Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia earlier this month—all countries that had recently either changed government or experienced domestic unrest. Meanwhile, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the envoy of Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz, visited China on March 18 and met with Chinese President Hu Jintao.
In addition, Wu Sike, China’s special envoy to the Middle East, is set to visit Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Syria and Lebanon from March 23 until April 2—all countries that are key to any chance of lasting peace in the Middle East.
These visits by high-level delegations are a useful information gathering exercise, allowing the Chinese government to secure some first-hand information to allow it to decide on the future course of China’s Middle East policy.
My guess is that China’s leaders will be pragmatic as events unfold in the Arab world—the non-interference policy will be maintained and economic partnerships will be forged with any new governments swept to power by democracy movements.
In addition, I expect the Chinese government to continue to maintain good relations with regional groupings such as the Arab League, the African Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Good ties with all of these will help ensure that any new, pro-West governments won’t be tempted to shift course too radically in a way that adversely affects China.
International relations is all about governments working to secure their own interests and reaping any potential benefits. China might have regretted the fall of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, but it’s unlikely to sacrifice good ties with Egypt just because there’s an unexpected new leadership. This principle applies not just to Egypt, but to North Africa and the Middle East as a whole.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Jack Daniels
Libya is just a distraction from the real deal, which is Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain is a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran with the US stuck in the middle. If we step back even further though and look at the even bigger picture; the Russia-China-tag-team has been in cahoots to try to counterbalance US hegemony (including us world reserve currency) for about 20 years now. The tag-team continues its prolific, relentless and unabated weapons transfer scheme to Iran, [Iraq], Libya and Syria etc., and they’re not about to stop. There’s no doubt that both China and Russia would love to have pro China-Russia groups gain control of the oil wealth, they’re so vocal/critical because they desperately want a piece of the action/oil-pie (i.e., the American Lake). Hence, I could see things unravel into a much broader “East” vs. ”West” proxy conflict.
Mu Chunshan
Dear Jack
You comment is interesting.
Some part shows international reality, some part shows Conspiracy Theory.
Jack Daniels
Just curious, are you referring to the Russia-China strategic alignment as a conspiracy theory? We can talk about easy access to oil later and what this means to China’s security/stability.
yang zi
what’s interesting? he drank too much Jack Daniels.
Russia has plenty of oil of its own. China just want to do business and mind its own business. It is also unable to shed its humiliating past. the silly 5 principles of coexistence is outdated. China need to be a responsible power, but a power nonetheless. this includes support US in most cases except when it is harmful to itself.
guest
Neither China or Russia care about exporting Democracy in the Middle East. It’s all about national interests to them and their interests diverge as China is a oil importer and Russia is a oil exporter. Chaos in Libya and Bahrain is great for Russia but represents an unwelcome complication to China.
This is also true within European countries like Italy with deep vested interests in Libya. Sarkozy’s piece of diplomatic engineering to turn a NFZ into a mandate for war/assassination didn’t sit well with her European partners who were pushed into this conflict against their will.
Jack Daniels
@yang zi & guest – I said nothing about Russian oil reserves and/or her production capacity; Russia is the largest oil producer in the world followed by Saudi Arabia then the United States. Russia produces over 10 million barrels/day and Saudi Arabia and the U.S. produce over 9 million barrels/day each. Nowhere in my post did I state that Russia didn’t have plenty of oil reserves.
Let’s wake-up to reality. The Persian Gulf hosts roughly 2/3 of the planet’s known petroleum reserves. It has long been the U.S.’s intention to assert ultimate control over the region. The U.S. increasingly finds itself on the defensive, to preserve dominance and restrict access to competing forces. However, the powerful gravitational pull of the Persian Gulf is far too strong for other major oil consuming nations to resist its attraction. Many nations, including China, India and Japan are definitely seeking ways to expand their presence in the region. Yes, Russia is also pushing to increase her economic and political influence in the Gulf; to build leverage against the United States. The U.S. dollar currently survives as the world’s reserve currency because the majority of the oil producers demand payment in dollars and the object is to maintain the dollar a while longer as a world reserve currency, hence the control of oil resources in countries near Iran.
@guest, I said nothing about Russia, China or the U.S. exporting democracy to the Middle East. As a matter of fact the establishment of democratic forms of government in the region is pretty much immaterial to the survival of the region and the status-quo in Washington. [[Off Topic: Also, if you’ve been paying attention, so called “western” democracies are increasingly becoming undemocratic in nature. Many policies are undemocratically imposed by authorities on the citizens of “western” nations in utter defiance of the majorities’ wishes. There is an increasing disconnect between the views of the elite and the majorities; this “chasm” is so deep that sooner or later certain policies can only be maintained by increasingly totalitarian suppression of dissent. In the “west” huge corporate entities have power over the government that transcends and nullifies democratic power (life & death, economic controls, peace & war, etc); corporate “western” states are increasingly becoming more closely formulated to fascism than to democracy.]]
Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy and oil-shocks lead to recessions. We hit the wall in 2008 and it looks like we may be hitting the wall again. In China, the only thing keeping a lid on popular discontent is the country’s fantastic economic growth. This explains the governments’ preoccupation with hitting growth targets. What happens when China’s growth stalls out? The country is a very fragile superpower and her stability/security is increasingly dependent on access to abundant cheap oil (green-energy won’t cut it). With global oil production hitting the ceiling and soon to go into terminal decline, China won’t be able to achieve the level of growth it’s seen in the last three decades. Hence, for China, the magnetic pull of the Persian Gulf will be become impossible to resist.
Jack Daniels
I forgot to add that the evidence and pattern of Russian-Chinese international political cooperation suggests that there is much more to it than simply an arms transfer relationship; as well, it’s pretty much a certainty that their relationship constitutes a de-facto secret military alliance.
As for the basic reasons of China’s pursuit of dominance in Asia and the World; summarized as follows:
–Preserving the power of the CCP under all circumstances
–To counter the military power of the “west”
–Make sure China always has access to economic resources
–The fusion of China’s communist and imperial traditions
John Chan
It is very disappointing to see that China did not object the West interfering Libya’s internal affairs with military actions.
It is further disheartened that the author justify China’s abandonment the principle of “non-interference” with an excuse of Realpolitik “International relations is all about governments working to secure their own interests and reaping any potential benefits.” I am disappointed that China seems to forget that the principle of “non-interference” is the expression for ideal of equality for nations large and small. It seems that being part of the big league has more appealing nowadays to China.
USA is able to stay at the top of world so long because it always claims to side the weak against strong. It seems China has a lot to learn from the USA in order to be equal to the US.
Shen Liang
I agree with your view that China is obsessed with its national capacity over that of every other consideration.
It is bracing, however, to remember that society doesn’t begin and end with nations, in the sense of states, no matter whether they are large and small. This fact has always thrown China’s avowed principles of international affairs under the harshest light. By claiming a respect for “non-interference”, China has consistently supported local hegemony, leaving the smaller groups of disaffected peoples within nations vulnerable to violence and oppression.
In the conflict in Lybia, who are the weak? And who is supporting them?
John
Good points Shen Liang,
John Chan
Shen Liang, I believe our political views are as same as day and night, you subscribe the current world order set by the West to interfere other nation’s affair on the moral high ground. I am against such hypocrisy of the West. I am for equality for all nations large and small, all nations’ sovereignty should be respected. To me non-interference is the best way to let nations seek genuine democracy (not in the appearance of western style of democracy, and the need of the approval of the West) in a sustainable way.
“China has consistently supported local hegemony, leaving the smaller groups of disaffected peoples within nations vulnerable to violence and oppression” is a strange assertion. When China voiced the grievance for smaller groups in Skikim, Nagaland, Ryukyu, Hawaii Kingdom, etc. the hostility from the democratic nations oppressing them is unbelievable, when China tried to stop local hegemony Vietnam from arm aggression to its neighbours, it was denounced by the democratic nations too.
It seems you have total faith in the western media, on the other hand I am skeptical of all media reports (including the Chinese), I make my conclusion after reading views from opposing sides. Some people said it was a civil war in Libya. The UN mandated no-fly zone, then why are the European powers bombing Libya instead of carrying out UN resolution no-fly zone? I am also confused that if rebellion qualifies international interference on the basis of moral high ground, why can’t UN support freedom fighters in Nagaland, and the east side of India?
Shen Liang
Perhaps they are. I apologize for misunderstanding your position. However, I must point out that you seem more like a fenqing than a balance commenter when you claim that I “subscribe to the current world order set by the West” on the basis of my simple comment.
The fact is that China has regularly used the “Great Power” vs. “little countries” mindset. It has shown disdain for Papua New Guinea and many of the “small countries” in South East Asia whenever they ask for an equal claim in the waters of their immediate environs. Even this past year Foreign Minister Yang felt the need to remind a Singaporean dimplomat, in the context of the dispute over the South China Sea, that “China is a big country and other countries are just small countries, and that’s just a fact.” You know the word da and xiao have more than just statistical values in Chinese, the same way we refer to “xiao riben” “Little Japan”. I don’t know why you believe China stands up for the small potatoes. Are you saying China’s attack on Vietnam was to protect other little countries in South East Asia? Especially the Khmer Rouge?
You also seem unable or unwilling to recognize that sovereignty is only an effective concept if it can be applied to individuals and peoples as well as states. Why do you keep referring only to the state, as if all of our lives (and policies) should be defined by that concept? I will never understand why so many Chinese are obsessed statists. Do you also think it was wrong for the Soviet Union to support the Chinese communists in the civil war? Or wrong for Sun Zhong Shan (who was in Hawaii for a time) to try to build support for his revolutions abroad? I don’t know anything about a moral highground. I simply asked who are the weak in Lybia.
John Chan
Libya is the weak in comparison with the western nations that are bombing Libya. The rebels in Libya are the proxies of France and Italy. The rebellion in Libya is an internal affair; under the principle of non-interference, a nation’s sovereignty must be respected by everybody, therefore nobody should interfere Libya’s internal affairs.
But under the US’ liberal claim to side the weak against strong, or the West’s arbitrary claim to support human rights and democracy; of course the rebels is the weak in the eyes of the US, France, etc., that’s why they are bombing Gaddafi.
Freedom and liberty are restricted either by force or by self-restrain regardless in democracy or in authoritarian. It seems the sovereignty you refer to is same as freedom and liberty; but the type of sovereignty you are seeking is anarchy.
Without the protection of a state, its citizens will be vulnerable to the assaults and exploitation of external undesirable elements; therefore the sovereignty of individuals in a state cannot undermine the ability of a state to protect its citizens. History has proven that citizens will be enslaved once their state loses the capability to protect them; enslaved people do not have individual sovereignty, they are merely the property of the conqueror, and their fate is pitiful and tragic. It seems you do not understand the relationship and the order between state and individual sovereignties.
The West does their best to confuse the people in the developing nations about the relationship and the order between state and individuals sovereignties in the name of democracy, and human rights; so the developing nations can fall into anarchy and defenceless, and leave themselves wide open for the West to exploit and enslave at ease.
One cannot talk garbage talks seriously, but one must take actions seriously. That’s why one cannot take talks of democracy, and human right from the US and its lackeys about China seriously while they have military bases and carrier combat battle groups surrounding China.
Shen Liang
Mr. John Chan
Your argument is not very convincing, although you do seem good at convincing yourself. It doesn’t help to think like an ideologist. No one, not even Gaddafi, has claimed that France and the US begun this conflict. The rebels gained victories early on, then Gaddafi’s forces nearly destroyed them. Until that time there was no intervention, and the rebels repeatedly say they will handle the fight on their own after Gaddafi’s heavy weapons are attacked. You need to supply evidence of France and Italy using them as proxy warriors, otherwise you are just using insubstatial accusations. You are screaming “imperialists” even when others are asking for France the US’s help. I don’t think you know the situation at all. You obviously have a fight to pick with the West at every turn. It’s depressing. Now you even talk about enslaving others. I should ask you what century you are living in.
And you still haven’t done anything but claim that sovereignty of the state is the most important thing. Your argument is similar to Hobbes, and even if you turn his ideas to world outside one state, it doesn’t show any understanding beyond basics. Mr. Talcot Parsons has already shown that the Hobbes model of state “protection” still requires assent by the people to give up the search for their own survival and goals out of fear of others. At least, they must be rational enough to see it is in their best interest to have a state provide protection for them. This is what Mr. Parsons called a “strict utilitarian assumption”. You seem to ignore what happens, and it has happened often historically, when the state doesn’t protect its citizens, but instead harms them. The state is not holy or sacred, Mr. John Chan.
When you say
“Freedom and liberty are restricted either by force or by self-restrain regardless in democracy or in authoritarian. It seems the sovereignty you refer to is same as freedom and liberty; but the type of sovereignty you are seeking is anarchy.”
You use language typical of the government of China, who are quick to remind everyone that “all contries do this (e.g. censor the internet), all countries do that” and “all things that questions the state’s power promotes anarchy”. That “either…or” above is a very big difference you may not like us to look at closely. Force or self-restraint? Are the restrictions generally the same in democracies and autarchies? I don’t think so, the same way there is a big difference between China’s censorship and Western countries’. You seem to think you can put things into very big categories and then claim everything in that category is the same. Categories can be arbitary. And they can contain many different things.
We cannot promote the value of national sovereignty without having a sense of it in our daily lives, without having personal sovereignty. If we try, that will just be worship of something we don’t understand. Many states don’t want to provide that, but they still want the extraordinary privilege of sovereignty as states. They want to be gods that cannot be questioned or fathers who can kill their children without fear of any law outside their home.
John Chan
@Shen Liang, you use language typical of anti-China camp, label bloggers defending China’s interests as CCP proxy. LXB must be you idol, appearance of democracy for China at all cost. This is not the first time I have heard such specious pro-western rhetoric. Behind your superfluous theory is the purpose to break up China.
Shen Liang
Mr. John Chan
So, just want to understand you clearly: even the attempt to say that national sovereignty must correspond to individual sovereignty or lose its meaning entirely, even this is an attempt to break up China. Yes, you live in the real world. Where everything, as everyone in the real world knows, is so black and white.
Your arguments make yourself look like an angry simpleton.
The only reality you know is the one you make up in your mind. While I certainly do pose a question, you never did about Lybia. You just pretended you knew the West was trying to bully them. Your kind of knowledge is AQ knowledge, making up your own reality and pretending it is the real world.
Of course you would have to say that I would question the Nanjing Massacre to try to prove your point. This is despicable.
I don’t want people like you to think you are speaking for China. China has better people than that.
yang zi
John, I might be clueless, but the fact is, Gaddafi is a bastard.
The world is a jungle. there are rules but everybody is playing the rules. US hegemony is the best the world can get for now. just think following:
if Russia is in place of US, what will it do? it will be worse!
If China is in place of US? what will it do? I don’t think Chinese people right now has the temperament and maturity to be the world’s sole super power, in 50 years may be, not now.
US is a bully, but the best of bunch. this is the reality.
My vision is China will be a much gentler superpower, working together with US to maintain world peace and commerce.
when that time comes, you will have plenty of chances to advocate your principles, by then, humans will be more enlightened.
John Chan
China should not doubt its time tested culture just because of the setback in the era of unequal treaties. Chinese culture is way kinder and gentler than the western culture. China should look beyond the US and Russia, brings the new hope to the world, and changes the world to a harmonious society.
China cannot develop true democracy unless free from foreign interference, such freedom must be respected by the foreigners in order to be meaningful. Being equal to the strongest in the world is the guarantee to secure such respect. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev showed his respect to USA by withdrawing all Russian missiles from Cuba. USA military bases are all around China, it proves that the US has very little respect for China.
Here are some useful points to analysis international politics:
1. The US only has tools no allies, once the usefulness of the tool is done; selling the tool is way of life for the US.
2. Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words. Trust movement. – Alfred Adler
Shen Liang
Mr. John Chan
I’m sorry to say you seem very one-sided and really chauvinistic. I hope more of my compatriots don’t think in the same way. Wouldn’t it be better just to discuss our differences rather than blame whole other cultures? That’s just superficial.
Of course I do believe Chinese culture stresses harmony, but few people in China believe it is stressed only for benevolent reasons. We have to deal with bei hexiede (“harmonized”)information, which means the government can cancel anything it wants for the sake of “harmony”. The whole framework of harmony comes from Daojiao through Rujiao, but it also goes through Mr. Hanfei’s writing, which is very influential in the history of government in China. Many aspects of China’s culture is not very kind, though of course we do our best with that, the same way Western tradition has much barbarism I’m sure Westerners don’t like. I think anytime people believe a country or culture needs to “bring hope to the world” or change the world to be harmonious, they are part of a dangerous wind. Have you read the writings of the Chinese scholars who promoted a datongshijie (“a great united utopia”)? In some ways they sound alot like you, but they do say many things you may be surprised by. Their writings are about 100 years old now, and they don’t sound very wise in our time. It seems the only people who still read them seriously are the Chinese military. Perhaps you and they should know they were used by groups in Japan to promote Japan’s invasion of China.
I don’t think your understanding of history is very deep, and I thank Mr. MuChunShan for pointing that out. The Cuban missile situation should’t be described as the Soviet Union showing its respect for the US. And the US’s bases have been there for a long time, with the assent of the people of those nations. Are you still fighting the Korean War? Do you still believe the people of South Korea are less free than the people of North Korea or even Chinese on the mainland?
One last thing–I know you don’t like Western media, but I read an interesting article online today that quoted a US Sergant saying this about the US military’s help in Japan.
“What we’re doing is coordination with the Japanese army,” said Gunnery Sgt. Leo Salinas, of Dallas, Texas. “Every mission we do is a bilateral mission. They are all Japanese-led and under Japanese initiative. These guys are our allies and, more than that, they are our friends. Whatever they want us to do, we will do.”
That doesn’t sound like the US is using Japan as a tool to me. Of course in our harmonized media, today we read that Japan refused to allow the Chinese military to directly aid the disaster victims but very little about the US’s help. You can imagine many Chinese were unnecessarily angered by this. Also, the Heavenly Kingdom’s media didn’t mention that China also refused Japan’s direct miltary aid offer for the Sichuan earthquake victims. They trust we have short memories, and unfortunately they are right much of the time. So, like you, I guess we all should be skeptical.
John Chan
@Shen Liang, we live in two different worlds, you are an idealist and innocent, I am a realist and work at the level of actions. If you believe that US Sgt. (he as a person may as simple and honest as he appeared), I’ll bet you would question whether Nanjing Massacre is a makeup by the Chinese to smear Japanese as the Japanese claimed.
Do you know the amount of sacrifice the Chinese (beside the soldiers) have made for the Korean War? Do you know that it’s a war could be avoided if not because of the ego trip of a WWII US generalissimo? The remarks you made about US bases, Cuban missile crisis, western media and Korea reflect that you subscribe to the current world order set by the West deeply, as well as you do not understand how this world really works; no wonder you do not question the bombing of Libya at all.
History has proven that conquered people have no sovereignty and dignity, they are merely property of the conquerors, and their fate is pitiful and tragic. How Mongols, Manchurians, the westerners and Japanese treated Chinese in the history is a powerful reminder that makes Chinese to defend themselves at all costs, even at the expenses of political and financial rights. As recent as last week some Mongolian bloggers reminded Chinese that Chinese were less worthy than horses during the Yuan Dynasty. I’ll bet Chinese would do anything to prevent those dark days ever happen to Chinese again, if chauvinism is the tool to protect Chinese from being conquered and enslaved, so be it. Right now the US and it lackeys are pointing their guns (the military bases and carrier battle groups around China) at China’s head while they try to disarm China with honey words like democracy and human rights, meanwhile you are talking about their honesty and sincerity; it is something only you can believe.
I am concern the safety and security of China, and in which your noble ideals can survive and flourish.
Mu Chunshan
In my opinion, Chinese government will abandon the principle of non-interference, sooner or later. It is inevitable to China to be a globe power. Only focus on internal affairs is not something a rising power should do.
But it needs some political and diplomatic skills.
John Chan
If China abandons the principle of non-interference, then China is no different from the imperialistic West, meddling other nation’s business at will with specious excuses. The abandonment proves that China has lost its soul, and give in to what the West is trying so hard to achieve, that is to bring China into the current world order; and be a stakeholder or a responsible member of the current international framework that is created and set by them. If China abandons the principle of non-interference, then China is just another Obama, a different color puppet, to serve the interests of the imperialist West willingly; equality, liberty and justice will give way to greed in the name of Realpolitik. China can no longer voice for the weak against the strong for the struggle to advance the idea of moving civilization to better direction for humanity, that the West has failed to do.
A great power only can emerge with its own identity, not from a bunch of followers. A genuine great power must be respected by the current leader, that respect only can be obtained by being equal to the current leader; being the top dog of the followers will never be deemed as equal to the leader. This is the reality of live. Want to be a great power can never let honey praises confuse with the reality of life.
One should not confuse principle with technicality, principle of non-interference is Zheng Qi, and skills are technicality.
Mu Chunshan
Dear John Chan
Historically, China has been interfered others’ internal affairs. But such interference is different from the interference definition with democracy and human rights principle of the West.
Since Mao Zedong era, China funded the Communists in Southeast Asia to overthrow their governments; Now China gives its full support to North Korea for keeping authoritarian regimes, like Saudi royal family to the puppet Bahrain. What China did is in fact interfering in internal affairs, because of China’s actions directly affected relative countries’ political landscape.
Interestingly, the Western interference in internal affairs is under the banner of the name of democracy and human rights; on the contrary, China’s interference in the internal affairs is to protect the rule of authoritarian government legitimacy. China didn’t interfere in the internal affairs for democracy and human rights, because they have the similar regime.
But I have judged that, with globalization of Chinese benefits and democratic consciousness rising in China, in the future China will gradually abandon the so-called non-interference principle that the West abandoned. China society is bound to be democratization and democracy is an international trend, China’s foreign policy can not escape this trend.
For this Libya war, many ordinary Chinese people began to show more support for the West and hate 42-yearlong ruler Gaddafi. Perhaps this will become the public opinion base for China abandon the principle of non-interference.
As for China becomes the imperialist like the U.S. or not, maybe time will prove it.
Blue_Label
John Chan, don’t be so naive. Mr. Mu Chunshan is correct. Stealthy interference, the use of denial and deception, and leveraging Chinese Diaspora in others’ internal affairs has always been a crucial component in China’s foreign policy objectives. There is plenty of documented evidence of China using said tactics in some Western democracies. I’ll post some examples on this when I have time…
John Chan
“Syrian sauce for the Chinese gander” in Asia Times online said “The Chinese media have become fixated on Libya as an object lesson of the dangers of revolutionary and humanitarian enthusiasm run amok.
Certainly, the Libyan adventure presents a less than edifying spectacle: Western military powers, led by France, exploited a United Nations resolution allowing humanitarian intervention to engage in a freewheeling attack against military assets of the Libyan government with the apparent motive of assuring the survival of rebel forces in the eastern part of the country.”
The US (and its allies) claims to side the weak against strong under the banner of democracy and human rights. If China abandons the obligation to voice for the weak against the strong under the banner of non-interference (the West’s banner is not applicable to China due to its political limitation), then the West freewheeling attack in Libya is just applicable to China legitimately.
The US’ “claims to side the weak against strong” has been their national policy holy grail since it aspirated to be world leader a couple hundred years ago; for China to talk about abandoning the “principle of non-interference” seems China is ignoring the invaluable knowledge and experience of USA’s treasured national policy holy grail.
John Chan
@Blue_Label, I and Mu have a very civilized and meaningful discussion, we do not need your rude interjection, you can keep your anti-China bigotry to yourself. I am not interested.
Mu Chunshan
Dear Gentlemen, I am very pleased to see a very lively discussion here. Thank you all!
I believe that both John Chan and Blue_label have your own truth, from which I can see some reasonable parts.
China’s internal affairs and diplomatic strategy are currently in transition, and how will it to adapt to international development trend? We’d better wait and see.
Blue_Label
Actions always speak louder than words. In the 50’s China said its goal in international politics is to promote peaceful relations with other states and that its international conduct would always follow the “five principles of peaceful coexistence”. Yet, during the 50’s, China committed many acts of aggression including: support of armed insurgents seeking the overthrow of regional governments, sending a million troops to fight U.N. forces in Korea and threatening invasion and attacking island territories controlled by Taiwan. The “five principles of peaceful coexistence”, however, served their purpose of pacifying many Asian states to remain neutral and helped China to succeed in preventing these states from aligning with the West, including India after China’s surprise attack in the early 60’s. China has in fact been aggressive. It has territorial disputes with a dozen or so neighboring states, has transferred enormous quantities of technology for weapons to potentially aggressive dictatorships, has conducted large scale espionage and covert action operations against the U.S. and many other countries, and has engaged in very intense rapid advanced military build up, including ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, aircraft, and other power-projection forces.
After the Mao years, with China’s opening to the industrialized democracies and other countries, there have been changes in the methodologies used by China to engage the world. China continues to say it promotes the “five principles of peaceful coexistence” but has also added the major purpose of promoting its own economic development. In the 90’s China increasingly repeated that it seeks “a new international political, economic, and security order, responsive to the needs of our times.” Obstacles to this realization that China continues to mention are “hegemonism” or “unipolarism” and western alliances maintained after the Cold War.
I’ll add much more on this later, including Chinese methods of indirect political warfare – such as the exploitation of diplomacy, espionage, agent networks, secret coercion, sympathetic Chinese Diaspora and others abroad, and deceptive propaganda.