What
Does China Really Want? To Dominate the World
Stop debating Beijing’s intentions and take Xi Jinping both
seriously and literally.
By
May 21, 2020, 8:00 AM GMT+10
Can we pay the Chinese Communist Party the compliment of
acknowledging that it means what it says and knows what it wants? That may be
the key to understanding Beijing’s strategic ambitions in the coming decades.
A long-standing trope in
the U.S. debate on that subject is that China itself doesn’t know what it seeks
to achieve, that its leaders haven’t yet worked out how far Beijing’s
influence should reach. Yet there is a growing body of evidence, assembled and
interpreted by talented China experts, that the Chinese government is indeed
aiming for global power and perhaps global primacy over the next generation —
that it seeks to upend the American-led international system and create at
least a competing, quasi-world order of its own.
It
doesn’t take unparalleled powers of deduction to reach this conclusion. Top
Chinese officials and members of the country’s foreign policy community are
becoming increasingly explicit in saying so themselves.
President Xi Jinping more
than hinted at this goal in his landmark address to the 19th Party Congress in
October 2017. That speech represents one of the most authoritative statements of
the party’s policy and aims; it reflects Xi’s understanding of
what China has accomplished under Communist rule and how it must advance in the
future.
Xi declared that China “has stood up, grown rich, and is
becoming strong,” and that it was now “blazing a new trail for other developing
countries” and offering “Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to solving the
problems facing mankind.” By 2049, Xi promised, China would “become a global
leader in terms of composite national strength and international influence”
and would build a “stable international order” in which China’s “national
rejuvenation” could be fully achieved.
This was the statement of a leader who sees his country not just
participating in global affairs but setting the terms, and it testifies to
two core themes in China’s foreign policy discourse.
The first is a deeply
skeptical view of the existing international system. Chinese leaders
recognize that the global trade regime has been indispensable to the country’s
economic and military rise. Yet when they look at the key features of the world
Washington and its allies have made, they see mostly threats.
In their view, American
alliances do not preserve peace and stability; they stunt China’s potential and
prevent Asian nations from giving Beijing its due. Seen through that lens,
promoting democracy and human rights is neither moral nor benign, but
propaganda supporting a dangerous doctrine that threatens to delegitimize the
Communist government and energize its domestic enemies. U.S.-led international
institutions appear as tools for imposing America’s will on weaker states. The
Communist Party recognizes that the liberal international order has brought benefits, writes Nadege Rolland, a senior fellow at the National
Bureau of Asian Research, but “the party abhors and dreads” the principles on
which it is based.
The
second theme is that the international order must change — not a little, but a
lot — for China to become fully prosperous and secure. Chinese leaders have,
understandably, been somewhat opaque in describing the world they want, but the
outlines are becoming easier to discern.
If one studies the
statements of Xi and other top officials, China expert Liza Tobin concludes, what emerges is a vision in which “a global network
of partnerships centered on China would replace the U.S. system of treaty
alliances” and the world would view Chinese authoritarianism as preferable to
Western democracy.
Based on a similar
analysis, Rolland agrees that China has “a yearning for partial hegemony,”
a loose dominance over large swaths of the global south. When it comes to
global governance, still other examinations show, Beijing wants a system in which international
institutions buttress rather than batter repressive regimes. Meanwhile, Chinese
strategists and academics are talking openly about building a “new
China-centric global economic order.”
There is little indication,
in any of this, that Beijing’s strategic horizon is limited to the Western
Pacific or even Asia. Xi’s invocation of a “community with a shared future for
humanity” indicates a global tableau for Chinese influence. One hardly has to
read between the lines to understand that this agenda will require
fundamentally resetting the current geopolitical balance. As Xi remarked several years ago, China must work resolutely
toward “a future where we will win the initiative and have the dominant
position.”
Of
course, there’s not need to take literally everything national leaders say, or
even everything that makes it into official speeches. In Beijing’s case,
however, Chinese leaders are actually saying less than what the country
is doing.
Whether it is the naval
shipbuilding program that is churning out vessels at astonishing rate; the
drive to control existing international organizations and build
new ones; the projection of military power in the Arctic, the Indian Ocean and points beyond; the quest to dominate the world’s high-tech industries; the
ever-more systematic efforts to support authoritarian regimes and
weaken democratic institutions; or the Belt and Road Initiative that encompasses multiple continents, China is hardly acting
like a country that lacks a grand geopolitical design.
As with so many aspects of
the U.S.-China competition, there is a Cold War parallel. During the 1970s,
some leading American Sovietologists insisted that Moscow was becoming a
satisfied, status quo power. Yet that claim required ignoring what Soviet
leaders said about detente and peaceful coexistence — that it was
a way of ensuring the triumph of socialism without war — as well as their
efforts to build military superiority and positions of strength in the Third
World. The warning signs were evident then, as they are today.
China probably doesn’t have
a step-by-step checklist for achieving global primacy, any more than the Soviet
Union did in the 1970s. Chinese leaders aren’t insensitive to costs and
obstacles: Xi may ritualistically restate the importance of unifying the
Chinese nation, but that doesn’t mean he’s hell-bent on war over Taiwan.
Beijing
may not even have decided which of its two paths to global influence is preferable:
Establishing dominance in the Western Pacific and then expanding outward from
there, or outflanking the U.S. position in the region by building up economic
and political power around the world. Finally, China may ultimately fail to
accomplish any of this. Perhaps the coronavirus will so weaken the U.S. and the
liberal order that China’s ascent will be accelerated. Or perhaps China will
run into so many internal problems, and so much external resistance, that its
drive will stall.
Yet we ought to recognize that the debate about what China wants
is growing stale, because China’s leaders and behavior have increasingly
answered that question. When a proud and powerful challenger starts to
advertise its global ambitions, Americans should probably err on the side of
taking those ambitious seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment