SOURCE: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s The World Order in 2050, February 2010
Accordingly, the Chinese leaders have been prudently restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. By and large, they are still guided by Deng Xiaoping’s famous maxim: “Observe calmly; secure our position: cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.” That cautious and even deceptive posture happens also to be in keeping with the ancient strategic guidance of Sun Tzu who compellingly argued that the wisest posture in combat is to lay back, let one’s opponent make fatal mistakes, and only then capitalize on them. China’s official attitude toward America’s domestic travails and foreign adventures is suggestively reminiscent of that strategic guidance. Beijing’s historical confidence goes hand in hand with its calculated prudence and long-term ambitions.
It is also relevant to note that China—despite its singular domestic achievements—has until recently not sought to universalize its experience. It no longer propounds—as it did under Mao during its extremist Communist phase—ambitious notions regarding the unique historical validity for all of mankind of its progress toward modernity nor posits doctrinaire claims of the allegedly higher morality of its social arrangements. Its global calling card stresses instead one very prosaic but practical and widely envied theme: China’s remarkable GDP annual growth rate. That appealing message gives China a significant competitive edge, especially in Latin America and in underdeveloped Africa, as it seeks to increase its investments without pressing for political reforms. (For example, China-Africa trade grew 1000% from $10 billion in 2000 to $107 billion in 2008.)
In addition to taking into account China’s outlook and traditional conduct, note must be taken of the fact that some potentially major uncertainties hover over China’s own internal political and social development. Politically, the state has evolved from a radical form of totalitarianism—periodically punctuated by ruthlessly brutal and even bloody mass campaigns (most notably the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution)—to an increasingly nationalistic authoritarianism in charge of state capitalism. So far, the new formula has been a spectacular economic success. But its social underpinnings could prove to be fragile. As noted earlier, China’s economic growth and rise in social well-being has already generated sharp social disparities that can no longer be hidden from public sight. The new middle class in the major cities has gained not only a measure of prosperity but also unprecedented access—despite official efforts to constrain it—to global information. Such access does stimulate new political and social expectations. It also produces resentments over existing limitations to political rights and breeds individuals willing even to take risks as active political dissidents.
Such dissidents have a potentially huge clientage especially as the more privileged middle class is beginning to aspire to a freer political dialogue, a more open social critique, and more direct access to national policy making. Economic dissatisfaction is also beginning to surface among the much more numerous industrial workers and among the even more numerous peasants. The millions of Chinese industrial workers are just beginning to realize how underpaid they have been in comparison to the increasingly prosperous new middle class. The even larger masses of genuinely poor peasantry—some of whom make up the scores of millions of semi-unemployed workers free floating from city to city in search of menial work—are only beginning to develop their own aspirations for a larger share of China’s national wealth.
China’s preoccupation with its internal stability is thus likely to increase. A serious domestic political or social crisis, such as a repeat of Tiananmen Square in 1989, could do major damage to China’s international standing and set back the undeniable accomplishments of the last three decades. That consideration is likely to incline the Chinese leadership to remain discreet regarding a timetable for China’s more rapid ascent on the global pecking order. And yet they must also take into account the growing national pride among China’s elite, especially vis-a-vis the United States. Indeed, toward the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century semiofficial Chinese commentators (notably contributors to
The malfunctioning of the international mechanism today is the malfunctioning of the Western model dominated by the “American model.” At a deeper level, it is the malfunctioning of Western culture. Even as it actively participates in global governance and properly fulfills its role as a large developing country, China should take the initiative to disseminate the Chinese concept of “harmony” around the world. In the course of world history, a country’s rise is often accompanied by the birth of a new concept. The concept of “harmony” is a theoretical expression of China’s peaceful rise and should be transmitted to the world along with the concepts of justice, win-win, and joint development.[5]
Chinese commentators at times also became more outspoken in their direct criticisms of America’s global leadership. Thus another Chinese foreign affairs commentator asserted:
Though the United States’ “single-pole” ambition was seriously set back by the financial crisis, it does not accept the multi-polar international structure, still tries hard to maintain its world hegemony, and tries by all possible means to safeguard its status as “the primary leader.” With China’s continuous rapid rise and the elevation of its status as a rising big power, the “sequence” of the power “ranking list” between China and the United States will change sooner or later, and it will be unavoidable that the two sides will contend for their ranking positions... The international financial crisis exposed the defects of the “American model,” so the United States increased its effort to “block” and disparage the “Chinese model” in the international community. The differences between the political systems and values of the two countries may be further “magnified.”[6]
Particularly since the financial crisis of 2007, Chinese criticisms of the American system and of America’s global posture have become frequent and outspoken. America has been blamed for precipitating the financial crisis of 2007 and of failing to appreciate the vital Chinese role in developing a collective international response to it. The Chinese political media have also taken America to task with increasing severity for its alleged insensitivity to China’s interests and for injecting itself in 2010 into China’s dispute with its Asian neighbors concerning their prospective rights in the South China Sea. Some commentators even accused America of seeking to encircle China.
Such reactions reflect not only a rising historical self-confidence on the part of China—a confidence that could easily become overconfidence—but also a more assertive Chinese nationalism. Chinese nationalism is a potent and potentially explosive force. Though deeply rooted in historical pride, it is also driven by resentment over past but not-so-distant humiliations. It can be channeled and exploited by those in power. Indeed, in the event of internal social disruptions, the appeal of nationalism could become the expedient source of social cohesion for the preservation of the political status quo.
At some stage, however, it could also damage China’s global image, at some cost to its international interests. A highly nationalistic and assertive China—boastful of its rising power—could unintentionally mobilize a powerful coalition of neighbors against itself. The fact is that none of China’s important neighbors—Japan, India, and Russia—are ready to acknowledge China’s entitlement to America’s place on the global totem pole if it becomes vacant. Perhaps China’s neighbors might eventually have no choice, but they almost certainly would first maneuver against such an ascension. They might even be inclined to seek support from a waning America in order to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting scramble could become regionally intense, especially given the somewhat similar susceptibility among these three major neighbors of China toward passionate nationalisms of their own.
Even an informal anti-Chinese coalition of Japan, India, and Russia thus would have serious geopolitical implications for China. Unlike America’s favorable geographic location, China is potentially vulnerable to a strategic encirclement. Japan stands in the way of China’s access to the Pacific Ocean, Russia separates China from Europe, and India towers over an ocean named after itself that serves as China’s main access to the Middle East. So far “a peacefully rising China” (so self-described by Chinese leaders) has been gaining friends and even dependencies in Asia, but an assertively nationalistic China could find itself more isolated.
