China’s New World Order
The democratic liberal order won the Cold War, and many like to think that it remains the only coherent set of norms and institutions for international politics. But a very different kind of order is being built up by China and its illiberal friends. China is a self-conscious rising power that has begun to combine its material and ideological strengths in the manner that made the United States such an attractive great power after World War II. American political elites want China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in our liberal international system. Beijing has already begun to articulate and design an alternative to it.
Josh’s excellent book goes a long way toward recognizing this and laying out the mechanics of how Chinese soft power is systematically undermining the ways in which the West has sought to gain strategic advantage overseas and advance liberal practices around the globe. I would emphasize even more China’s increasing aggressiveness about pushing its normative agenda overseas. When you factor in the “ideas” dimension of China’s rise, the real strategic issue for the United States becomes even more clear.
China’s ascendance presents the West, for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with a formidable ideological challenge to the democratic liberal paradigm. As my co-author, Ely Ratner, and I outlined in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas last fall, China’s illiberal challenge powerfully combines a recipe for domestic governance along with a rulebook for conducting international relations. At home, China’s leaders have, over the last quarter-century, developed a strategy of authoritarian or illiberal capitalism that has achieved astonishing economic growth and poverty reduction without causing significant fissures in authoritarian control. Abroad, Beijing has asserted a view of foreign policy that emphasizes the inviolability of national borders in the face of international intervention.
Several nations have begun to embrace China’s normative framework in a self-reinforcing cycle of illiberalism. China has become an exporter of portable new ideas about governance to developing world elites weary of democratic liberalism—and a financier for those eager to play copycat. And China’s reward for its strategic partnerships is the construction of an alternative international order that is permissive of the very anti-democratic internal practices that accompany its particular path to economic growth.
China’s strategy vis-à-vis the African continent illustrates the manner in which China is altering the rules that govern international politics. The China-Africa Forum held in November last year was a particularly impressive display of what Josh identifies as China’s charm. The soft power dimension is a thin mask for the strategic implications: as co-dependence increases between China and numerous illiberal governments, so too have both support for the norm of non-interference and China’s incentives to maintain the stability of its new allies. It should come as no surprise that since the early ’90s, China has been winning its diplomatic tug-of-war with Taiwan to gain the support of African states, with at least seven switching their allegiance to recognize China over Taiwan.
Slowly but surely, China is spearheading the construction of an international order that privileges national sovereignty, or the right for a government to organize society however it chooses behind its borders. Genocide in Darfur offers a case in point—the Sudanese government stands behind a Chinese shield that proclaims it is not the business of the international community to interfere in domestic politics. Josh’s analysis of the increasing salience of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is another excellent example. More broadly, China last year urged the new U.N. Human Rights Council to avoid confrontation over political rights and respect countries’ differences, with an emphasis on economic, social, and cultural rights. Illiberal regimes the world over are applauding this redefinition of a cherished liberal norm.
The US foreign policy debate on China has been waged between those who worry about the economic, resource, and military implications of China’s rise and those who believe that China will become more like us and therefore less of a threat as it continues to grow. Neither camp understands that China seeks to transform the international system by entrenching a new set of norms across the globe.
So, how do we stop them?
Or, do we?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 25, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that China would have such ambitions, historically they have always been a very inward looking people, more interested in sustaining their culture than exporting it.
I wonder how much of this is ambition to dominate the world, and how much is a backlash (and protection for itself) to the dismal record the west has in its relations to China. From the beginning of our relationship with China, it has been a flaunting of their laws, a disrepect for them as a people and a contempt for their government and their right to self-determination. ( A right we think applies only to us and our concept of self-determination.)
From our early days of opium running to China (the importation of it was illegal in China) on which great family fortunes were made in this country, (such as the Livingstons, the Jays and the Delanos) our seizure of ports through gunboat diplomacy, our interference in their revolutions when it suited us and disdain for them when it didn't, it is no wonder that China looks for alliances and support from other nations.
China's assertion that it is not the business of the international community to interfere in another country's domestic politics is seen as a sign of their inherent ambition to dominate the world
instead of what it really is - a profoundly held belief formed by centuries of suffering and betrayal by the "liberal" west.
Liberalism doesn't mean we enforce democracies around the world, it means that we allow other nations to self-determine their own future without interference and undue "influence" by other nations. Forcing democracy on other nations, isn't liberalism, it's the very opposite of it, and so is interference by other nations in the domestic affairs of nations. I agree that genocide in Darfur is a case in point - although not for the same reasons. The genocide isn't a result of China "shielding" the Sudanese government, it is a result of the constant meddling, undermining and corrupting of their country by the "world community" just as it did in China. The genocide is a result of the greed and lust the west supports under the cloak of the "norms" of "free trade" and "democracy", which of course we seem to think everyone should value as much as we do.
So now, instead of recognizing and acknowledging that because of China's past, painful experience with the "international community" they might actually be on to something, or at least sincerely believe that they are because of that experience, we'll all assume that they're not "normal" and make them our enemy, instead of our friend.
June 25, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workers of the World: UNITE!
June 25, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
China has become an exporter of portable new ideas about governance to developing world elites weary of democratic liberalism—and a financier for those eager to play copycat.
Could you be a bit more specific, Nazneen, about how China is "exporting" a model of governance? Is China pressuring states to make internal political changes in exchange for economic and security aid? Is there a Beijing Consensus aimed at restructuring the economies and political systems of other countries? I thought China's foreign policy was characterized by a willingness to make strategic/business deals without imposing domestic adjustment requirements.
I guess you could say they are exporting the idea of not exporting any ideas, but obviously that's a bit of a stretch.
You make it sound as though China just invented the notion of sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic policies of other countries, and is now advancing this radical "new set of norms" to disrupt the international order. But isn't the truth closer to this: that the really new set of norms is the set of more vigorously interventionist norms that have been developed by western nations only very recently, and that China's policy is actually more traditional, and in conformity with established practice?
June 25, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abroad, Beijing has asserted a view of foreign policy that emphasizes the inviolability of national borders in the face of international intervention.
The UN Charter states in part:
# The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
# All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
So we have a situation where China is hewing to the UN Charter and the United States isn't, and Sudan is offered as an example of how China is wrong. Then comes the general statement: China seeks to transform the international system by entrenching a new set of norms across the globe. A new set of norms? The UN Charter is hardly new. Apparently the "disrespect for them as a people" exhibited by the US, referred to by BevD, is still alive and well. Unfortunately.
China has "begun to articulate and design an alternative" to the neoliberal international system, in accordance with the UN Charter. Bully for them.
June 25, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the same sort of fools who declared the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and parades; people so blinded by their own selfish desires that they become moronic in the policies they promote.
June 25, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for these comments. For now, I’d like to respond specifically to Dan K’s and Don Bacon’s shared point that China is merely upholding the norm of sovereignty as embodied in the UN Charter. I agree wholly with the implicit insight that it is ironically the United States that has been, of late, the truly revisionist power in the international system, as embodied in the democracy promotion agenda.
But surely the international community—and I’ll admit that is a concept that ought to be problematized itself—has been inching away from the sovereignty norm in the UN Charter ever since the document was inked and certainly since the end of the Cold War? The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty is emblematic of the rethinking of the concept of sovereignty. The commission argues that states have the first responsibility to protect the basic rights of their citizens but should they fail to do so, through lack of will or capacity, the international community should take on that responsibility, with the Security Council as its agent. And while the Security Council has not officially endorsed the report, it reaffirmed “the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” in Resolution 1674 in April 2006. [China voted for the unanimously adopted resolution but denounces the broader principles in the "Responsibility to Protect" report.]
I submit that while China’s noninterference policy may be traditional, it is no longer in conformity with current international norms. China’s quest for allies in emphasizing the sovereignty norm is precisely in order to overturn the encroachment upon it of standards of legitimate intervention.
June 25, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well who knew. The 'sovereignty norm' of states has been 'inched away from' and is no longer operative, despite what China might think and what the UN Charter says explicitly. I wonder what the US congress (for one) feels about other states interfering in our internal affairs? Oh, that's right, we're special, we don't have to worry. And we can still 'legitimately intervene' in other countries. It's the best of both worlds, and it legitimizes Iraq where our intention was to . . . promote democracy (#37). The world needed another Islamist state allied with Iran. Also our forays into Afghanistan and Iran. Watch out: Venezuela. Cuba. North Korea. Somalia. Just think what we can do with 80,000 more troops.
Who said the Project for a New American Century was dead? It's non-traditional intervention for us just like the good old days before the fuddy-duddy United Nations Charter. We'll make the world safe for democracy whether they like it or not.
June 25, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say China's aim is to insist on reasonable boundaries. Extending the legitimate basis for foreign intervention to all failures of a country to protect the "basic rights" of its citizens is a recipe for disorder, conflict and trouble. I doubt there is a country in the world for which a reasonable case could not be made that the country is failing to protect some of its citizen's basic rights.
China has accepted the more limited understanding of the responsibility to protect which has achieved the status of international law. Other proposals for a more expansive understanding, which have not won anything close to universal acceptance, are accepted by other countries. But one can't elevate principals that have not achieved the status of international law to "current international norms", just by wishing them so.
The state of the debate on Darfur is about the actual measures that should be taken, and the practical consequences of certain alternative means. China might justifiably be accused of dragging its feet, just as other countries might justifiably be accused of being just a bit too ready and eager to interfere in the affairs of other countries. But it seems to me China's stance lies somewhere within the broad bounds of current international norms.
I don't believe sovereignty is something sacrosanct. It's not, as I see it, based on some sort of deep, natural right of "nations". It is a practical, evolved norm - and a cornerstone of a contractual arrangement among nations that is required for the existence of anything resembling an "international order" in the first place. As such, it is still a terribly important principle to defend. It is still a fundamental principle supporting the chief UN goal of preserving mankind from the scourge of war. Replacing that principle with some alternative principle, such as the right of the Good to intervene in the affairs of the Evil, would be a dangerous move and a step backward for civilization, however much pressing problems in the immediate term might appear to recommend opting for such an alternative.
Just as in our own society we recognize a sphere of personal autonomy within which an individual is free to act, even act badly, without unwanted intervention from others, we must continue to recognize the same sort of sphere of protection for states. The alternative in both cases is a breakdown of the minimal level of trust and security necessary for productive, peaceful intercourse and cooperation - between individuals in the one case, and countries in the other. I'm glad some countries are still sticking up for this principal, however selfish their motives might actually be or appear to be, because in this particular global environment, marked by a striking example of a misguided, reckless and globally threatening intervention, what is needed is a reassertion of the inviolability of national borders, not a further weakening of that taboo.
Rather than singling on one particular country, perhaps the focus should be on the underlying structural problems in the international order. If you truly want an international order in which those few interventions that are absolutely necessary are widely internationalized, accepted and legitimated, then you should defend needed UN reforms, most important of which is the elimination of the permanent member veto.
Today it is China protecting Darfur. But in the future it might just as easily be Russia or the United States or France protecting some other client state.
June 25, 2007 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a 'no-brainer' to me.
Country A believes in heavy-handed economic and military intervention in other states with often disastrous results, and country B believes in national sovereignty and the rule of law.
Which country will be more popular and accepted by the world's leaders and citizens?
Well the results are already in, aren't they. Look at the polls. In plain English, the world hates the United States of America.
June 26, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"norm of non-interference" "national sovereignty and the rule of law" "notion of sovereignty and non-interference"
All this sounds very nice, but the truth is quite the opposite. Remember that China conquered Tibet in perhaps the most egregious land-grab post WWII. This is not just ancient history either. Just last year the first railroad to Tibet opened, and soon the Tibetans will be a minority in their own country.
This is hardly a respect for "sovereignty." Rather it is respect for the power of the stronger. It is no surprise that China is cultivating the thugs of the world, like the rulers of Sudan.
June 26, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink