China need not always win to be great

While it deserves to have a greater say in the world order, it should not be the only big winner. In its rush to assert itself on the global stage, it has simply reaped acquiescence

Chinese soldiers marking the Communist Party's 95th anniversary in Heilongjiang province last month. In President Xi's address, he said China will never compromise on its sovereignty. Standing up forcefully on the world stage has become a cornerstone of the country's diplomacy. PHOTO: AGENCE-FRANCE PRESSE

BEIJING • In his address at the 95th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) this month, President Xi Jinping (pic) devoted an unusually lengthy part of his speech to foreign policy.

Speaking just days before a ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal at The Hague on China's claims in the South China Sea, most international media focused on him saying that China will never compromise on its sovereignty. The Chinese media, however, picked out certain phrases to highlight his vision for the country on the global stage.

One of them is "ren lei ming yun gong tong ti", or a "community of common destiny for mankind", a term Mr Xi has used at least 60 times since 2013.

Building this community is the "Chinese solution" for an international world order that emphasises mutual benefits, and will allow China to fulfil its responsibilities as a major country, said party mouthpiece People's Daily in a commentary on Monday.

Another Chinese media analysis said China has come up with the "Chinese solution", or "zhong guo fang an", because it no longer wants to follow Western rules now that it has "a major country's capabilities and self-confidence".

Taken together, these points summarise China's reimagining of its role as a "major country/great power" or "da guo" in recent years. Although it became the world's No. 2 economy in 2010, the Chinese have always debated whether their country is truly a great power. There is, however, little doubt in the mind of Mr Xi, who has more actively sought to answer the question: "So what should a great power do?"

Plenty, it seems. In recent years, standing up more forcefully on the world stage has become a corner- stone of the country's diplomacy.

Last September, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) carried out a rare and massive display of its latest hardware through Tiananmen Square in a show of military prowess that unnerved neighbours in the region and countries further afield. That came amid a PLA restructuring and personnel reshuffle meant to improve its combat capabilities, as well as weapons deployment and land reclamation in the South China Sea.

Then last month, at a special meeting in Kunming between Asean and China's foreign ministers, a planned joint press conference failed to take place after the Chinese applied pressure on a few Asean member states and caused the 10-member bloc to splinter over a proposed joint statement on the South China Sea.

Experts such as Nankai University analyst Liu Feng have pointed out that "China has been more inclined in recent years to use its coercive power to persuade neighbouring countries or to ensure that they indeed treat it with respect". That is consistent with the observation that China has modified its foreign policy strategy to become more pro-active, shifting from the decades-old mantra of "tao guang yang hui" (keeping a low profile) to "fen fa you wei" (striving for achievement), a term Mr Xi used at a high-level diplomatic work conference in 2013.

Yet, what a great power can do and what it should do are different things - and both China's leaders and its people seem increasingly interested only in the former while "striving for achievement". That attitude extends to the Chinese public, as can be seen in the response of a fisherman from Hainan province who said in an interview in May: "Just attack them..., what are we afraid of?"

He was referring to the Philippines, which the tribunal ruled in favour of this week in the former's disputes with China in the South China Sea. Many of these fishermen had clashed with the coast guard and fishermen from the Philippines during their expeditions to the Spratlys, which the Chinese government encourages as a way of safeguarding sovereignty.

It is not uncommon to see netizens comment on territorial disputes online with a single word "da" (attack), born from the angst of seeing "great power" China supposedly being pushed around by smaller countries. They feel that China's might is not limited to the military either, often questioning what would happen if China decides to cut off trade ties or investment with another belligerent country. In short, now that we are strong, why do we need to play nice?

Yet, when it suits its cause, China (or its public) is quick to highlight that it is also a "rising power" - a developing country - hence relieving it of the international responsibilities that most expect a great power to shoulder.

Indeed, when Mr Xi committed US$2 billion (S$2.7 billion) last September to a development fund for poor countries and said China would aim to increase investment in least-developed countries to US$12 billion by 2030, that effort to change China's image as an international "free rider" swiftly came under fire. Why is China not helping its own poor, many Chinese asked. China is just a big country, not a rich country, others said.

None of that helps China's standing on the global stage. In its rush to demand respect befitting of a great power, China has merely reaped acquiescence.

Just looking at Asean, for instance, closer economic cooperation with Beijing has failed to translate into mutual trust. If anything, it has been the opposite, with concerns growing about China's readiness to wield its economic clout for geopolitical benefits. As one Western scholar observed, "China is a great power, but it doesn't realise that being a great power doesn't mean you need to ensure you win all the time".

This is where China can perhaps heed a lesson it learnt from the remarkable feat it pulled off early this year, in opening the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which People's Daily also sees as part of the "Chinese solution". Few would have given it a chance when Mr Xi first mooted it in 2013, especially given the intense pressure that the United States had put on other countries not to join the bank. But the benefits of this new institution were apparent to the 57 that eventually signed up, in what became a major public relations coup for China.

No coercive action was needed when the countries could assess for themselves the AIIB's merits, while being keenly aware of the limitations and associated biases in current international financial institutions.Two weeks on from Mr Xi's address, the tribunal has ruled against China's claims in the South China Sea and all eyes are on how forcefully it reacts. It should keep in mind that in recent years, assertive action has only served to push China's neighbors further away from it. It is still questionable, on balance, how much "striving for achievement" and not following "Western rules" has gained for China, and if that is still a path worth going down.

China deserves to have a greater say in the world order and, as it has pointed out, there should be no objection to its attempts to build a new world order that emphasizes "mutual benefits and a non-zero sum game model". In such a world, however, the great power should not be the only big winner.

By Teo Cheng Wee, China Correspondent The Straits Times/Asia News Network

Related posts:

PCA clarifies role, double standards in South China Sea arbitration profane international law

Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case THE HAGUE, July 16 (Xinhua) -- The Permanent Court of Arbitration ...

UN distances itself from Permanent Court of Arbitration, had No role in Philippines case vs China

国际法院（ICJ）在此希望媒体和公众注意，南海仲裁案（菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国）裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站（ www.pca-cpa.org ）。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构，至始至终未曾参与该案...

China issues white paper on SCS; Arbitral court not an UN agency, unjust and questionable judges...

China issues white paper on settling disputes with Philippines in South China Sea China is committed to upholding int'l rule of ... 

 

不合法的裁决不过废纸一张, Illegal ruling but a waste paper

Dialogue 07/10/2016 Differing views on South China Sea   China enhances maritime law enforcement China established Sansha City four...

   China's reaction to arbitration depends on provocation

“Who is the real saboteur of international law?” the editorial outlined the history and legal basis involved in the issue. The award of ...

 Notorious Philippines's Abu Sayyaf & Law-abusing tribunal on South China Sea

Foreign captives: A file picture showing hostages Hall (right) and Sekkingstad in the southern Philippines. — Reuters Abu Sayyaf Milita...

US containing a rising Chinese power

Might the rush to arbitration be nothing more than a US provocation to provide an excuse for military engagement? asks Shannon Ezra   ...

Analysts pooh-pooh US Defence Secretary's 'self-isolation' as an exaggeration

Analysts refute Ashton Carter's China 'self-isolation' claims SINGAPORE - US defense secretary's China "sel...

 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, opens to lay down ...

Jan 17, 2016 ... BEIJING: China has pledged US$50mil (RM221.25mil) to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to support infrastructure projects in ...

AIIB attracts nations from East, West, its fate connects to Chinese economy

Jan 21, 2016 ... The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) officially opened for ... There are many advantages in terms of the bank's operation and ...

Hillary Clinton is the real dominator of U.S. foreign policy

Hillary Clinton(Photo/Xinhua)

Hillary Clinton has not been frequently mentioned during the third and final debate of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, but her influence cannot be easily ignored.

The final presidential debate focuses on foreign policy, which is closely related to Clinton's position as U.S. Secretary of State. More importantly, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney proposed a new global strategy. Both of them seemed to approve Clinton's "smart power" with the minute difference lying in how to be "smart." Romney said that the U.S. Navy has owned the smallest number of warships since 1917, and Obama refuted that the United States also has fewer horses and bayonets but it has such powerful equipment such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. The dialogue is one of the few highlights in the third debate, and can be considered as typical example of different yet convergent political views. 

Clinton proposed the strategy of "smart power" during the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race and has implemented it under the Obama administration. Obama has always been absorbing Clinton's ideas on foreign affairs since he took office. For example, on the issue of Middle East, approval rate of the United States in Muslim countries was as low as 15 percent while Obama reduces vulnerability of foreign policy, with the help of Clinton, during the presidential debate this year.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor under former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, has rated Clinton's diplomatic performance in the past four years as A- or B+. Romney has found it hard to pick on Obama's foreign policy since he is unseasoned on foreign affairs. During the first two rounds of presidential debate, he tried to play tougher but achieved less. Therefore, in the finale on Oct. 22, Romney did not indulge in issues of foreign affairs, including attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya which worries Obama most. His consultant explained that the third presidential debate matters less since the topic is far away from people's daily life. The Republic Party cares more about the 12 swing states and female voters' support. Romney just needs to act like a commander in chief.

Indeed, American voters are now more concerned about domestic affairs such as employment, personal income, medical insurance, and even abortion than about foreign affairs. No matter who wins the presidential election, the United States is most likely to continue the foreign policy formulated by Clinton.

Read the Chinese version: 美大选三辩不只是俩男人的战斗, source: Jinghua Times, author: Huang Heng