The World Needs a More Active China

Source: Getty
Op-Ed Wall Street Journal
Summary
Relations in Asia have deteriorated in large part because China’s willingness to act lags behind its capabilities. More productive outcomes could be realized if China became more active in crafting the global agenda.
Related Topics
Related Media and Tools
 

A year of seemingly intractable Asian diplomatic crises has raised fears of Chinese assertiveness. Behind the brinksmanship in the South China Seas and North Korea, the thinking goes, lies an emboldened Beijing that seeks to use newfound military and economic power to change the state of play.

In fact, the opposite dynamic is at work. International relations in Asia have deteriorated in large part because China's willingness to act lags behind its capabilities to do so. The world needs Beijing to become more "active" in shaping global issues, not less.

While China's economic clout and rising nationalism encouraged Beijing to play a larger role in Asian affairs, its strategic moves have been fundamentally passive. China remains a reactive player, focused on countering what Beijing—rightly or wrongly—perceives as the provocations of others (a category that includes everything from Japanese nationalization of disputed islands to sanctions against Pyongyang).

China's reactive tendencies are partly the product of structural weakness. The country's rapid economic rise has made it a major power far earlier than its leaders expected. China's under-powered agencies for international diplomacy and negotiation lag well behind its impressive economic achievements, placing it at a disadvantage in working with other powers. China's leadership also feels the need to get its own house in order before forging its international path. The glaring need for economic reforms means that Chinese growth has not translated into greater self-confidence.

But there is also a tactical element to Chinese passivity. Beijing has long sought to bide its time when dealing with sensitive geopolitical issues. This reflects a belief that hot issues such as North Korea, Taiwan and disputed islands will eventually resolve themselves without confrontation, and that waiting will promote better outcomes. While countries such as the United States are affected by near-term election considerations, China prides itself on an ability to take a much longer view.

Beijing's wait-and-see approach fails in practice because events often force China to react before it would have preferred. Beijing's response to maritime disputes, for instance, is not a product of grand strategy. Rather, it is largely a knee-jerk reaction to what China sees as rising nationalism among its neighbors coupled with a containment strategy led by the U.S. This reactive stance has been self-defeating as others come to regard China as deliberately uncooperative. Refusing to work toward multilateral solutions only leaves China with undesirable policy options shaped by more engaged states.

The problem is that China cannot be expected to alter its reactive stance as long as it sees itself as an outsider to an international system built by the West. More productive outcomes could be realized if China became more active in crafting the global agenda. The good news is that there are domestic factions in China's government that support such engagement. Others are awaiting signs that Washington will accommodate the realities of an altered power-sharing configuration in the region.

Change could begin with the U.S.-led trade negotiations over the Trans Pacific Partnership. With China currently on the outside looking in, Beijing can easily dismiss the trade deal as part of a U.S. containment strategy. But Beijing must realize that the best play is to become engaged in the negotiations and start lobbying sooner rather than later for more amenable provisions such as rules of origin that would not damage the efficiency of the East Asian production sharing network. The U.S. should welcome and encourage Chinese participation in trade negotiations.

As for island disputes, China's objectives would be better served by setting aside the sovereignty question and focusing on narrow confidence-building measures such as joint patrols and training. It should also return to a focus on negotiating less-troublesome joint resource rights. Given the complexity of the sovereignty claims at play, Beijing should welcome, rather than discourage, multilateral approaches in order to achieve more inclusive solutions. A reactive China that seeks power without leadership can help neither itself nor the world.

This piece originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments (1)

 
 
  • thmak
    3 Recommends
     
    @Yukon Huang: China does what China perceives its capability can do and not according to outsiders's perception of what China can do. China doesn't want to act according to when China is labelled a bully or "deliberately uncooperative" at the whim of outsideer. The TPP is designed by America from the beginning to put China under USA led economic bloc if China wants to join. So China just ignores it. China cannot set aside the island sovereignity question because Japan had claimed the island sovereignity and, doing so, would acknowledge Japan's claim. There is no complexity of the sovereignty claims . Yukon Huang should know that.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/14/world-needs-more-active-china/g3f8

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。