• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael D. Swaine"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "China’s Foreign Relations",
    "U.S.-China Relations"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Chinese Leadership and Elite Responses to the U.S. Pacific Pivot

Fundamental differences in U.S. and Chinese views of regional security could increase the likelihood of crises in the Asia-Pacific.

Link Copied
By Michael D. Swaine
Published on Jul 17, 2012

Source: China Leadership Monitor

Over the past several years, the most significant overall U.S. foreign policy action of relevance to China has been the announcement and initial follow-through of the so-called “Pacific Pivot” or “Rebalancing” of U.S. attention and resources to the Asia-Pacific.  This policy move (hereafter termed the Pacific Pivot) , albeit in many ways expressing great continuity with past U.S. policy, is being viewed by many observers and officials in the U.S., China, Asia, and elsewhere, as an important response not only to the growing overall significance of the region to American interests, but in particular to the challenges and opportunities presented by an increasingly powerful and influential China.  The Pacific Pivot has thus drawn considerable attention and levels of controversy in many quarters, and nowhere more so than in Beijing.

This article takes a close look at the Chinese reactions to Washington’s increased stress on Asia, including Chinese assessments of the perceived implications of this policy shift for the region and China in particular.  Three categories of sources are examined :

  • Authoritative:  Several types of PRC sources are considered authoritative in the sense of explicitly “speaking for the regime.”   Of these, commentary on the Pacific Pivot has only occurred during Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) or Ministry of Defense (MND) press conferences, and in the remarks of a few senior MFA officials.
     
  • Quasi-authoritative: Several types of usually homophonous, bylined articles appearing in the People’s Daily are considered quasi-authoritative in the sense that, although indirect and implicit, they are intended to convey the view of an important PRC organization.  Of these, commentary on the Pacific Pivot has only occurred in articles using the new byline Zhong Sheng (钟声),which is an apparent homophone for “the voice of the Central,” and appears to be written by the editorial staff of the People’s Daily International Department.
     
  • Non-authoritative: Many types of low-level commentary and signed articles appearing in a wide variety of PRC and Hong Kong media convey notable yet decidedly non-authoritative views.    Many of these types of articles include a broad spectrum of diverse reactions on the Pacific Pivot.
The content of statements and commentaries appearing in these sources is compared and contrasted to discern possible differences in the Chinese reaction to the Pacific Pivot.  In addition, their timing and content are compared to apparent changes over time in U.S. formulations, emphases, and military or diplomatic actions regarding the policy move, to see whether and how the Chinese response might be prompted and shaped by specific U.S. policy behaviors.  

The essay begins with a brief summary of the history and evolution of the Pacific Pivot (centering on key leadership speeches and writings as well as statements by U.S. government sources, such as State Department and Defense Department officials and spokespersons), followed by a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the Chinese response, divided into both authoritative and quasi-authoritative versus non-authoritative sources.  The quantitative analysis examines the frequency and timing of the appearance of statements regarding the pivot in selected key media.

The qualitative analysis examines the content and timing of Chinese statements and commentaries with regard to five issue areas where references to the Pacific Pivot are most evident: 

  • Broad regional strategy and U.S.-China relations 
  • U.S. defense doctrine and policies (especially the Air-Sea Battle Concept, or ASBC) 
  • The U.S. military presence in Asia (including basing, deployments, and exercises) 
  • U.S. policy toward the South China Sea territorial disputes  
  • The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) initiative 

However, not all of the authoritative, quasi-authoritative, and non-authoritative sources examined cover every one of these six issue areas.

This article was originally published in the China Leadership Monitor. The full text is available here.

About the Author

Michael D. Swaine

Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Swaine was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and one of the most prominent American analysts in Chinese security studies.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    What Kind of Global Order Should Washington and Beijing Strive For?

      Michael D. Swaine

  • Commentary
    A Smarter U.S. Strategy for China in Four Steps

      Michael D. Swaine

Michael D. Swaine
Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Michael D. Swaine
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Time to Merge the Commission and EEAS

    The EU is structurally incapable of reacting to today’s foreign policy crises. The union must fold the EEAS into the European Commission and create a security council better prepared to take action on the global stage.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic Opportunity

    The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.

      William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk

  • Commentary
    Is the Radical-Right Threat Existential or Overstated?

    Amid increased polarization and the influence of disinformation, radical-right parties are once again gaining traction across Europe. With landmark elections on the horizon in several countries, are the EU’s geostrategic vision and fundamental values under existential threat?

      Catherine Fieschi, Cas Mudde

  • Research
    Planetary vs International Security: Economic Growth at the Crossroads

    Economic growth is at the heart of a dilemma between planetary and international security.

      Olivia Lazard

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.