• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • 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": [
    "China",
    "Japan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Military",
    "Security",
    "Technology"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Chinese Views on Cybersecurity in Foreign Relations

The apparent unanimity of viewpoints within China on cybersecurity suggests that this issue will remain a major source of tension and differences in the Sino-U.S. relationship.

Link Copied
By Michael D. Swaine
Published on Sep 20, 2013
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Source: China Leadership Monitor

During the past few years, cybersecurity has become a major concern among many countries, as a result of the continued rapid expansion and deepening technological sophistication of the Internet, alongside the growing reliance of governments and societies on cyberbased systems for everything from communications and information storage to military operations and commercial activities.

In recent months, this issue has become a major source of both tension and potential cooperation for the U.S.-China relationship in particular.  Stemming from a Western (and especially U.S.) assessment that a growing number of destructive cyberattacks on commercial enterprises and government institutions originate not only from Chinese individuals, but also most likely from Chinese government (and especially military) sources, Washington has greatly intensified its expression of concern to Beijing.

Beijing has repeatedly denied carrying out cyberattacks against any other country, while calling for both bilateral and multilateral cooperation, free from accusations, to formulate agreed-upon norms for the operation of the global Internet as well as place its oversight in the hands of a broadly representative international structure.  The United States has resisted the latter proposal.

These developments have elevated the issue of cybersecurity to a top priority within the overall bilateral relationship.  In response to the importance and urgency of the issue, Washington and Beijing recently agreed to form a Cyber Working Group (CWG) as part of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED),  with the first Bilateral Cybersecurity Working Group Dialogue held in Washington D.C. on 8 July.

Thus far, however, little progress has occurred in reducing suspicion and developing cooperation in this area.  To the contrary, the United States and presumably China are strengthening their capacity to engage in both defensive and offensive cyber actions against each other, presenting the prospect of a cyber arms race while potentially intensifying the already high level of distrust between the two countries.

To understand the challenges and opportunities presented to the Sino-U.S. relationship by the cybersecurity issue, it is important to examine in some detail the views, beliefs, and apparent assumptions of Chinese observers toward the subject.  This article addresses Chinese thinking on four basic aspects of the issue:

The Definition of Cybersecurity and the Challenge It Presents

The Cybersecurity Threat Posed by the United States and Other Countries

The Origins and Motives Behind Foreign Cybersecurity Threats

Chinese Preferences for Mitigating Cybersecurity Threats


As they have in several previous editions of CLM, our examination of Chinese views on these topics will distinguish between three basic types of Chinese sources: authoritative; quasi-authoritative; and non-authoritative.

For each area, particular attention is given to: a) the authoritative PRC government viewpoint (if publicly available); b) views toward the United States in particular; and c) any variations that might exist among Chinese commentators, in both substance and tone.  The article addresses several specific questions: to what extent and in what manner do Chinese definitions of cybersecurity and Chinese views on the cybersecurity threat differ from those of the United States and other countries?  How do Chinese sources respond to U.S. and Western accusations against China?  In all these areas, can one discern any significant differences: among authoritative Chinese sources, between military and civilian sources (of all types), and among authoritative, quasi-authoritative, and non-authoritative sources in general?

The article concludes with a summary and some implications for the future. 

This article was originally published in the China Leadership Monitor.

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
MilitarySecurityTechnologyChinaJapan

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 Endowment for International Peace

  • Aerial view of Chernobyl damage
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Chernobyl Is Still a Current Event, Forty Years Later

    The 1986 incident showed that a nuclear accident anytime is a nuclear accident for all time.

      Corey Hinderstein

  • Article
    From Labor Scarcity to AI Society: Governing Productivity in East Asia

    The debate over AI and work too often centers on displacement. Facing aging populations and shrinking workforces, East Asian policymakers view AI not as a threat, but as a cross-sectoral workforce strategy.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Sophie Zhuang

  • Article
    Governing AI in the Shadow of Giants: Korea’s Strategic Response to Great Power AI Competition

    In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee

  • Research
    For People, Planet, and Progress: Perspectives from India's AI Impact Summit

    This collection of essays by scholars from Carnegie India’s Technology and Society program traces the evolution of the AI summit series and examines India’s framing around the three sutras of people, planet, and progress. Scholars have catalogued and assessed the concrete deliverables that emerged and assessed what the precedent of a Global South country hosting means for the future of the multilateral conversation.

      • +3

      Nidhi Singh, Tejas Bharadwaj, Shruti Mittal, …

  • China Financial Markets
    Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

    China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.

      Michael Pettis

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.