Foreign policy plays catch-up

 

 

Tania Branigan in Beijing 

guardian.co.uk 

 

 

 

It is evident when China's aircraft carrier carves it way through the waters of the Yellow Sea. It is written between the lines of its growth statistics. It is built into the gleaming walls of the African Union headquarters half a world away. As the country's might increases, China's maxim of "keeping a low profile" looks increasingly irrelevant, even absurd, to many.

Calls for a fundamental overhaul of foreign policy are growing. "We will have to deal with pressures from abroad to remain modest and prudent, while domestically we are faced with complaints that China has been timid," said Wang Jisi, dean of Peking University's school of international studies.

"There is a real debate going on about the direction of Chinese foreign policy, not only among scholars, but also among officials: is it time for China to take a more proactive foreign policy?" said Linda Jakobson, East Asia programme director at the Lowy Institute.

"As China becomes economically stronger and the world around it becomes economically more volatile, strategic thinkers in China feel: 'We should no longer accept western and in particular American-dictated rules and norms.'"

China's policy is playing catch-up with its new status. The Obama administration's "pivot" to Asia underlines the challenges its next leaders face. "Beijing's foreign policy is not sophisticated. Its diplomatic machinery is a little bit rusty," said Zhu Feng, of Peking University's centre for international and strategic studies.

"Unfortunately, China has not prepared for world leadership … When the world asks China: what do you want to be? it doesn't know, and that's the problem," said Yan Xuetong, director of the international relations institute at Tsinghua University.

China's global reach has expanded at startling speed. In 2000, trade with Africa was worth $10bn (£6bn); in 2011 it was $150bn. It paid $200m for the new African Union headquarters that opened in Ethiopia this January.

It is forging friendships in unexpected areas, too. Denmark's Beijing embassy is as big as the one in Washington and it is backing China's move to become an observer on the Arctic Council; Beijing says it has scientific and environmental interests, though analysts assume it is eyeing mineral deposits.

China's military still lags far behind the US, but its official military budget has risen from $14.6bn to $106bn in 12 years – and many believe the true level of spending is far higher. It has taken part in peacekeeping operations and conducted its first active naval mission outside the Pacific. It is developing a "carrier killer" missile and acquiring a fleet of amphibious landing ships.

"Ten years ago China's military build-up was very limited and economically the 'going out' approach was quite limited. Now they have developed to a degree that throws up many new problems," warned Renmin University scholar Shi Yinhong.

But China's new strength also creates vulnerabilities. It must meet increased energy, food and other resource needs; it is expected to become the largest oil importer in less than a decade. It must protect its citizens abroad; last year, it evacuated 36,000 workers from Libya. Its economy is increasingly open to external forces, such as Europe's debt crisis.

Major decisions are made by the top political leaders, but shaped by a growing number of players outside the foreign ministry. State owned enterprises, city governments and domestic security officials all have a stake – making it harder to agree and implement policy. Meanwhile, China faces resentment and anxiety in the region and beyond. It had to mount a charm offensive after a backlash over territorial spats in the South China Sea and other incidents.

"I think they were taken aback by how quickly the region – in which they have invested a lot of time and energy and diplomacy, and a lot of human and monetary resources – turned against them," said Jakobson.

Meanwhile relations between China and the US have become more competitive and mistrustful, said Susan Shirk of the University of California San Diego, a former deputy assistant secretary of state handling China.

"Flashpoints for conflict have increased. China started acting less restrained after 2008 … Its behaviour raised serious alarm in the US."

Some in China believe it is time to leave behind its "peaceful rise" or "peaceful development" strategy and openly compete with the US. Others say it simply needs to be more proactive and innovative. Wang argues that "keeping a low profile" makes little sense on issues such as climate change, and says other countries want China to be more active internationally if not more assertive. The problem is that China's priorities often collide with the west's – as demonstrated when it vetoed the UN resolution demanding Syria's president resign.

"China's leaders are consistently asked what their position is and whether or not they can help, and it puts them in an awkward position … It could be that over time it creates a rationale for a new foreign policy – that they decide they have to be more active and more willing to take the initiative," said Taylor Fravel of the security studies programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

But they could conclude that US influence is diminishing in the long term anyway, he added. The leadership transition makes stability the top priority for now. And faced with pressing domestic issues, the new team may struggle to find time for foreign strategy. "Bureaucratically and politically, I don't see such urgency," said Zhu. Guardian