• NOVEMBER 21, 2009
ARGUMENT PRINT  |   TEXT SIZE        |  EMAIL  |  SINGLE PAGE

China's Black Cat, White Cat Diplomacy

Why Beijing is losing patience with its dysfunctional allies.

BY WEN LIAO | JULY 10, 2009

Deng Xiaoping famously said that it doesn't matter if a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. These days, China seems to be applying Deng's logic to its neighbors: It doesn't matter if they are democratic or despotic, so long as they safeguard China's interests.

COMMENTS (3) SHARE:
Digg
 
Facebook
 
Reddit
 
Bookmark and Share More...

That simple premise helps explain why, after years of working with the military junta in Burma, China may now be looking to change tack. It's not that China is concerned that such a government is morally suspect; it's that Beijing worries that Burma's leaders are incompetent. And any slippage in that country's stability could have harsh consequences for China's own fortunes.

From the neighbors' side of the fence, China looks like a rising hegemon, keen to throw its weight around. The country's decisive intervention in support of the government in the recently concluded civil war in Sri Lanka -- a country outside its usual sphere of influence -- seemed to prove this.

Yet seen from Beijing, it is China's allies who at times string the country along for a ride. Two supposed subordinates in particular -- North Korea and Burma -- leave China feeling helpless to intervene, fearful that any instability abroad might upset China's delicate internal political peace. As China's rapid response to unrest in its Xinjiang region makes clear, nothing makes China's rulers more jittery than the potential of regional or border disputes to incite internal instability. With 200 people killed in the recent riots in Xinjiang, China finds unstable neighbors, and the threat of an influx of refugees, more dangerous than ever.

So the calculus behind China's regional security strategy is straightforward: If peace and prosperity among China's neighbors are not secured, then peace, prosperity, and unity at home will be put at risk.

This strategic imperative arose after China's relative success in navigating the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and 1998. The experience whetted China's appetite for regional respect, and the country began to deepen its ties with East and Southeast Asia, particularly members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). China agreed to settle its remaining territorial disputes with ASEAN members through collective mechanisms for arbitration. The country also signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, promising never to use force against ASEAN members. It is a structure that has suited China quite well ever since, with two nagging exceptions, North Korea and Burma.

In the first case, the survival of North Korea's regime is a key Chinese foreign-policy goal. Beijing fears the inevitable flood of refugees that would stream over its border following that country's collapse. Moreover, a divided Korea suits China's purposes, because a unified Korea could emerge as another regional heavyweight, on the magnitude of Japan. So it is no surprise that China joined the six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear program out of fear that Western sanctions might shatter the North's brittle economy. Like a bank too big to fail, North Korea poses too dire a threat for China to contemplate pushing leader Kim Jong Il very hard. That is why China's influence over North Korea appears to be so ineffective.

12NEXT
Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Wen Liao is chairwoman of Longford Advisors, a political, economic, and business consultancy.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Digg
  • The Al Qaeda Diaries

  • Boring Summits Are Better for Everyone

  • D.C.'s New Game: Who's Paying Your Pundit?

  • Lowering the Bar: The ABA's Ties to Despots

 (3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

YEOUS26

11:14 PM ET

July 10, 2009

China's Black Cat, White Cat Diplomacy

From 19th century up to now, which superpower has not engaged in global maneuverings, even invasions, to protect, enhance, and seize its interests? However, China is merely a developing country right now, far from being a superpower. But the current world super powers are practicing confinement strategies and tactics on China. You have the northeast Asia alliance, the east Asia-Australia-New Zealand-Indonesia-Singapoe alliance, the India alliance, and the developing friendly gesture toward Vietnam, not to mention the air force bases in Central Asia. All China is doing is self-rescuing, nothing serious, and certainly is not a threat to the world. The Chinese are historically a peace-loving people, as we all know.

 

EXOTTOYUHR

11:35 AM ET

July 14, 2009

Peace-lovingness, and China's goals

China was about as peace-loving as Rome, historically, but to their credit, they were aggressive for the same reason the Romans were -- to secure their frontiers -- and were often remarkably chivalrous, especially fighting among themselves (the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is less removed from the facts than you might think, and the Warring States period was even more like this); not to mention that the anonymous stratagems, as well as those of Sun Tzu and Zhuge Liang, remain useful down to the present. (I have a book from the 1960s that talks about Zhuge Liang as a contemporary military threat, from the NVA's extensive use of his stratagems.)

That being said, the way a friend of mine put it is that the Chinese want to take over the world, and by the world, they mean China. They're not really concerned with what happens anywhere else -- which means they're not too interested in a colonial empire per se, but which also means that they're infuriatingly apathetic towards human rights -- even when the promotion of human rights would serve the stability and prosperity of the state in question, and thus its ability to provide resources to China, as is the case in Burma and the Sudan.

Like the Clintons, like Bush and Cheney, the current Chinese government has the idea that evil is stronger than good, to be used as a last resort when good fails (like how the Clintons, when their backs are to the wall, always eject a squid-like cloud of claims of racism, sexism, and whatnot) or as a first resort when it's really important to succeed (no further comment about the previous US administration necessary). Once and for all, it isn't. The Chinese would be better served promoting responsible and accountable government than trying to back tyrants for the sake of short-term stability. Now that I think of it, that's exactly what the US has done in the Middle East -- and look how well it worked for us!

 

UZBEKPOLICY

3:42 AM ET

July 29, 2009

Haha

Yeah, we all know how peace-loving Chinese are, especially their present government, especially Politburo :)) We just need to convince people in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, Darfur, Uzbekistan, who think they have been mistreated by or with the support of CCP, strange enough. LOL.

 
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The Terrorists Among Us
  2. Karzai's Cronies
  3. Planet Slum
  4. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  5. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Nobel Peace Prize Also-Rans
  2. Edward Burtynsky's Oil
  3. Think Again: God
  4. Bolivia's Lithium-Powered Future
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Afghanistan Is Not Making Americans Safer
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. Zardari in the Crosshairs
  5. This Week at War: Heading for a Bad Breakup
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The President, the Professor, and the Wide Receiver
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. The Only Hope Left?
  5. The Terrorists Among Us
  • NET EFFECT

    Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?

    BY EVGENY MOROZOV

  • PASSPORT

    North Africa's escalating soccer war

    BY JOSHUA KEATING

  • ARGUMENT

    How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit

    BY WILLIAM MOSS

  • SMALL WARS

    The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup

    BY ROBERT HADDICK

  • DANIEL DREZNER

    Time's not-so-shocking Obamaland expose

  • BEST DEFENSE

    What would George Marshall think of today's generals?

    BY THOMAS E. RICKS

  • SHADOW GOVT.

    What does containing North Korea actually mean?

    BY JAMIE FLY

  • THE CABLE

    How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit

    BY JOSH ROGIN



  • 1. Aligning on Afghanistan? President Obama and PM Brown Turn Focus on Exit Strategy
  • 2. R.I.P.: Russia to Continue Ban on the Death Penalty
  • 3. All for One: Jailed Fatah Leader Implores Palestinian Unity
  • 4. Global Warming Time Out: Stagnating Temperatures Baffle Climate Experts
 See All Photo Essays
  • Planet slum: From Nairobi to Caracas, Mumbai, and Jakarta

  • Falling Like It's 1989

November/December 2009
  • Feature

    Revolution in a Box

  • Feature

    Plague, by Robin Cook

  • Opening Gambit

    My Plan to Overthrow the Mullahs

  •  See Entire Issue

     Preview Digital Edition

  • Why Sarah Palin is unlikely to be the future of the Republican Party.
  • What to drink on Thanksgiving: Napa cabernet.
  • How to score chicks on the Disney Channel.
  • GM Customers Give Back
  • Ron Paul Wins Lifelong Fight, Now May Be Forced To Vote Against Everything He Believes
  • Wonk Watch 11.20.09
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood

About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

FP Logo


1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.