Can China be a World Leader?
Image Credit: UN Photo/Marco Castro

Can China be a World Leader?


Recently I participated in a BBC/Carnegie Endowment debate on the U.S. presidential campaign and policy toward China with the eminent and estimable former U.S. Ambassadors Chas W. Freeman, Jr. and J. Stapleton Roy, and Tsinghua University scholar Yan Xuetong.  The full debate is available here.

The discussion was wide-ranging but what struck me most was an assertion by one of the panelists that the next U.S. president will have to deal with the fact that China has surpassed the United States as the number one power (based on the size of its economy). As a result, in his opinion, China will no longer feel the need to defer to the United States and the current arrangement of international institutions.

On the face of it, it is not an unreasonable assertion. After all, there has long been a view espoused in and outside Beijing that China has somehow suffered under the yoke of institutions that it did not help create. On closer examination, however, it’s not clear when China ever has deferred to the United States and the current global system. True, China has joined a number of multilateral institutions and treaties, but it did so not out of deference to the United States but because it believed it would benefit from participating. When China has determined that its interests are not served by following Washington’s lead—witness the two sides lagging, flagging, or non-existent cooperation on Libya, Iran, North Korea, climate change, cyber-security, etc.—it goes its own way.

The larger issue of what it would mean for China to be both the world’s biggest economic power and its most significant political power is also unclear. What would be the foreign policy principles that China’s leaders would espouse? “Not mixing business with politics” doesn’t seem a commanding value for a global leader, and preaching sovereignty and non-intervention in the face of human atrocity will likely not earn points for leadership. That is not to say that the United States gets it right when it acts first and thinks later; but China’s predilection for inaction appears equally, if not more, problematic.

In addition, the events of the past few weeks suggest that at this moment China is not yet ready to be a leader in its own neighborhood. In response to an undeniably provocative move by the Japanese government to purchase several of the contested Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, Beijing acted not with measured words and deeds but rashly by: allowing Chinese citizens to trash Japanese stores and factories and attack people who own Japanese products; condemning Japan at the UN General Assembly; sending marine surveillance ships to continue patrolling in the waters off of the islands; cancelling diplomatic functions with Japanese counterparts; and barring Chinese banks and other officials from participating in the annual World Bank IMF conference, which is being held in Tokyo this month.  In the face of such actions, it is hard to see how, as eminent Chinese scholar Wang Jisi has argued: “China deserves a larger say in the IMF and World Bank,” and “Because China is so successful, it deserves more respect.”

China Reform editor Zhang Jianjing offers a slightly different perspective. In a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece in Caixin, he asserts that in the face of Japanese provocation, “It’s time for China to reciprocate in a calm manner, and to maintain the balance of power within the region. …taking this position means the eventual support of the international community… China’s greatest challenge is a growing group of people that are stalling domestic reforms. By comparison, managing the geostrategic realm is a low stakes game.”  I don’t have the answer to the question of whether and how China will lead, but I hope at least part of the answer may rest with Chinese thinkers and leaders like Zhang.

Elizabeth C. Economy is C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy and U.S.-China relations and author of the award-winning book, 'The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's Future.'  She blogs at Asia Unbound, where this piece originally appeared.

October 29, 2012 at 13:07

there is no question that China is turning more aggressive than say 20 years ago, but the question here is – should we look at China as Germany 1938 and we need to employ force the deter China from launching an all-out war against its neighbours by setting up a "chain of alliance" where all of the nations such as Japan, korea, the Philippines and Vietnam joint together to form a ATO? or should we instead trying to release an opposite sets of messages to convince China that the rest of the world are not ganged up against China as they did in 1900? thus convincing china to adjust itself to become a part of this established international order instead of being a challenger?
the first option – it only delays China's use of force, DELAY is the key word as it will surely convince China that the West and its immediate pacific neighbours are all ganging up to have China destroyed. and when china miscalculate the alliance of self-protection in Asia-pacific as USA's effort to stranger China, then WAR becomes inevitable as China will "fight for its survival", it only served as a self-fulfilling expectation where all of us feared china to become an aggressor so we act in a way that provokes china to become more aggressive.
the second option – engage them, invite them into "the international community" – but this idea is also plausible, what kind of role will we allow China to play? will the west ready for China having a say on their own internal affair?  and if we engage China, does this meant that the interests of the smaller nations around china – which so far being a motivator for the forming of the encirclement group (ATO) – need to be sacrificed to "buy-off" china into the international community?

Dan Sibley
October 17, 2012 at 09:36

Arthur. All you have done is chocolate coat BS.

Sekhar Prudhivi
October 15, 2012 at 21:59

China has no rights on AP. It is sad that china still follows history. It is not good for china to be aggresive with its neighbors . Not at all with India and Mind your language while refering other countries people. 

October 15, 2012 at 09:40

Glad to see China is in the decline on all fronts. China has not been earned the trust from many nations and its neighbours. The bottom line is, China has been isolated and quite a lonely nation. With this trend on going, China can only be a regional bully rather than any kind of leadership. World leader? What a bad joke!

October 13, 2012 at 02:43

China as a world leader? No, please. I don't want my children enslaved by them.
I'd rather have the US lead because they are more reasonable.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment

Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief