China is trying to turn the tables and redefine the powerful concept of the “international community.”
After decades during which the West has used the concept of “international community” to put pressure on China to accept such things as Western-defined “international norms,” Beijing has decided to go its own way. In fact, the Chinese are setting up their own definition of “international community” to counter what they see as a western-dominated and defined international community.
China’s position was disclosed on September 1, when the Communist Party’s official newspaper the People’s Daily published an online commentary titled “How world opinion kidnapped by West’s ‘international community’ rhetoric.”
“Some Western politicians,” the commentary said, “often make improper comments in the name of ‘international community’ when they talk about the international affairs…. In their eyes, they are the ‘international community.’”
War-torn Syria, for example, is one country where there are sharply divided views between the West on the one side and China and Russia on the other. This has paralyzed the United Nations Security Council, with the Chinese and Russians blocking any proposals that could lead to the replacement of the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
European and American media, the commentary said, often suggest implementing more stringent sanctions on Syria and criticize Russia and China for “running counter to the international community.” In their eyes, the commentary said, “China and Russia, which have a population of over one billion, are not included in the ‘international community.’”
Clearly, this was not the view of a lone Chinese commentator. It was immediately followed by what was ostensibly a news article by the state news agency Xinhua, which reported that amid escalating violence in Syria, “the international community renewed its calls for a peaceful settlement to the crisis.”
The article quoted a spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Russian deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov and the Chinese foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, who spoke on the telephone with Lakhdar Brahimi, the new U.N.-Arab League special envoy to Syria.
It did not refer to any American or European views. The voices quoted by Xinhua, it seems, constitute the “international community” in China’s eyes.
This tit-for-tat response is another sign of China’s new-found assertiveness and its unwillingness to accept a Western-imposed international system as China continues to rise. More flexing of Chinese muscles is likely to follow.
Frank Ching opened The Wall Street Journal’s Bureau in China in 1979. Now based in Hong Kong, he writes a weekly column on Chinese affairs. His articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, World Policy Journal, China Quarterly, Current History and the Washington Quarterly, among other publications.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Dysfunctional UN
Yeah, what about all those proposals by Russia and China blocked by the gang of three? The U.S., UK (sic) and france wants to call all the shots, defining themselves the "international community". Something ought to be done about the useless and irrelevant UN.
John Chan
Democracy is about tolerating dissenting opinions. China’s different interpretation of “international community” is showing the spirit of democracy. Is the West insisting that their words must be taken as given truth, and anyone questioning such myth is guilty of disturbing world order, assertiveness or flexing muscles?
Silencing dissenting opinions is behaviour of autocratic authoritarian, is the West showing its true color because China tries to exercise the right of democracy?
Greg
This is rather disturbing. China is free to join the international system 'as is'. No one is asking China their opinion of the existent system nor do we care what China's opinion is. The ideological struggle is not over. Not until China has full Western style democracy will her opinion matter. The CPC doesn't 'represent' anyone but themselves certainly not a billion people.
John Chan
@Grey,
Only autocratic authoritarian does not care other’s opinion, are you say the West is autocratic authoritarian? Only the autocratic authoritarian insists its opinion is final for all, it seems the West is genuinely autocratic authoritarian, because you implied the West represented all humanity.
Western style democracy is a hoax, they are democracy in appearance, but autocratic authoritarian in essence, even the democracies like Russia, Egypt, etc. the West said they are not democracies; such unilateral unreasonable assertion is behavour of autocratic authoritarian.
RyvRyla
We are seeing here a reaction, not just to the western concept of 'international community', but also the concept of how the west views the rest of the world, especially Asia. Edward Said (1979) said, in his classic critique of western world view, that Orientalism is still prevalent. Orientalism is basically how the west constructed, imposed, and entrenched their own understanding of the East (Asia, the Middle East). Without a counterpart in the East, this notion has long term effects on western thinking and policies (take the vietnam war or the pacific theatre of WW2 for example). China's newfound strenght may one day see the rise of a new understanding of the East, provided that they do not exclusive call themselves the East.
Tony
Well… Two can play the same game, right?
applesauce
well it makes sense doesnt it? the "west" has about as much population as china, why should 50% get to define what the norm is when the other 50% disagree?