that Chinese leaders are most concerned with keeping the U.S. from upsetting their country’s internal order under the Communist Party leadership. The U.S., however, sees the relationship mainly in terms of the challenge that China poses to the international order, which the U.S. has been leading. This contradiction between the “two orders” or “two supremacies” lies at the heart of the fraught relationship between the two nations (Wang, 2015). It’s essential that the two countries respect each other’s key concerns and avoid actions that will trigger strong reactions. New perspectives such as Wang’s are very helpful to understand Chinese foreign policy and U.S.–China relations.
More than 40 years after China rebuilt its social sciences at the conclusion of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese scholars in international relations are sophisticated enough to propose unique Chinese perspectives on international relations. The study of Chinese foreign policy must and can be raised to a higher level, with a more vigorous theoretical development. As Chinese society becomes more diverse, new actors will be shaping Chinese politics and foreign policy. China will continue to adapt to rapidly changing international and domestic environments. The real challenge is creating a parsimonious model to account for an ever-evolving policy.
One basic tenet of Chinese foreign policy remains unchanged as China continues to commit to the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” and insists on a narrative of “peaceful rise,” no matter how the West and China’s neighbors feel about its ascendancy. Amid concerns about growing Chinese power, the Chinese government has painstakingly reiterated that China is still a large developing country, and China’s development benefits the rest of the world. Since China’s “Reform and Opening up” started in the late 1970s, the twin themes of peace and development have guided Chinese domestic and foreign policies. In Deng Xiaoping’s words: Development is the absolute principle (发展才是硬道理). Western experiences have yielded the so-called liberal or democratic peace model. The Chinese do not necessarily reject the Western model, but are becoming increasingly confident that China’s “developmental peace” or “development for stability” model is a viable alternative for developing countries.
It is important for China to have a clear sense of self-identity: Is China a large developing nation or already a global superpower? Is China punching above its weight by ditching “Tao Guang Yang Hui” too early? Is China suffering from imperial overstretch? Through various initiatives and programs, China is attempting to create a new identity as a peaceful, inclusive, caring and responsible great power whose development contributes to the international community as a whole. How can China successfully form, consolidate and project such an identity? Will it be accepted by the international community? In this regard, some modified version of social constructivism could help us understand the changes and continuities in Chinese foreign policy.16 Eventually, perhaps some fusion of Western and Chinese philosophies may emerge as a distinct Chinese theory of international relations. China’s domestic transformations and its evolving foreign policy are already shaping the global landscape of the 21st century. For this reason alone, extra efforts are needed to study China’s foreign policy — its rationale, implementation, contradictions, major challenges, and significant impact on the world.
References
Bell, A. Daniel, “China Might As Well Boldly Promote Its Political Values” (Zhongguo Bufang Dadan Tuiguang Zhengzhi Jiazhi), Global Times, November 17, 2010.
Chan, Steve, China, the US and the Power-Transition Theory: A Critique (Routledge, 2007), Abingdon, UK.
Feng, Huiyun, Kai He and Yan Xuetong (eds.), Chinese Scholars and Foreign Policy: Debating International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2019).
Guo, Shuyong (ed.), Guoji Guanxi Huyu Zhongguo Lilun (International Relations Calls for a Chinese Theory) (Tianjin: Tianjin Renmin Chubanshe, 2005).
Hao, Yufan and Lin Su, China’s Foreign Policy Making: Societal Force and Chinese American Policy (Ashgate, 2006).
Hickey, Dennis and Kwei-Bo Huang, “Taiwan Should Return to the 1992 Consensus,” PacNet #78, Pacific Forum, November 27, 2018. https://www.pacforum.org/analysis/pacnet-78-taiwan-should-return-1992-consensus.
Huang, Cary, “Rising Giant Stretches Its Arms across the World,” The South China Morning Post, November 12, 2018, pp. A4–A5.
Jakobson, Linda and Dean Knox, “New Foreign Policy Actors in China,” SIPRI Policy Paper 26, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, September 2010.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Reuben Wong, “Social Constructivist Perspectives on China–EU Relations” in Jianwei Wang and Weiqing Song (eds.), China, the European Union, and the International Politics of Global Governance (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 51–74.
Lemon, Jason, “U.S. or China? Asian Nations May Soon Be Forced to Choose, Singapore PM Warns,” Newsweek, November 15, 2018.
Noesselt, Nele, 2015. “Revisiting the Debate on Constructing a Theory of International Relations with Chinese Characteristics.” The China Quarterly, Vol. 222, pp. 430–448.
Organski, A.F.K. World Politics, 2nd edition (Alfred A. Knopf, 1968), New York.
Pan, P. Philip, “The Land That Failed to Fail,” The New York Times, November 18, 2018.
Qin, Yaqing, 2005. “Core Problems of International Relations Theory and the Construction of a Chinese School” (Guoji Guanxi Lilun de Hexin Wenti yu Zhongguo Xuepai de Shengcheng). Social Sciences in China (Zhongguo Shehui Kexue), Vol. 3, pp. 165–176.
Qin, Yaqing, 2007. “Why Is There No International Relations Theory in China?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 313–340.
Ren, Xiao, 2000. “Lilun yu guoji guanxi lilun: yixie sikao” (Some Thoughts on Theory and IR Theory), Ouzhou Yanjiu (Chinese Journal of European Studies), Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 19–25.
Shambaugh, David, “China Under Xi Jinping,” East Asia Forum, November 19, 2018.
Uemura, Takeshi, 2015. “Understanding Chinese Foreign Relations: A Cultural Constructivist Approach.” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 345–365.
Wang, Jisi “The ‘Two Orders’ and the Future of China–U.S. Relations,” ChinaFile, Center on U.S.–China Relations, Asia Society, July 9, 2015.
Yeh, Hui-chi, “Norms and Their Implications for the Making of China’s Foreign Aid Policy since 1949,” PhD dissertation, April 2010, University of Sheffield.
Yu, Xiaofeng, 2014. “Gongxiang Anquan: feichuantong anquan yanjiu de zhongguo shijiao” (Shared Security: Chinese Perspectives on Nontraditional Security Studies), Guoji Anquan Yanjiu (International Security Studies), No. 1, pp. 4–34.
Zhao, Tingyang, Tianxia tixi: shijie zhidu zhexue daolun (The Tianxia System: An Introduction to the Philosophy of a World Institution) (Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Press, 2005).
Zhu, Zhiqun, US–China Relations in the 21st Century: Power Transition and Peace (Routledge, 2006), Abingdon, UK.
Zhu, Zhiqun, China’s New Diplomacy: Rationale, Strategies, and Significance (Ashgate, 2010).
Zhu,
