By Araya Kebede Araya*
Judging China’s growth by its norm: an emerging threat or a rising peace?[1]
China’s growth since its open door policy has provided a controversial issue: an emerging threat or a rising peace. The former is based on conventional wisdom which has witnessed unavoidable wars among great powers, whereas the latter offers a fresh alternative on the basis of regional norms and culture. From the viewpoint of normative approach, the two different frameworks actually replicate and predict international relations in terms of the significant role of norms in the field of international politics. How about in the robust Chinese progress case?
This essay takes a perspective and explains what makes norms revive across different time periods, different regions and political systems. Do we have a revived norm in contemporary China? If any, what made its revival and what does this revived norm say about the current activities and behaviours of the P. R. China?
The simple and direct answer for the issue what makes norms/ideas revive across different time periods and political systems is – norms happen to better explain the contemporary international system; and countries and regions found them working well compared to or as a complementary to the other traditional (like Realist) explanations. Actors are always in search of justifications for their deeds. On this score, as the United States chew the norms of Human Rights and Democracy; China on the other end, time and again, mentions Confucianism and its related conceptual ideas to justify its relations with the external world.
Despite the fact that historical trend and conventional wisdom are in favour of arguing China’s growth as a threat; we will see below that it is not an emerging threat but rather a rising peace.
International relations analysts who support the former view argue that big powers in history are all able to export their culture-philosophical ideas. The Roman Empire was powerful because of attraction to its religious philosophy; France had its heyday because of its “Human Rights Declaration” that preached freedom, equality and love; Grate Britain became an empire in which the sun never set because of the spread of the European civilization packaged in the English language in the world; the supremacy of the United States is to be achieved by the democratic system and the values of liberty and democracy. For all these big powers in history and now, argues Liu Binjie (P. 48), their philosophical thinking is more powerful than their almighty military organizations, and it was and is such philosophical thinking that has put them in a leading position in international affairs. China, concludes the aforementioned author, does not possess such philosophical thinking, so the cries about “China threat” are far-fetched and fictional. The Chinese culture of ‘harmony and conformity’ is at the core of Chinese traditional philosophy, from which later culture emerged.
Ideological concepts and diplomatic language aim for the same thing and they are deeply rooted in the Chinese mentality. When Chinese philosophy came into being, it focused on coming into the world, heaven and earth, human and harmony. There are natural differences between the continental culture of the East and Oceanic cultures of the West. While China aims primarily for a peaceful life and harmonious relationships, the West attempts to conquer the world and seek for overseas expansion. China has never had the culture of seeking hegemonism, to say nothing of causing hardship and sufferings to other countries and people. This has been so for thousands of years.
As far back as 3000 years ago, the Book of Changes, one most important classical of the Chinese nation, appeared and embodied in it the thinking that all things under heaven were in great harmony and the changes between Yin and Yang all had their own way. The word ‘harmony’ derives home the point - it means achieving smoothens despite difference and disparity.
Back to the question, some norms did not have the chance to be tested if they can serve best in explaining countries’ international relations. Other norms revive as a result of trial and error meaning that they happened to be better when compared to other norms or/and tools to explain the international arena better. In these instances; as it could be that norms guide the world only as a subsidiary part of material and power, Constructivists strongly argue that norms per se can explain contemporary international relations equally if not better.
We will continue to have a look on a book by Liu Binjie entitled China’s Philosophy on Foreign Affairs in the 21st Century: China in Peaceful Development (2006) on this very score. First my general understanding!
If we take the case of East Asia, we see the strong Confucian norm strongly reviving over other values dictated mainly by its alleged motherland - China. Generally put, Confucianism as a core value of Chinese Foreign Policy used to be employed by Chinese authorities up until the Qing Dynasty. However; with the formation of PRC, Confucianism along with other ‘olds’ - old custom, old culture, old ideas and old habits – was endangered let alone to serve as a basis of China’s Foreign Policy relations. Since the Cultural Revolution up to the onset of the opening up policy, Confucianism and related norms were highly denounced. It is only with the radical shift of policy that the thinking of Confucianism, of revised version, I guess, demonstrates revival.
In this connection, Liu Binjie tried to locate the ideological source of China’s Philosophy on Foreign Affairs. As a central theme, he pointed out that China would be in Peaceful Development. He quoted Margaret H. Thatcher (P.48), former Prime Minister of the UK. She wrote that China would not become a superpower threatening others because it does not have power to expand and to weaken the strength of Western countries, and what China can export is TV instead of ideology!
Some quote history to Justify Chinese peace-liking behaviour. Confucius was an educator, thinker as well as a great philosopher. His thoughts are the basis of Chinese cultural tradition and still have an influence today. In Confucian philosophy, four words have special resonant. The first is ‘Yi’ - righteousness. It means that every person should follow certain moral norms in doing things, i.e., he should bear in mind his social responsibility and obligation. The second is ‘ren’ – benevolence or humanity. It means that man should have a heart full of love for others. The third is ‘Shu’ – forbearance. It stresses that one should treat others in the same way that you hope to be treated. The fourth is ‘he’ – harmony. In handling international relations as well as wars and disputes, it is essential to keep in mind the principle that ‘harmony is what matters’ harmony makes a nation prosper and unity benefits both sides. These Confucian thoughts have become the moral precepts of the Chinese nation as well as codes of conduct for later generation.
In sum, we can say that there are several motives for norms to revive like interest. But the argument norms revive for the sake of fulfillment of interests is the very realist thinking. However, as it can be seen in the pervasive Confucianism, countries can use their norms to justify their deeds in the international arena like regions or truly international one.
Araya Kebede Araya, LL B., MA, LL. M (PROLAW)
Lecturer in Law, Mekelle University, College of Law and Governance
Ethiopia, Mekelle - Adi Haqi Campus
Cell phone: +39 3896872473 (Rome, Italy), +251 923 771883 (Ethiopia)
E-mail: araya57k@gmail.com, aaraya@luc.edu
======
[1] The question for this essay is framed by my instructor and thesis Advisor Dr. Myungsik Ham, Jilin University – Institute of International Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment