US strategic China policy is based on the false assumption that the best way to ensure constructive US-China relations and the rise of a responsible China is through democracy promotion. The next administration must accept not only that democratic elections will not solve our problems with China, but also that China is not going to become a beacon of freedom anytime soon. Instead, a new two-tiered policy that pushes transparency and accountability as first-order goals instead of democracy is not only feasible in the short term, but it will also give the US more voice in China regardless of future political developments.
Transparency and accountability can reduce the mistrust, suspicion, and miscommunication that plagues US-China relations. Greater transparency will decrease uncertainty and miscalculation that could lead to conflict with the United States. Domestic transparency would entail a freer press, providing more balanced viewpoints to nationalistic youth about China’s position in international affairs. Increased accountability of the Party to the people would open up China’s foreign policies to domestic scrutiny and improve the quality of life for the average Chinese person by reducing corruption. Transparency and accountability, though often fruits of multiparty democracy, can exist without it. Furthermore, there are many democracies that lack these two qualities, which are especially critical for the peaceful rise of a new world power.
Democracy promotion, on the other hand, has proven ineffective in facilitating the kind of liberalization necessary for a responsible stakeholder. Instead, it serves to make an already paranoid leadership even more insecure about its rule, which is the source of much of China’s irresponsible behavior. China’s adherence to the principles of sovereignty above all else, which drives its policy toward unsavory regimes like Sudan, Iran, Burma and North Korea, is one example. Instead, showing the Chinese that it is in their national interest to implement measures that promote accountability and transparency could succeed in inspiring responsible Chinese policies where democracy promotion has failed.
Luckily, the Chinese government has provided the perfect opportunity to launch this new initiative. The anti-graft chief of China, He Guoqiang, recently called for more international cooperation in fighting corruption. This is an opportunity for the United States to convince the Chinese that harsher punishment and propaganda sessions will not achieve their goal of “building of a service-oriented, responsible, law-abiding and clean government.” Making the internal mechanisms of the government more transparent to the world and adopting measures to instill accountability into their one-party system, however, would do much to dissipate fears about the implications of China’s rise.
The conventional wisdom that once the people have economic freedom, they will clamor for political freedom has not proven true in China. A recent Gallup poll confirms that though individual level of discontent exists in China, this has not resulted in general dissatisfaction with the Communist party. The Chinese were ranked number one in the world for satisfaction with the direction of the country and optimism about the economy, both exhibiting over a 30-percentage point increase since 2002.
It is time for the United States to stop using this lack of democratic progress in China as an excuse for why US policy is not successful in areas critical to the bilateral relationship. Though Chinese democratization would be a positive development, it is not a silver bullet. How would democracy make China’s foreign policy less driven by the need for natural resources for a growing economy? How would it convince the Chinese that territorial issues such as Taiwan, which has strategic, economic and emotional significance, are no longer important?
There are no short cuts to dealing with a rising power or maintaining US global influence in the face of competition. US foreign policy involving active global engagement and behavior worthy of emulation is the best China policy. Promoting transparency and accountability in China is but the first step in protecting US interests in the face of China’s rise.
Oriana Skylar Mastro is a second-year graduate student in the Politics PhD program at Princeton University. She is also a co-editor with Michael D. Swaine, Evan S. Medeiros and Andrew N.D. Yang of Assessing the Threat: The Chinese Military and Taiwan’s Security (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007).
The content is exclusively the personal opinion of the author. Under no circumstances should the content be attributed to CSIS, Next America, or the author's employer, unless explicitly stated.
China's long-term interests
China's long-term interests are otherwise. In most respects it is more repressive than Russia and equally mistrusting of US-led efforts to spread democracy. It is more self-confident about its (non-democratic) values. For all Mr Putin's bluster, Russia is destined to remain a regional player. China has already emerged as a global power, with influence and interests on every continent. In the timeless manner of the bully, the Kremlin walks with a swagger. Beijing prefers to tread lightly on the world stage.
The big difference, though, lies in the nature of China's economic rise. Russia sells energy. China's prosperity depends both on vast imports of raw materials and on open markets in which to sell manufactures. Even if it can source oil and other commodities from pariah states such as Sudan, it depends on a stable international order to turn imports into exports.
And i certainly would like to say this is really a good read for me. I like your blog because of its interesting topics you post. i'm student and these days i am preparing for my exam of 70-444 exam for attaining the certification. Although it is not hard to get certified but it keeps me busy. I've also attained certification of another course of 70-648 exam which I had passed last three months back. Also I am trying to complete my pending thesis project of 1z0-042 exam which I'm sure will be completed soon. I normally search on topics which you described on your blog these are great and really informative. Thanks for posting this informative.
Need for Actionable Policy
So far, the debate has raised several points of concern for China but we have not made explicit America’s interest in the region. While promotion of human rights and democracy are core American values, seeing them realized in China is of secondary interest for the United States. Rather, America ought to be primarily concerned with maintaining a productive economic relationship with China and preventing China from hampering American diplomatic efforts in places like the Middle East and Africa.
Of the proposed options, Hsiao advocated promotion of democracy. However, this policy threatens to compromise vital American interests in the region in order to realize objectives of secondary importance. The immense instability that would potentially be caused by a democratic revolution could be detrimental to China’s and America’s economic symbiosis. Also, we agree with Slack that a democratic China may be unfavorably hostile towards the US. Mastro’s option of advocating transparency and better governance is better aligned with US interests in the region. If successful, a more transparent and accountable government in Beijing may strengthen the Chinese-American economic relationship and allow for great economic ties.
Regardless of which policy is superior, there is serious question as to how effective each policy can be pursued. Realistically, the US has insignificant influence upon internal Chinese politics. Few foreign policy tools exist for which the US can successfully steer China towards transparency or democracy. Excessive interference with Chinese politics will be considered presumptuous by the Chinese and will be resisted.
The Dartmouth group alluded to this idea, but a policy option that is executable by the US is to enhance Chinese engagement with international organizations such as the UN, G8, or the WTO. This idea was also put forth by John J. Ikemberry in his article “The Rise of China and the Future of the West” published in Foreign Affairs. He argued that increasing China’s inclusion into the current Western-created world order will encourage responsible growth and eventual democratization and the transparency that goes with it.
The Rise of China and the U.S.
Changes in government – whether by revolution or by peaceful transition – tend to come about due to the dissatisfaction of a country’s citizens. The great revolutions in history such as the
of what we can accomplish with regards to China, a part that is certainly moral and worthwhile, but is nowhere near close to a comprehensive foreign policy. For the time being, we decided, the United States has to deal with China as it is.
Right now China and America are locked into so many trade agreements and so much economic interdependence that any direct conflict between the two would cripple both. China owns a great deal of our debt and therefore has control over our currency.
At the same time, America is the base of many of the multinational corporations that have fueled China’s rise, is China’s second-largest trading partner, and is a close ally of its largest trading partner, the European Union.
Furthermore, China’s military, while substantial, does not have any real capabilities beyond defending its own borders. Barring a conflict over Taiwan- a thorny topic we didn’t touch on because it would change the rules of the game so thoroughly – China and the United States will not go to war. Period.
However, China is a rising power and the United States is the world’s only current superpower. Historically, this type of situation has led to conflict. In the modern world, conflict has taken a much more indirect form, through China’s support of enemies of the United States such as Iran, Venezuala, and Sudan. Indeed, there’s been a pattern where, when the United States severs ties with “rogue regimes”, China steps in to fill the void. Again, this is not military action and it probably is not a sign of Chinese aggression, but it is an example of China undermining our influence while trying to expand its own.
Our discussion group came up with several steps the United States could take to counter these problems. On the human rights front, we decided that, because the United States could not pressure China strongly enough without serious consequences, international institutions are the best way to pressure China to reform. Institutions such as the UN, NATO, and the hundreds of smaller NGOs can have a powerful normative influence, and can exert pressure in a way that’s not directly coercive. While these institutions are far from perfect, we felt that if we can get them to work, we could exert a positive influence in China’s internal politics.
Secondly, a major issue for the United States has been the migration of jobs and capital to China. This is a difficult problem to address, but the solutions are as banal as they are difficult to implement. These include solutions like increased education for American workers so they don’t have to compete for low-income jobs; and increased pressure on multi-national corporations to actually address and insist on proper sweatshop working conditions instead of turning a blind eye.
A final point we discussed is that the status quo probably is not tenable. As mentioned earlier, the United States can have little real influence on the Chinese government as long as its economy is growing at 8% per year, but that can’t last forever. There are serious problems “in the pipeline” that will overflow, if not contained by the cement pipe of economic growth. These include environmental damage, the ratio of males to females, and the simmering resentment of the government in conquered provinces such as Tibet. If these problems boil to the surface, the picture we have of China now will be completely changed. We don’t know what will happen in the coming decades, but we must recognize that anything is possible.
- Next America: Campus Initiative
Dartmouth Chapter*
*This is a collective profile of Dartmouth students, who come together to discuss, debate, and engage each other on the issues posted on Next America. Each posted comment is an entry that results from one of our meetings. While it is impossible to represent the unique views of every participant in each comment, we strive to capture the general thoughts of consensus (as well as the significant dissenting opinions) on each topic of discussion.
U.S. Help for the Chinese Solution
Mastro was right to highlight transparency and accountability rather than democracy as issues the United States could work together on with China. China and the Chinese citizens are already well aware that there needs to be a positive increase in both categories from local and provincial leaders to the citizens they govern. The government seeks to address these issues by introducing and enforcing various programs, such as the anti-corruption program. The citizens of China seek to increase accountability and transparency by demanding action from the central government, in other words the enforcement of Chinese law, when local officials overstep their legal bounds. For most Chinese it is through the promotion of the rule of law rather than democracy that will allow an increase in accountability and transparency. Any call from the American government to increase the amount of democracy in China will be seen by China as interference from a arrogant and over assuming super power at best, and at worst an attempt by America to ensure instability in China.
America is better off leaving Chinese domestic politics in Chinese hands and offering assistance with domestically inspired Chinese programs, such as their anti-corruption program, on the terms China is willing to accept. In offering this cooperation America must be willing to accept that the Chinese will turn the offer down, or will offer only small areas of cooperation such as legal training for law professionals in China. In offering help on Chinese terms, and the willingness to take no for an answer without public criticism of China for turning down the offer of help, Americans are seen as helpful, respectful, and trusting of the Chinese people and their choices. America will also be engaging China on terms that does not inspire the image of an America who wants to dominate and bully China, but rather that of a partner and helpful friend.
Democracy and China: Tread Lightly
While it is natural to want the people of China to experience the freedoms that citizens of democratic states take for granted, no one really knows what the Chinese would do with that freedom once they had it.
Consider, if the Communist party woke up tomorrow and said "we're tired of ruling China, let the people vote"; what would the people do? Would they all line up very neatly at the polls, choosing potential leaders, voting for the candidate, and politely accepting the outcome? Probably not. The vacuum of leadership can just as easly devolve into chaos as it can blossom into a prosperous, free thinking democracy.
Unfortunately democratic ideals are not something you are born with, they are something you learn to want, either because you have been privelaged with them your whole life, or because you have been deprived of them and you begin to see what you are missing.
The opening of the media in China is the first step to increase exposure and understanding of democratic ideals. Ironically, its almost a Marxist concept in that the people first have to realize their oppression before they can want to rise against it. And who says they want to? Of course there are millions of Chinese who have been silenced, tortured, forcibly removed from their homes, but are they the majority? Do the Chinese people really want a more democratic China or are they happy with the status quo?
Democracy promotion in China: not the smartest agenda
After 25 years of economic growth, hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants have been lifted out of poverty. Many developing countries are watching the economic success of China and are arguably finding the "Beijing Consensus" of authoritarian government and market economy increasingly more appealing. A steadfast adherence to a policy of democracy promotion in China is unlikely to win the United States international support.
Mastro is correct. China is unlikely to become a democracy, in the western sense, any time soon. Our best strategy is to promote the adoption of more democratic characteristics/values in China, such as transparency and accountability, and hope that China gradually becomes more democratic.
Chinese Nationalism + Democracy = ?
This debate begs the question: Do Americans want to promote democracy because it’s in the nature of the United States to attempt to spread freedom and political voice to people around the world, or because we believe that a democratic China would be friendlier to U.S. interests? While we have often found these two to coincide, that might not be the case in China. Hopefully, Oriana Mastro is correct that greater transparency and press freedom in China could have a moderating influence on Chinese viewpoints and Chinese foreign policy; but no one really knows what a combination of democratization and rising Chinese nationalism could actually look like, and it’s perhaps just as likely that this combination could be a destabilizing influence in the region.
In terms of improving the political lot of everyday Chinese in the short term, the approach that Mastro suggests seems like the right idea: Focusing on realistic, tangible reforms. Over the past few years, Chinese leaders have actually done a remarkable amount of listening to what Americans have had to say. But there may be only a window of time during which this is the case – during which China is likely to continue its strong interest in a smooth relationship with the United States – and we should make efficient use of it rather than rely solely on high-minded rhetoric about freedom that the CCP immediately identifies as anathema to its survival.
Separately, Russell Hsiao references a common refrain these days that China’s political system threatens to serve as a model to be revered and imitated in other developing countries. My assumption, though, is that autocratic leaders elsewhere aren’t looking for reassurance that their systems of governance is just and appropriate, and people governed under such systems are extremely unlikely to begin wishing that they had their own CCP at home.
Join the Discussion