Abstract
The notion of an ‘assertive’ China has been widely discussed, yet there is no consensus about what comprises the assertive behaviour of China and why China (allegedly) started to behave assertively. Some claim that the idea of China’s assertiveness was exaggerated, although most agree that China has become more assertive in the disputed maritime regions. In terms of explanations, most of the accents have been put on the changing distribution of power, domestic factors in China, and external factors. All the previous work and relevant findings notwithstanding, there are important missing links in our understanding of the Chinese assertiveness which invite further research.
This book is going to scrutinize the events of China’s alleged assertiveness and test three hypotheses of what is believed to be behind the Chinese assertiveness from the perspective of Chinese foreign policy. The thesis of the changing distribution of power in the region can be seen as the most often presented explanation of the Chinese assertive behaviour, and hence most of the emphasis throughout the book will be put on this theory. A comprehensive analysis of China’s power will be conducted on various levels, and the findings will be linked to the power sources used during the assertive events. Subsequently, after showing that the main hypothesis cannot explain the Chinese assertiveness by itself, the validity of alternative hypotheses dealing with the domestic politics and the influence of the external environment will be tested. It will be argued eventually that China’s growing power was a necessary, but not a satisfactory explanatory variable of the assertive events. In almost all instances of its assertive behaviour, China reacted to new actions of other actors. The book therefore subscribes to the claim that the Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea could be described as a ‘reactive assertiveness’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The exception is to some extent (Hagström 2012). However, while the text does a great job in discussing the narrative and the outcomes, the author omits the issue of China’s power. Also, a superb theoretical and conceptual analysis of the power shift discourse is offered by Hagström and Jerdén (2014). The article, however, does not link the discussion to the conduct of Chinese foreign policy, but to the issues of regional politics.
- 2.
- 3.
It should be clarified that the South China Sea as an example of Chinese assertiveness appeared in Johnston’s article in connection with it being China’s alleged core interest, which Johnston found to be inaccurate. Johnston, however, added his opinion that the Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea constituted a valid example of China’s new assertiveness, but without rigorously testing the case.
- 4.
It is not entirely clear when the change in the Chinese behaviour started according to Yan. He admits that many foreign analysts started to pay attention to the Chinese assertive behaviour in 2010, and Chinese analysts started to discuss a possible shift in China’s strategy at this time as well.
- 5.
Sovereignty over the islands, which are called ‘Senkaku’ in Japan and ‘Diaoyu’ in China, is disputed between the two countries (Taiwan also lays its own claim on them). In English the archipelago is sometimes called the Pinnacle Islands, which is a direct translation of the Japanese name. In this book I will refer to the islands as ‘Diaoyu/Senkaku’ in alphabetical order for the sake of keeping a neutral stance.
- 6.
It should be, however, noted that the term ‘assertiveness’ itself is seen as having negative connotation in China, and many Chinese scholars oppose it principally.
- 7.
To put it simply, the Chinese political system consists of three separate but overlapping structures—the Party, the State Council, and the military. The terms ‘the government’, ‘the state’, and ‘the Party’ will be used as close equivalents of each other throughout the text, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
- 8.
For a discussion about description and its importance within scientific research, see King et al. (1994, pp. 34–49).
- 9.
The problem of objectively defining ‘assertiveness’ is apparent in works of other authors as well. Even the most pertinent attempts did not solve the issue entirely; see Johnston (2013), Swaine and Fravel (2011) and Jerdén (2014, pp. 50–53). All of the presented definitions contain categories which depend on a subjective judgement of a certain ‘scope’.
- 10.
- 11.
A discussion about Chinese strategic intentions and goals in the South China Sea is offered in Turcsányi (2016).
- 12.
The situation of the parallel co-existence of a larger number of research traditions in international relations is explained by Laudan (1977). But on the contrary, the scientific theories of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos expect that there should be only one prevailing theoretical tradition within a discipline at a time; see Kuhn (1962), Lakatos (1970) and Popper (2002).
- 13.
- 14.
Compare with Breuning (2007, pp. 9–13).
- 15.
It should be clarified how the ‘regional/subregional’ labels will be used throughout the research. A ‘region’ as such is a theoretical concept and cannot be ‘discovered’ in the real world. Whatever the definition of a region is, it would never be purely objective. Northeast Asia will be understood in this book as comprising Greater China, Japan, and the Korean Peninsula. By the term Southeast Asia will be meant the ten member countries of the ASEAN. East Asia comprises both Southeast and Northeast Asia. The Indo-Pacific region comprises East Asia, Australia and Oceania, the Pacific coast of the Americas, and South Asia. The Asia-Pacific is the Indo-Pacific region minus South Asia. For more on defining regions in international relations and security studies, see Hettne (2005) and Buzan and Waever (2003).
References
Baldwin, D. A. (1979). Power analysis and world politics: New trends versus old tendencies. World Politics, 31(2), 161–194.
Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), 5–26.
Baldwin, D. A. (2013). Power and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 273–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blumenthal, D. (2010, October 21). What happened to China’s “peaceful rise”? Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/21/what-happened-to-chinas-peaceful-rise/
Breuning, M. (1995). Words and deeds: Foreign assistance rhetoric and policy behavior in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. International Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 235–254.
Breuning, M. (2007). Foreign policy analysis. A comparative introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and powers. The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chan, S. (2008). China, the U.S., and the power-transition theory: A critique. New York: Routledge.
Chen, D., & Pu, X. (2013, Winter). Debating China’s assertiveness. International Security, 38(3), 176–183.
Chen, D., & Wang, J. (2011). Lying low no more. China’s new thinking on the Tao Guang Yang Hui strategy. China: An International Journal, 9(2), 195–216.
Christensen, T. J. (2011). The advantages of an assertive China: Responding to Beijing’s abrasive diplomacy. Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 54–67.
Christensen, T. (2015a, September/October). Obama and Asia. Confronting the China challenge. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/obama-and-asia
Christensen, T. (2015b). The China challenge. Shaping the choices of a rising power. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Devine, F. (2002). Qualitative methods. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method. London: Verso.
Friedberg, A. L. (1993). Ripe for rivalry: Prospects for peace in a multipolar Asia. International Security, 18(3), 5–33.
Friedberg, A. L. (2015, Winter). The sources of Chinese conduct: Explaining Beijing’s assertiveness. The Washington Quarterly, 37, 133–150.
Gallie, W. B. (1955–1956). Essentially contested concepts. New Series, 56, 167–198.
Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research. Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerring, J. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231–253.
Hagström, L. (2012). “Power shift” in East Asia? A critical reappraisal of narratives on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands incident in 2010. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5(3), 267–297.
Hagström, L., & Jerdén, B. (2014). East Asia’s power shift: The flaws and hazards of the debate and how to avoid them. Asian Perspective, 38, 337–362.
He, K., & Feng, H. (2012). Debating China’s assertiveness: Taking China’s power and interests seriously. International Politics, 49, 633–644.
Hettne, B. (2005). Beyond the new regionalism. New Political Economy, 10(4), 543–571.
Hirshmann, A. (1970). The search for paradigms practical, or what are the consequences of pragmatism? Constellations, 6(4), 561–587.
Jerdén, B. (2014). The assertive China narrative: Why it is wrong and how so many still bought into it. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7(1), 47–88.
Johnston, A. I. (2013, Spring). How new and assertive is China’s new assertiveness? International Security, 37(4), 7–48.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research (pp. 34–49). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kleine-Ahlbrandt, S. (2013, March 8). China: New leaders, same assertive foreign policy. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/08/opinion/china-foreign-policy-kleine-ahlbrandt/
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Luttwak, E. N. (2012). The rise of China vs. the logic of strategy. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010). The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(4), 381–396.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton.
Neack, L. (2008). The new foreign policy. Power seeking in a globalized era. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Nien-chung, C. L. (2016). The sources of China’s assertiveness: The system, domestic politics or leadership preferences? International Affairs, 92(4), 817–833.
Oakeshott, M. (1991). Rationalism in politics and other essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Organski, A. F. K. (1968). World politics. New York: Knopf.
Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
Qin, Y. (2014). Continuity through change: Background knowledge and China’s international strategy. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 285–314.
Rosenau, J. (1966). Pre-theories and theories of foreign policy. In R. B. Farrell (Ed.), Approaches in comparative and international politics (pp. 27–92). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Scobell, A., & Harold, S. W. (2013). An assertive China? Insights from interviews. Asian Security, 9(2), 111–131.
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010a). Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411–431.
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010b). Beyond paradigms: Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Snyder, R., Bruck, H., & Sapin, B. (2012). Decision making as an approach to the study of international politics. Whitefish: Literary Licensing.
Sprout, M., & Sprout, H. (1956). Man-milieu relationship hypotheses in the context of international politics. Princeton: Center of International Studies.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: SAGE.
Swaine, M. D. (2010). Perceptions of an assertive China. China Leadership Monitor, 32. Hoover Institute. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CLM32MS.pdf
Swaine, M. D. (2011a). China’s assertive behavior. Part one: On “core interests”. China Leadership Monitor, 34. Hoover Institute. http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/CLM34MS.pdf
Swaine, M. D. (2011b). China’s assertive behavior. Part three: The role of the military in foreign policy. China Leadership Monitor, 36. Hoover Institute. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CLM36MS.pdf
Swaine, M. D. (2011c). China’s assertive behavior. Part four: The role of the military in foreign crises. China Leadership Monitor, 37. Hoover Institute. http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/CLM37MS.pdf
Swaine, M. D., & Fravel, T. M. (2011). China’s assertive behavior. Part two: The maritime periphery. China Leadership Monitor, 35. Hoover Institute. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CLM35MS.pdf
Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert political judgement: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thayer, B. A. (2005). Confronting China: An evaluation of options for the United States. Comparative Strategy, 24(1), 71–98.
Turcsányi, R. Q. (2016). Contradiction of strategic goals as a major constrain of Chinese power in the South China Sea. In E. Fels & V. Truong (Eds.), Power politics in Asia’s contested waters. Territorial disputes in the South China sea and a rising China. New York: Springer.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Yahuda, M. (2013). China’s new assertiveness in the South China Sea. Journal of Contemporary China, 22(81), 446–459.
Yan, X. (2014). From keeping low profile to striving for achievements. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7(2), 153–184.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Turcsányi, R.Q. (2018). The Puzzle of Chinese Assertiveness. In: Chinese Assertiveness in the South China Sea. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67648-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67648-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67647-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67648-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)