Abstract
As noted in Volume 1, Chapter 1, since 1950, the People’s Republic of China has given foreign assistance to a significant number of countries throughout the world. By most accounts China has been very generous—giving aid at considerable cost and sacrifice. More important to the analysis here, its foreign assistance has been, and is, a much more important instrument of China’s diplomacy than it is for most aid-giving countries. Explaining this is not easy; it requires assessing both China’s history and its leaders’ worldviews.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Confucius thought of Heaven not as an “arbitrary governing tyrant, but the embodiment of a system of legality (wherein) … the Ruler shall act by setting an example, like Heaven.” See Wolfram Eberhard, A History of China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), p. 42.
Derk Boode, Essays on Chinese Civilization (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 107.
Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: W. W. Norton, 1990), p. 85. Spence calls this “moral indoctrination.”
See Charles O. Hacker, China’s Imperial Past An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1975), p. 55. Hacker calls the Mandate of Heaven the “cornerstone” of Chinese political theory.
In fact, one can argue that China has the longest tradition of successful autocracy of any nation in the world. See John King Fairbank and Merle Goldman, China: A New History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 1.
Lucien Pye, Asian Power and Politics: Cultural Dimensions of Authority (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 88. Pye notes that people who did not respond to their model rules were seen as being less than human.
See Chih-yu Shih and Zhiyu Shi, China’s Just World: The Morality of Chinese Foreign Policy (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003), p. 30. The authors state: “In fact, once China was united by Qin Shihuang, legalism proved to be an inadequate instrument of rule because it was virtually impossible for the emperor to amass enough force to control his huge territory. Confucianism was the natural rescue.”
In the ancient Middle East this idea is found in Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures, but both making this claim weakened it. China had no competitors. See Benjamin I. Schwartz, Communism in China: Ideology in Flux (New York: Atheneum, 1975), p. 230.
Samuel S. Kim, China, the United Nations, and the World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 20.
See Martin Jacques, When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New World Order (New York: Penguin, 2012), pp. 200–1. The author states: “Confucian ways of thinking, never extinguished, are being revived and scrutinized for any light that they might throw on the present, and for their ability to offer a moral compass.” Historian Wang Gungwu has suggested that writings on foreign relations of two thousand … years ago seem so compellingly alive today.”
See also Wang Gungwu, “Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia: A Background Essay,” in John King Fairbank (ed.), The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 61.
Jacques Gernet, A History of Chinese Civilization (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 635. Of course, both Western and Chinese scholars have argued that Chiang did not rule this way. Yet one can also argue that there is always a gap between theory and practice in governance and that Chiang ruled during a period of war.
Wang Gungwu, “The Chinese,” in Dick Wilson (ed.), Mao Tse-tung in the Scales of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 291. It is also interesting to note that Mao’s given name suggests he is to aspire to be an official in the Confucian tradition though Mao did not change it as some other Chinese leader did (Lin Biao for example). In addition, Mao’s Red Book was published in huge quantities for the masses to memorize and cite, just as Confucian texts were, and as Confucians was not often called by his name, but rather was referred to as “the sage” Mao was not called by his name either, but was appellated “the chairman.” Another writer notes that Mao’s “Little Red Book drew on the Confucian tradition.” Jacques, When China Rules the World, p. 198.
For details on this point, see Henry Kissinger, On China (New York: Penguin, 2011), chapters 4 through 10.
Ross Terrill, The New Chinese Empire and What It Means for the United States (New York: Basic Books, 2003), p. 134.
These were land reform, honest and efficient government, moderate taxation, minimum interference in the private lives of the people, and freedom from being despoiled by marauding armies. See John F. Malby, The Mandate of Heaven: Record of a Civil War, China 1945–49 (London: University of Toronto Press, 1968), p. 303.
Maurice Meisner, The Deng Xiaoping Era: An Inquiry into the Fate of Chinese Socialism, 1975–1994. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1996), chapter 4.
Also see Edward Friedman, National Identity and Democratic Prospects in Socialist China (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1995), pp. 285–86. Friedman notes
Bruce Gilley, Tiger on the Brink: Jiang Zemin and China’s New Elite (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), p. 72.
See Edward Friedman, “Jiang Zemin’s Successors and China’s Growing Rich-Poor Gap,” in Tun-jen Cheng, Jacques deLisle, and Deborah Brown (eds.), China under Hu Jintao: Opportunities, Dangers and Dilemmas (Singapore: World Scientific, 2006), p. 103.
Regarding the much-expanded input of intellectuals in the decision-making process, see Bergsten et al., China’s Rise: Challenges and Opportunities (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute, 2009), pp. 35–36. The financing of Confucian institutes will be mentioned in later pages.
Orville Schell and John Delury, Wealth and Power: China’s Long March to the Twenty-First Century (New York: Random House, 2013), p. 387.
William A. Callahan, China Dreams: 20 Visions of the Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 21 and p. 146.
See C. P. Fitzgerald, China Views Its Place in the World (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 7–10.
China’s level of economic development and its affluence will be discussed further in the next chapter. It should be noted here, however, that the Westerners that visited China in the 1500s were deeply impressed with China’s riches, though this was forgotten in later centuries and the image in the West was that China was poor. For a description of China when Matteo Ricci and others visited, see Robert Elegant, The Center of the World: Communism and the Mind of China (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968), chapter 3. Another writer notes that from the first century AD to the early nineteenth century, China’s economy made up between 22 and 33 percent of the global gross domestic product. See David Lampton, “Three Faces of China’s Power,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007, pp. 115–27.
See Harry G. Gelber, The Dragon and the Foreign Devils: China and the World, 1100 B.C. to the Present (New York: Walker and Company, 2007), p. 34. Gelber notes that often the tribute bearers would come to China with very small gifts and leave with gold and other treasures.
Also, see Warren I. Cohen, East Asia at the Center: Four Thousand Years of Engagement with the World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), p. 25.
Milton W. Meyer, China: A Concise History (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994), p. 243. The author also notes that for China it was a policy of “pacification through the exchange of gifts.”
Ross Terrill, The New Chinese Empire (New York: Basic Books, 2003), p. 63.
See Steven W. Mosher, Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2000), p. 3.
Mark Mancall, China at the Center: 300 Years of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press, 1984), p. 2. Of course, the term gong is used to translate the word tribute but the author would say that this does not adequately convey the broad and deep meaning of the concept.
Karl Polany, Conrad Arensberet, and Harry Pearson (eds.), Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economics in History and Theory (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1957), cited in Mancall. China at the Center, p. 16. This, of course, created difficulties for China in its relations with Asian neighbors.
See also Harold C. Hinton, “China as an Asian Power,” in Thomas W. Robinson and David Shambaugh (eds.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1994), pp. 352–53.
Fox Butterfield, China: Alone in the Bitter Sea (New York: Times Books, 1982), p. 56.
Andrew J. Nathan and Robert S. Ross, The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress: China’s Search for Security (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p. 22.
Dana R. Dillan, The China Challenge (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), p. 5.
For further details, see John F. Copper, Playing with Fire: The Looming War with China over Taiwan (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006), pp. 110–14.
See Steve Chan, Looking for Balance: China, the United States and Power Balancing in East Asia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012).
This is one of the main themes of Stefan Halper, The Beijing Consensus: How China’s Authoritarian Model will Dominate the Twenty-First Century (New York: Basic Books, 2010).
Benjamin I. Schwartz, Communism in China: Ideology in Flux (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), chapter 10.
For original writings that put forth these views, see Dan N. Jacobs and Hans H. Baerwald (eds.), Chinese Communism: Selected Documents (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963). Reading the most read of Mao’s and other Chinese Communist leaders works one gets the impression of a hostile and inflexible China. However, considering Mao’s writings on the united front, one might see China’s worldview and thus its foreign policy as more flexible.
It is worth noting here that Mao’s formulated these views in the 1930s in writings such as “Dialectical Materialism,” “On Practice,” and “On Contradictions.” His ideas were well developed and, one might say, not easy to change in the sense Mao might abandon communism and seek good relations with the United States. See Melvin Gurtov and Byong-Moo Hwang, China under Threat: The Politics of Strategy and Diplomacy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1980). p. 5.
Mao needed an enemy to justify his style of governing. The United States fit this role as it had supported Chiang Kai-shek and opposed Mao’s rule. Moreover, the United States was antiCommunist, in fact, increasingly so, and hostile to Mao’s regime. See Wang Shuzhong, “The Post-war International System,” in Harish Kapur (ed.), As China Sees the World: Perceptions of Chinese Scholars (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987), pp. 14–15. However, Mao’s perception of a bifurcated world was not so simplistic. In fact, many of the specifics of Mao’s worldview helped define the nature and the objectives of China’s foreign policy and its foreign aid, which are not too different from China’s historical view. Mao took up Lenin’s view that imperialism had shifted the focus of the worldwide struggle to the underdeveloped countries that were exploited by Western colonial countries. They were, in Lenin’s view, and Mao’s, the core of the revolution. Early on Mao spoke of forming an international united front against imperialism. He advocated and wrote of “peoples war,” self-reliance, the “paper tiger” theory (that the West was in some ways weak and vulnerable), and anti-imperialism (that the Western capitalist countries were exploiters and, in fact, had to maintain this kind of relationship with the Third World to survive).
For a discussion of these points, which appeared in China’s official documents later, see Winberg Chai, The Foreign Policy of the People’s Republic of China (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons 1972, p 30
No doubt, Mao was influenced also by nationalistic sentiment and sought to restore China’s place in the world. But he also viewed the world in Communist terms, as a struggle between socialism and capitalism. In fact, he melded the two views. See A. Doak Barnett, Communist China and Asia: A Challenge to American Policy (New York: Vintage Books, 1960), pp. 65–79.
There is, of course, considerable debate about whether Mao viewed the United States as China’s enemy or saw the world in such starkly black-and-white terms. But Mao clearly viewed his situation and the world outside through an ideological prism and in 1949 at least did not see that he had a choice in choosing sides. For details, see John Gittings, The World and China: 1922–1972 : The Men and Ideas That Shaped China’s Foreign Policy (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), chapters 7, 8, and 9. Chinese academics have explained that while Roosevelt hoped for cooperation with the Soviet Union based on the Yalta Agreement and through the United Nations following World War II, with Harry Truman’s accession to power, differences over Europe became acute and Truman adopted a policy of “rolling back” Soviet influence. This and American support of Chiang Kai-shek during the Chinese Civil War meant that when Mao came to power in 1949 there was no room for flexibility. Mao and Chinese leaders were also well aware that the pre—WWII global balance of power system, which had been run by Europe, was destroyed. For details, see Wang Suizhong, “The Post War International System,” in Harish Kapur (ed.), As China Sees the World, pp. 13–14.
See Dennis and Ching Ping Bloodsworth, The Chinese Machiavelli: 3000 Years of Chinese Statecraft (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1976), p. 8.
Yong Deng, China’s Struggle for Status: The Realignment of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 5.
For details on China’s change of mind regarding the Soviet Union early on, see Donald S. Zagoria, The Sino-Soviet Conflict, 1956–61 (New York: Athenuem, 1964).
For details on this theme, see Pobzeb Vang, Five Principles of Chinese Foreign Policy (Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2008), chapter 1. The other principles were mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and equality and mutual benefit. These tenets were later embedded into the document The Eight Principles on China’s Foreign Aid—guidelines China followed and is still following in giving assistance.
The French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term in 1952. It did not come into common usage until the Bandung Conference. See Deborah Brautigam, The Dragon’s Gifz: The Real Story of China in Africa (London: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 30.
Some writers suggest that what happened in the mid-1950s and Mao’s reference to an intermediate zone were not good evidence of a shift in China’s worldview since Beijing lacked the means and the drive to create a “revolutionary united front.” See J. D. Armstrong, Revolutionary Diplomacy: Chinese Foreign Policy and the United Front Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), pp. 70–73. It may be that Mao himself was not sure or was formulating theory from the advantage of retrospect several years later. One author suggests, “the Chinese like to let their theories grow slowly and naturally, like plants responding to the environment.”
See Franz Schurmann, The Logic of World Politics (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), p. 355.
Henry Kissinger, World Order (New York: Penguin, 2014), p. 225.
See Donald W. Treadgold, “Alternative Western Views of the Sino-Soviet Conflict,” in Herbert J. Ellison (ed.), The Sino-Soviet Conflict: A Global Perspective (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982), p. 328.
Alan Lawrance, China’s Foreign Relations since 1949 (London: Routledge, 1975), p. 151. The author cites articles in People’s Daily, January 21, 1964, and Peking Review, January 24, 1964. Mao perceived that the countries in the “second intermediate zone” were former world powers that were not bullied by the superpowers and did not like their status as second-ranking powers.
See Samuel S. Kim, “Mao Zedong and China’s Changing World View,” in James C. Hsiung and Samuel S. Kim (eds.), China in the Global Community (New York: Praeger 1980), p. 32. The author notes that Mao at this time said that he “had not reached an opinion” on what constituted the principal contradiction in the world, which is what his worldview had been based on up to that juncture.
Lin’s worldview was at odds with those of other members of the top leadership, but it was probably more a power struggle that resulted in his demise. See Suzanne Ogden, China’s Unresolved Issues: Politics, Development and Culture (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989), pp. 57–60.
See King Chen (ed.), China and the Three Worlds: A Foreign Policy Reader (White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1979) for details. According to the editor’s interpretation of Mao’s speeches, Third World leaders and scholars intended his main thesis about the three worlds for mass consumption. Also see “Third World Awakening and Growing Strong,” Peking Review, March 22, 1974.
See Robert G. Sutter, U.S.-Chinese Relations: Perilous Past, Pragmatic Present (Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield, 2010), chapter 4.
For details, see Frederick Teiwes and Warren Sun, The End of the Maoist Era: Chinese Politics during the Twilight of the Cultural Revolution, 1972–1976 (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2008), pp. 492–96.
Deng did not take Hua’s positions as head of the party or the government from Hua. But Deng’s agenda was approved by the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, indicating Deng was in control. Hua lost his positions later to Deng’s protégés. For details on how Deng wrested political power from Hua, see David Shambaugh, “Deng Xiaoping: The Politician,” in David Shambaugh (ed.), Deng Xiaoping: Portrait of a Chinese Statesman (London: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 74–81.
See Allen S. Whiting, “Foreign Policy of China,” in Roy C. Macridis (ed.), Foreign Policy in World Politics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985), p. 262.
See Ren Jiantao, “Ideology: Its Role in Reform and Opening,” in Joseph Fewsmith (ed), China Today, China Tomorrow: Domestic Politics, Economy, and Society (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), p. 182.
See Suisheng Zhao, “Chinese Nationalism and Pragmatic Foreign Policy Behavior,” in Suisheng Zhao (ed.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Pragmatism and Strategic Behavior (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005), p. 71.
Mao’s three worlds view was not discarded, some authors say because it was not Marxist, since it did not focus on class or socialist criteria, but instead was founded on state behavior in international relations. See Yahuda, Toward the End of Isolationism, p. 176. In any event, by the mid-1980s it was hardly even mentioned in discussions about foreign policy in China. See Harry Harding, China’s Second Revolution: Reform after Mao (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1987), p. 243.
See Denny Roy, China’s Foreign Relations (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), pp. 39–41.
Deng, it is said, lacked the Sino-centric view of the world Mao espoused. Thus he was more willing to accept the Western view of international relations. See Richard Evans, Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China (New York: Viking, 1993), p. 23. The author attributes this to Deng’s foreign experience, which Mao lacked. Also see Levine, “Perception and Ideology in Chinese Foreign Policy,” p. 41. Levine notes that China abandoned the role the Soviet Union had played in the 1920s and 30s in favor of being a country more in favor of status quo and in dealing with established political parties and governments in other countries.
See Quansheng Zhao, Interpreting Chinese Foreign Policy (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1996), chapter 3.
Tang Shiping, “From Offensive to Defensive Realism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation of China’s Security Strategy,” in Robert S. Ross and Zhu Feng (eds.), China’s Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), p. 154.
Thomas J. Christensen, “Chinese Realpolitik,” Foreign Affairs, September/ October 1996 reprinted in Guoli Liu(ed.), Chinese Foreign Policy in Transition (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 2004), p. 59.
For details on Jiang’s life and the Jiang Zemin era, see Gilley, Tiger on the Brink and Willy Wo-Lap Lam, The Era of Jiang Zemin (Singapore: Prentice Hall, 1999).
Willy Lam, China’s Quasi-Superpower Diplomacy: Prospects and Pitfalls (Washington, DC: Jamestown Foundation, 2009), p. 8. Also see Willy Lam, “Beijing Launches Diplomatic Blitz to Steal Obama’s Thunder,” China Brief, February 20, 2009.
Stephen Olson and Clyde Prestowitz, The Evolving Role of China in International Institutions (Report prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission of the U.S. Congress), January 2011, p. 14.
Dai Bingguo, Persisting in Taking the Path of Peaceful Development (Beijing: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010).
Xi Jinping, The Governance of China (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2014). See in particular pp. 298–99 and p. 490.
Put another way, China was focused on supporting communism (both at home and abroad and the two connected) and its security. See Deborah Brautigam, Chinese Aid and African Development: Exporting Green Revolution (New York: St. Martins, 1998), p. 38.
Copyright information
© 2016 John F. Copper
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Copper, J.F. (2016). China’s Worldview and Its Foreign Aid and Investment Diplomacy. In: China’s Foreign Aid and Investment Diplomacy, Volume I. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137532732_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137532732_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55591-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53273-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)