Power in Chinese Foreign Policy
WITH CHINA HAVING the world’s second largest economy, increasingly sophisticated armed forces, deepening networks of foreign relations, and prominent participation in international institutions, discussions of its foreign policy increasingly involve the consideration of ‘power’. Yet ‘power’ can mean many things in the Chinese context. It may refer to China’s identity in international politics: variously a ‘rising power’, a ‘partial power’, and a ‘potential superpower’. It may describe the means or resources through which Beijing pursues its foreign policy objectives: including ‘military power’, ‘economic power’ or, increasingly, ‘technological power’. The pursuit of ‘power’ may even constitute China’s ultimate goal in world politics.
The pathways to power are numerous, diverse, and complex. As an example, consider the two-day APEC summit held in Papua New Guinea in November 2018. This illustrated the multiple ways in which Chinese diplomacy may have affected events: the soaring rhetoric of Xi’s speech, allegedly controversial negotiating tactics by the Chinese delegation, lucrative deals for certain South Pacific nations but not others, and the ultimate failure of participants to agree on a joint communiqué.
This forum offers a conceptual framework for analysing power in Chinese foreign policy, including in instances such as we saw at APEC. Employing a simple and widely used definition of the English word power, roughly equivalent to quánlì 权力 (see Chapter 1 ‘Immunity to Temptation — “Power” in Chinese Language’) we identify five discrete pathways states can take to exercise power in their external affairs, illustrating the mechanism through which each operates, with examples from the Chinese experience.
The Concept of Power
While power is defined and conceptualised in numerous ways, for the practical purpose of evaluating foreign policy successes, we use Robert Dahl’s intuitive idea that ‘A has power over B to the extent that [they] can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’. This definition rejects the idea of power as an attribute determined by a state’s possession of tangible and intangible resources. Rather, it emphasises that power is relational and strongly conditioned by the context of attempts by one state to influence another, including the identity of the target(s) and the matter(s) over which influence is sought. Devoid of context, the mere possession of resources is not a reliable measure of an actor’s ability to change others’ behaviour. While China’s resources — military, economic, and otherwise — are growing, this does not automatically mean Beijing enjoys a commensurately enhanced ability to change others’ behaviour. The statement ‘China is becoming more powerful’ says little about over whom, and to do what.
Five Pathways to Power in Chinese Foreign Policy
Coercion takes place where China imposes (or threatens) costs on a target to change its behaviour. Coercion seeks to manipulate a target’s decision-making calculus such that the costs of resisting the demand (and protecting its interest in dispute) outweigh the benefits. While typically associated with military force, China uses a variety of instruments to coerce others.
One prominent example is informal economic sanctions. When South Korea agreed to jointly deploy a US-supplied Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system in July 2016, China curtailed the import of certain Korean goods and services, restricted outbound group tourism to Korea, and disrupted the operations of key Korean firms on the mainland. (For more on this, see China Story Yearbook 2017: Prosperity, Chapter 3 ‘North Korea: A Year of Crisis’) Combined, these measures were estimated to shave 0.4 per cent off South Korea’s economic growth in 2017. The purpose of inflicting these economic costs appeared to be to push Seoul to reverse the THAAD decision; however, Beijing appears to have had limited success so far.
Bargaining power is exercised through voluntary exchange, where a state exchanges (or offers to exchange) something of value with the target. A straightforward case would be the provision of (usually economic) benefits in a direct quid pro quo for a policy concession. For example, Beijing exercises bargaining power to isolate Taiwan diplomatically — in 2018 the Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, and El Salvador severed ties with Taipei, reportedly in exchange for economic benefits from Beijing. The Belt and Road Initiative similarly involves deals where recipients offer concessions that privilege Chinese firms, or may yield strategic advantages, in exchange for infrastructure loans.
Agenda setting occurs where a state is able to shape the parameters of what is legitimate or feasible for other states to do within a specific institutional framework or issue area. A state may decide, for example, both the substance of and procedure for discussions within international forums. For example, as chair of the 2018 Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Qingdao, Beijing set both the topics for discussion and the framework for how they would be discussed in service of its own priorities.
On a broader level, a state may go so far as to create or shape the rules, practices, norms, and institutions that govern inter-state relations. China’s creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, for example, may facilitate the reshaping of certain rules, and, accordingly, the behaviour of others, in the field of multilateral development financing.
Persuasion is the use of communication to alter beliefs about what is true, right, or appropriate.18 It relies on the provision of information about empirical facts or normative principles and how they relate to a target’s interests. If successful, this method can cause others to perceive their interests as being in line with those of the persuading actor.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, through public, diplomatic, and other channels, the Chinese government has consistently provided information about its capabilities, development trajectory, and strategic intentions to South-East Asian states concerned about China’s rise. The goal has been to minimise concerns about the ‘China threat’ and encourage greater engagement with Beijing.
Attraction, commonly termed ‘soft power’, operates where a target’s beliefs and, possibly, actions change to become more aligned with the attracting state’s preferences due to admiration or a desire to emulate. It is the ability to make targets ‘want what you want’. Many factors might contribute to a state’s ‘attractiveness’, such as its culture, policies, and domestic institutions. (See Chapter 8 Forum ‘Soft Power, Hard Times’)
In 2007, president Hu Jintao 胡锦涛 called for greater investment in ‘soft power’. Beijing has spent billions supporting initiatives to cultivate positive perceptions of China abroad, including educational and cultural exchanges; the staging of cultural exhibitions and concerts; inserts and supplements in foreign-language news outlets; and educational programs including more than 500 Confucius Institutes. Yet China’s greatest source of attraction may be its post-Mao economic model, which raised hundreds of millions out of poverty and potentially provides a template for other developing nations to emulate.
Distinguishing the pathways through which China can exercise power helps elucidate a newer concept used to describe aspects of China’s foreign policy behaviour: ‘sharp power’. Initially described as the strategy whereby states sow discord or silence criticism by ‘manipulating or poisoning the information’ that reaches target audiences, it has also been defined as the use of ‘subversion, bullying and pressure … to promote self-censorship’, and even a ‘shorthand for information warfare’. While discussion of the concept is united by a concern about the vulnerability of open, democratic societies to such influence, its parameters are somewhat unclear.
Our framework views sharp power less as a new and unique form of influence, but rather as the coordinated use of existing means to achieve particular objectives — deterring criticism and promoting a positive narrative. Threatening to restrict access to the Chinese market for an Australian publisher of a book critical of China is coercion; making payments or donations to politicians in exchange for support of Chinese policies is bargaining; and obtaining financial interests in media organisations to limit critical coverage is a form of negative persuasion, because it denies communication that might alter beliefs. Together, these constitute ‘sharp power’. For state or other actors interested in countering it, they need to understand the different pathways through which it works in the first place.
This Forum extends ideas from an earlier article: Darren J. Lim and Victor A. Ferguson, ‘Power in Australian Foreign Policy’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol.72 no.4 (2018): 1–8.
David M. Lampton, The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.
Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘China’s Emerging Power: Cooperation, Competition, or Conflict?’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 12 June 2017, online at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-emerging-power-cooperation-competition-or-conflict.
David A. Lake, ‘Domination, Authority, and the Forms of Chinese Power’, Chinese Journal of International Politics, vol.10, no.4 (2017): 357–82.
Zhao Suisheng, ‘China as a Rising Power versus the US-led World Order’, Rising Powers Quarterly, vol.1, no.1 (2016): 13–21.
David Shambaugh, China Goes Global: The Partial Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Yuan Wang, ‘China as a Potential Superpower’, Modern China Studies, vol.23, no.1 (2017).
Michael Clarke, ‘China’s Dream of Economic Power May Come with Great Risks’, The National Interest, 14 June 2017, online at: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-dream-economic-power-may-come-great-risks-21159.
Adam Ni, ‘China’s Quest for Techno-Military Supremacy’, The Conversation (Aus), 6 March 2018, online at: https://theconversation.com/chinas-quest-for-techno-military-supremacy-91840.
Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower, New York: Henry Holt and Co, 2015.
Wang Fei-Ling, ‘Preservation, Prosperity and Power: What Motivates China’s Foreign Policy?’, Journal of Contemporary China, vol.14, no.45 (2005): 669–694.
Evelyn Goh, ‘The Modes of China’s Influence: Cases from Southeast Asia’, Asian Survey, vol.54, no.5 (2014): 825–48.
Richard Turcsanyi, ‘Assessing the Power of China: Insights from the Conceptual Thinking about Power’, Journal of Chinese Political Science, vol.22 (2017): 473–86.
Robert Pape, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996, pp.15–16.
Peter Harrell et al., ‘China’s Use of Coercive Economic Measures’, Center for a New American Security, 11 June 2018, online at: https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/chinas-use-of-coercive-economic-measures.
Darren J. Lim, ‘Commerce with Competitors: Economic Interdependence, Vulnerability and Security Policy in Contemporary East Asia’, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2014.
Darren J. Lim and Victor A. Ferguson, ‘The Political Economy of Economic Coercion: China’s Retaliation Against South Korea over THAAD’, Canberra: Australian National University (mimeo).
Thomas Schelling views coercion as a form of bargaining. See, Arms and Influence, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966, p.2. We distinguish bargaining from coercion by requiring exchanges be voluntary and positive-sum.
Edward White and Nicolle Liu, ‘El Salvador cuts diplomatic ties with Taiwan for China’, Financial Times, 21 August 2018, online at: https://www.ft.com/content/881253a2-a4ef-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b.
Darren Lim and Rohan Mukherjee, ‘What Money Can’t Buy: The Security Externalities of Chinese Economic Statecraft in Post-War Sri Lanka’, Asian Security (2017), online 28 December.
Abigail Grace, ‘The Lessons China Taught Itself: Why the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Matters’, Jamestown Foundation China Brief, vol.18, no.11 (2018) online at: https://jamestown.org/program/the-lessons-china-taught-itself-why-the-shanghai-cooperation-organization-matters/.
G. John Ikenberry and Darren Lim, China’s Emerging Institutional Statecraft: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Prospects for Counter-Hegemony, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2017, online at: https://www.brookings.edu/content/uploads/2017/04/chinas-emerging-institutional-statecraft.pdf.
Robert O. Keohane, ‘Stephen Krasner: Subversive Realist’, in Martha Finnemore and Judith Goldstein, eds. Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 28–52.
Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: PublicAffairs, 2004, p.2.
Eleanor Albert , ‘China’s Big Bet on Soft Power’, Council on Foreign Relations, 9 February 2018, online at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-big-bet-soft-power.
Thomas Barker, ‘The Real Source of China’s Soft Power’, The Diplomat, 18 November 2017.
Juan Pablo Cardenal et al, ‘Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence’, National Endowment for Democracy, December 2017, online at: https://www.ned.org/content/uploads/2017/12/Sharp-Power-Rising-Authoritarian-Influence-Full-Report.pdf.
‘What to do about China’s “sharp power” ’, The Economist, 14 December 2017, online at: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/12/14/what-to-do-about-chinas-sharp-power.
Joseph S. Nye, ‘China’s soft and sharp power’, Project Syndicate, 4 January 2018, online at: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s-nye-2018-01.