By Li Chen
School of International Studies, Peking University
Abstract
Post World War II Soviet Union and Post-Cold War China face different international structures, have different military capacities and economic systems, and view international society with different opinions. Because of these different determinants, China will not apply the Soviet confrontation strategy in international relations, but choose to be an economic orientated as well as a status quo power, seek cooperation with other major powers, and obey the international rules, in order to advance its modernization. Introduction
In the post-Cold War era, the rise of China is a significant trend on the world stage. Such a development generates debate among policy makers as well as scholars. In order to understand great power rise, one actually needs to gain historical experience. In terms of understanding and predicting China rise, some political scientists analyze historical examples, particularly the Soviet conduct in Cold War through the lens of realist theory (1), “the expectation that China eventually would pursue an assertive grand strategy, will not be surprising to most students of international politics, since such behavior would be fairly consistent with the conduct of previous great power historically.”(2) If China replaces the role of the former Soviet Union, America must respond, a new Cold War or even great power war will take place. However, history is a progressive and diverse process, not a cyclical and single one. Post-Cold War China and post war Soviet Union are different actors entering different arenas, so they can’t play the same role.
This study will examine the different determinants of foreign policy between post-Cold War China and post war Soviet Union. These determinants include their respective status in the international system, military capacity, economic interaction with the outside world, and attitudes towards international society. Due to these obvious differences, China and the Soviet Union set different priorities, formulate different international strategy, and choose different rising patterns.
In this comparative study, pluralistic views will be considered, such as realist theory, interdependence theory, constructivism, and international society theory of the English School. Historical study will focus more on international system and domestic variations. In post-Cold War China, the leadership is a collective one without a paramount figure like Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping, therefore, the leaders’ personality factor is excluded from this comparative study. International Structure: Architect vs. Participant
In modern world, states behave within the international system; their actions are constrained by the international structure. According to Waltz, structures are defined by the distribution of capabilities across units.(3) The nature of the international structure is objective, relatively stable, and comprehensive.(4) Within the framework of great power relations, structure factors should be considered first. The surrender of Germany and Japan created an international structure for the Soviet Union; but the collapse of the Soviet Union creates another different one for China.
All the major powers were exhausted or destroyed by World War II, except the United States and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, power of the two nations was strengthened during the war. Although some parts of the Soviet were damaged by the war, it expanded its military power, territory, as well as sphere of influence. Before the war, the Soviet Union is an isolated communist state; after the war, it established a communist camp which contained several countries across Eurasia. In the post world war world, Soviet was a dominant power in the bipolar structure, enjoyed an unprecedented favorable position.
In general, the West bloc, especially the US, was the winner of Cold War. However, China was not the winner, although it benefits something from the Cold War ending, for instance, a new world war will seldom break out without Soviet-American confrontation. The structure of the post cold war world is a complex one.(5) In military dimension, America is the only superpower without competitor; in economic dimension, the structure is a relative multipolarity, but China still doesn’t enjoy a favorable position like western industrial nations. In terms of ideology, the end of cold war does nothing good to China. Internally, China is upset by this backlash of international communist movement. “Comprehensively and systematically learning the lessons of the collapse of Soviet and Eastern Europe, studying its causes, is extremely important”, a senior Chinese scholar writes.(6) Externally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, China becomes the only socialist great power that under strategic pressure from America. “If China, in fact, continues to be governed by a nonliberal regime, the traditional U.S. crusading impulse may only reinforce those imperatives flowing from the desire to maintain a balance of power into a more aggressive attempt at containment.”(7)
In their respective international structures, post World War II Soviet Union enjoyed a far more superior position than post Cold War China. Soviet was one of the two architects in the post war international system; while China is a participant in the post-Cold War international system. For the Soviet, this is the impetus that encourages it to reshape the world. For China, it is a constraint keeps China concentrating on domestic development as well as behaving cautious in the international system. Military Capacity & Economic Interaction: Asymmetric Great Powers
From the neorealist view, military and economic is the foundation of international political power, which should be calculated in terms of international structure. However, the concept of the “international structure” is still an abstract one. It fails to reflect the great difference between post war Soviet Union and post-Cold War China related to military and economy aspects, which are critical variations in this study.
The result of World War II demonstrated Soviet military power obviously. First, the Soviet army not only defended their territory, but also advanced to Eastern and Central Europe, finally destroyed Nazi Germany. In 1945, the Soviet army was an effective offensive army experienced a great war. Secondly, weapons and other equipments of the Soviet army were updated during the war. These facilities represented the highest level in that era. “After World War II, the Soviet Union gained superiority over America on conventional forces.”(8)
The situation of the Chinese military power after the Cold War is gloomy. After Korean War, although involved in some skirmishes against India, Soviet Union, and Vietnam, the Chinese army never experienced any modern war. Furthermore, China was not able to acquire advanced military technology from outside world during 1960s and 1970s. They developed nuclear weapons and missiles; however, in the end of Cold War, most of their facilities are outdated. To make matter worse, in the end of the 20th Century, a new “Revolution on Military Affairs” (RMA) occurred which is mainly led by the U.S. military. Wang Baocun, a Chinese Major General, also an expert on U.S. military argues that, due to the RMA, the U.S. has originally built up its “information army”, while armies in developing countries, such as China, are still mechanized or even semi-mechanized armies. It creates an “era gap” between developed countries and underdeveloped countries on military technology.(9) Chinese armies are shocked by the U.S. military performance during the Gulf War, Kosovo War, and Iraq war. Although military modernization is implemented, some of the equipments are updated; Chinese military still have to fulfill their major task, defending the territory, with their current awkward weapons and organizational problems in the foreseeable future. American scholars have also noticed it, “in the 1990s, both Beijing and Washington recognized that U.S. forces were superior to Chinese forces, often by orders of magnitude, in weaponry, training, and system integration.” (10)
The Soviet economic system was a self-sufficient one affected by Stalinist political system before 1985. It was a dominant state-owned, extremely centralized and planned economy.(11) Trade and commercial contact with the outside world were not essential to the maintenance of domestic order and well being. After World War II, Soviet tried to isolate itself from global economic system. In 1946, the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. wrote:
“In actuality, despite all of the economic difficulties of the postwar period connected with the enormous losses inflicted by the war and the German fascist occupation, the Soviet Union continues to remain economically independent of the outside world and is rebuilding its national economy with its own forces.”(12)
Then the Soviet rejected economic contact and cooperation with the West, especially the Marshall Plan, and established Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), which function was to operate a “socialist market” isolated from global market.
China adopted Soviet style economic system from 1949 to 1978, and then China began to abandon it gradually due to the implementation of Reform and Open strategy designed by Deng Xiaoping. In the post-Cold War era, China has achieved great progress. In 1992, China began to build its socialist market economy. In the 15th CCP Congress held in 1997, China denied the dominant status of state owned economy which came from Soviet theory.(13) The proportion of state owned economies decrease whereas the non state owned sections increase national-wide. Therefore, domestic economy is more flexible and intensely connected with global economy. After the Culture Revolution, the Chinese leadership realized that economic isolation hindered development as well as led to China’s falling behind, so they decided to open door and develop economic ties with outside world, especially western industrialized countries. In 2002, the trade dependence ratio of China reached 49.9% of its GDP.(14) About 40% Chinese exports are absorbed by U.S. market; it reflects severe dependence of Chinese foreign trade on America. (15) Moreover, China entering WTO demonstrates its determination to advance its open and willingness to obey international rules.
Open society is propelled by open economy. Various nongovernmental, individual contacts with other countries are established and become more and more frequent. For instance, Chinese people travel abroad for business, tourism, further education, while foreigners do the same in China. Thanks to the development of Internet and other information technology, people who don’t have the chance to go abroad understand what happened outside, either. People from China and the rest of the world can discuss and collaborate on broad issues. All above were incredible in the post war closed Soviet society.
Therefore, in military and economy aspects, there are enormous differentiation between post war Soviet Union and post-Cold War China. Soviet Union was actually a military giant but kept its economy and society secluded. China doesn’t have much military advantage among great powers whereas establishes and reinforces an “interdependent” interaction with them.(16) In terms of material, both Soviet and China are great powers, but each one has its distinctive character, which has great impact on their strategic priority goals.
Attitude toward International Society: Suspicious vs. Embrace
The term “international society” introduced to this study is not the rhetorical concept appears in daily news; in English School international relations theory, it means “a group of states (or a group of independence political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behavior of each is a necessary factor in the calculation of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognize their common interest in maintaining these arrangement”.(17) Current international society first emerged in modern European civilization, and then expanded to other areas, which included Russia and China.
During most of the Soviet era, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, a critical work of Lenin, was the dominant philosophy of Soviet foreign policy.(18) According to Lenin, imperialism was not only the highest stage but also the last stage of capitalism; therefore, the communist should take advantage of it, wage revolution and struggle against imperialism, in order to accelerate the collapse of global capitalism. Since the foundation and opinion of international society mainly come from modern European capitalism civilization, Soviet Union didn’t accept its legitimacy. However, Chinese recognition of international society is an evolving process. From 1840s, China was forced to entry international society by western major powers; the symbol of such unwilling entry is unequal treaties between China and western major powers. Due to these humiliations in the Chinese opinion, they regarded China as a “victim” of international society. From 1949, China gained its independence and accepted the orthodox Soviet foreign policy doctrine, became a “revolutionist” of international society, especially during the “Culture Revolution”. After China began to carry out its reform and open strategy as well as drop the Soviet thought in late 1970s, all Chinese witness the benefit comes from its membership of international society. From then on, especially in the post-Cold War era, China is willing to be a participant as well as a beneficiary of international society.
After describing the general outline of respective attitude toward international society above, some related issues need going into detail, including nationalism, and relations with international organizations.
Nationalism is an important indicator to understanding individual state’s attitude toward their partners in international society. Nationalism in the postwar Soviet Union had two major sources; one was hostility toward countries out of their western boundaries in traditional Russian opinion due to their humiliated experience, another was the basic antagonism between the capitalist and socialist world, an original communist thesis.(19) However, nationalism of post-Cold War China is a kind of “pragmatic nationalism”, which seeks cooperative relations with major power, so that China can advance its modernization; only when China’s vital interest is challenged or historical sensitivity is triggered, it demand uncompromising diplomacy. “Pragmatic nationalism is thus more reactive than proactive.”(20)
International organizations reflect the existent and the opinion of international society. The Soviet Union, one of the creators of the United Nations, regarded it as “another arena in the struggle between two world systems”. From 1946 to 1965, Soviet carried out its veto power 165 times whereas American never did once.(21) “The Soviet bloc can not be expected to adopt the philosophy of the UN and pursue the objectives of the UN.”(22) After Cold War, Chinese leaderships see international organizations as a constructive factor improve modernization of China.(23) Therefore, China becomes an active participant in various international organizations.(24)
Conclusion
Postwar Soviet Union and post-Cold War China face different circumstances with different card in their hands, so they go to different direction to seek their great power status. Thanks to plenty of intellectual works done by wise scholars; we understand the Postwar Soviet strategy, which characterized by confrontation, anti-Americanism, seeking to eliminate its rivalries and even overthrow the international order with violent revolutionary methods, and supported by its huge military capacity.
“Even from 1979, China and the Soviet Union went to different directions, in that year, China implemented its reform and open strategy, whereas the Soviet invaded Afghanistan,” a Chinese prominent scholar from an official think tank wrote recently.(25) Thanks to the implementation of the different strategy, China survives the Cold War. In the post-Cold War era, China goes further from the Soviet strategy. Then what strategy does China apply in the post-Cold War era?
China is a participant in post-Cold War international system, so it lacks the resources, especially military resources to challenge the status quo. “Given profound power differential, Beijing could ill afford a direct military competition with Washington.”(26) Therefore, a strategy driven by military expansion is excluded. However, after integrating into the global economy, China gains tremendous benefit in economy and social development, such development further strengthen China’s great power status. The best option for China is to be an economy orientated status quo power in international system.
As a member of international society, China realizes the rules and institutions of international society bring various pubic goods which is available by itself. So China chooses to obey these rules rather than deny its legitimacy. Its partners, for instance, the US, play an important role in its modernization; China tries to maintain and reinforce cooperation with them, although conflicts on several issues still exists, China has no intention to confront or eliminate these partners. “Our leadership consistently believes that, Sino-US relations are extremely important in our foreign policy,” an American specialist said to the People’s Daily, an official newspaper.(27)
Notes
1. See John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics , Norton , New York , 2001, chapter 10, and John J. Mearsheimer, Clash of the Titans , A Debate with Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Rise of China, Foreign Policy , No. 146, pp. 46-49
2.
Michael D. Swaine and Ashley J. Tellis, Interpreting China 's Grand strategy, RAND, Santa Monica , California , 2000, p231.
3. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Peking University Press, Beijing , 2004, p101.
4. Li Yihu, Guoji Geju Lun(On International Structure), Beijing Chubanshe, Beijing , 2004, pp. 39-47.
5.
See Joseph S. Nye, Understanding International Conflict, Peking University Press, Beijing , 2005, p256.
6.
Huang Zongliang and Kong Hanbin, ed., Shijie Shehuizhuyi Shilun(History And Theories Of World Socialism), Peking University Press, Beijing , 2004, p472.
7. Michael D. Swaine and Ashley J. Tellis, Interpreting China 's Grand strategy, p234.
8. Liu Jinzhi, Lengzhan Shi (History of Cold War), Shijie Zhishi Chubanshe, Beijing , 2003, pp. 19-20.
9.
See Wang Baocun, Shijie Xinjunshi Biange Xinlun (On World New Military Revolution), Jiefangjun Chubanshe, Beijing , 2003, pp. 38-40.
10. Kurt Campbell and Richard Weitz, The Limits of U.S.-China Military Cooperation: Lessons from 1995-1999, The Washington Quarterly , 29:1, p177.
11.
See Wu Jinglian, DangDai Zhongguo Jingji Gaige ( China Economic Reform) , Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe, Shanghai , 2004, pp. 15-17.
12.
Telegram from N. Novikov, Soviet Ambassador to the US , to the Soviet Leadership, Sep 27, 1946. Source: Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
13. Wu Jinglian, DangDai Zhongguo Jingji Gaige ( China Economic Reform) , p78.
14.
Ibid,. p301.
15.
Ibid,. p302.
16. For “interdependence”, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence , Peking University Press, Beijing , 2004, Chapter 1-2.
17. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson ed., The Expansion of International Society , Clarendon Press, Oxford , 1984, p1.
18. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism , 1916. see full text in: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm
19. See George Kennan, The Sources of Soviet Conduct, Foreign Affairs, July, 1947.
20. Suisheng Zhao , China 's pragmatic Nationalism: Is It Manageable? The Washington Quarterly , 29:1, p139.
21. Zhang Xiaoming, Lengzhan Ji Qi Yichan (Cold War and Its Legacy), Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe, Shanghai , 1998, pp. 195-198.
22. Alexander Dallin, The Soviet View of the United Nations , International Organization , Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter, 1962), p36.
23. See Wang Yizhou, Quanqiu Zhengzhi He Zhongguo Waijiao ( Global Politics and China 's Foreign Policy), Beijing , Shijie Zhishi Chubanshe, 2003, pp.247-250.
24. See Iain Johnston, American Scholarship on China 's Participation in International Institutions (in Chinese). http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ejohnston/IWEP2.pdf
25. Zheng Bijian, Zhongguo Gongchandang Zai 21 Shiji De Zouxiang(Chinese Communist Party in the 21 st Century). http://www.people.com.cn/GB/paper39/16225/1433134.html
26. Kurt Campbell and Richard Weitz, The Limits of U.S.-China Military Cooperation: Lessons from 1995-1999, The Washington Quarterly , 29:1, p177.
27.
Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2005- 12/02/c ontent_3865886_3.htm
Back |
As China futher advances in its modernization, it has been more actively engaged in international affairs. The above photo shows President Hu Jintao attending the G8 Summit in Russia.
_____________
Author Li Chen is a graduate student at Peking University, which recently offered an honorary degree to the former State Secretary Henry Kissinger, a key figure in the normalization of U.S.-China relations. |
