MuseumDESCRIPTION:
Susan Shirk is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego and Director of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs and author of the new book, China: Fragile Superpower, Dr. Shirk joins Jerry Fowler to discuss China’s complex global rise as it attempts to maintain stable internal affairs. Professor Shirk examines how China’s preoccupation with its international reputation relates to the 2008 Olympic Games and accusations of the country’s complicity in the Darfur genocide.
TRANSCRIPT:
JERRY FOWLER: My guest today is Susan Shirk, Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego and Director of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. From 1997-2001, she was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs with responsibility for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mongolia. She has recently published a new book called “China, Fragile Superpower: How China’s Internal Politics Could Derail its Peaceful Rise.” Professor Shirk, welcome to the program.
SUSAN SHIRK: Thank you very much.
JERRY FOWLER: Well, we have focused a lot in this program on Darfur and one of the issues that comes up a lot is the relationship of China to Sudan. And so we wanted to explore, a little bit, China’s foreign policy in general and also how it relates to Sudan. So I was wondering if we could begin with: what are the key foreign policy principles for China? When Chinese policymakers look at the world, how do they define their national interests?
SUSAN SHIRK: Well, there are two dimensions to that question. One is their international interests, but probably more important are their domestic interests. So I would say that the first principle is to maintain Communist Party rule and to prevent political instability in China, which is a euphemism for the notion that without Communist Party Rule, China would fall into civil war and chaos. So that is really the first principle. The second one is, internationally, avoid conflicts, especially with the United States, that could derail China’s domestic development, slow down economic growth, and create domestic political challenges to the Communist Party. And then the third one is to help make China into a regional power and, more recently, they are actually thinking about making China a world power; but not competing head-on-head with the United States in a way that could lead to military conflict.
JERRY FOWLER: When you say they have more recently gotten interested in being a world power, and I guess this applies a little bit today about being a regional power; what is kind of the end goal of that? Is it to exert influence over the decisions that other countries make? Or is it still kind of oriented toward reinforcing their own political power, particularly, they have focused recently on developing energy resources.
SUSAN SHIRK: Yes, I think it is more domestically oriented, to be sure. I think their global objectives are, well, to gain China a certain amount of respect. China used to be a major power in the world before the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Then it had what they called the “Century of Humiliation” which is really one hundred and fifty years of being sidelined internationally, self-isolation, internal conflicts of various sorts. So a weak China that, from their point of view, was exploited, especially by Japan but also by other colonial powers, even though China was never actually colonized. And now that China has initiated these economic reforms, market reforms, since 1978 and has opened up its economy to the rest of the world, it is growing again at historic rates of growth, and this is being translated into political power and military power as well. So they like the respect. They definitely want the respect. But I do not see the goal as anything like Soviet goals of having Chinese influence all over the world and competing with the United States.
JERRY FOWLER: Now one thing that we often hear about Chinese foreign policy is a heavy emphasis on non-interference in internal affairs. From what you have said, that follows from their preoccupation with maintaining the power of the Community Party inside China and the political system. But when we look internationally, there is more and more involvement of the United Nations and this so-called international community in things that are happening internally in other countries. How does China resolve that tension between their interest in non-intervention and a trend towards greater intervention in other countries?
SUSAN SHIRK: Well, you know, it is interesting. I had a conversation with an upper-middle level Chinese foreign ministry official back in November about its Africa policy. And what struck me was that he never mentioned non-interference in internal affairs. All of his discussion was very practical, on the ground pragmatic about internal conflict in the Sudan, and how do we get Bashir to do the right thing and accept the United Nations force. It was just very pragmatic and I never heard that old Chinese principle of non-interference in internal affairs. And I think that China is really adjusting to globalization. It has participated in a lot of these United Nations efforts in East Timor. It actually has peacekeepers in the United Nations presence in the Sudan. And when you have a lower-level official or some senior official making an important speech, they will probably say something about non-interference in internal affairs, just kind of by ideological inertia. But in reality, it does not behave anymore as if that is an important principle for it. I mean, you are right, they do not want people interfering in their internal affairs. But if the international community, especially through the United Nations, decides that internal conflicts in some country are creating severe international consequences, China is not going to veto, in most circumstances – it hates to do that, especially if it is standing alone – then it may very well participate.
JERRY FOWLER: So with regard to Sudan, what are the particular interests it has in dealing with not just the crisis in Darfur, but Sudan in general?
SUSAN SHIRK: Well, China is in Africa, China is in Latin America, China is in the Persian Gulf now, largely because it needs to find the energy resources and mineral resources to feed this ten percent annual growth. So it is there for resources primarily. Secondarily, for markets, for its exports. So the motivation is almost entirely economic. But then once it is there - and of course in Sudan it is primarily oil – once it is there, it finds that it needs to cultivate good relations with the government in order to get the energy deals. Give them aid, give them gifts, cozy up to these governments. And many times, these governments are ones that the United States and the Western countries have not wanted to deal with. But China finds that the good countries, the resources are already taken, so it is being driven to the bad countries. And then it cozies up to the governments, it gives them aid, et cetera, and of course the next to follow is arms sales because (China’s military-industrial complex) they want the markets, too. So before they know it, they are in this position that they are in in the Sudan, that they are in in Venezuela, and other countries that we are not happy with, and this creates a big problem for them. Because as I said earlier, they do not want to be in a conflict with the United States.
JERRY FOWLER: And when you say “be in a conflict,” you mean even be at odds diplomatically, as opposed to...?
SUSAN SHIRK: Right. They do not want this to feed what they would call Cold War-type perceptions, that China is the problem and that China is in a race for global influence with the United States.
JERRY FOWLER: But at the same time, with regard to Sudan in particular, they have, at least until relatively recently, been pretty active in trying to protect the Sudanese government from sanctions in the United Nations Security Council or from pressure from the outside.
SUSAN SHIRK: Okay, well here is what they say. They say that the situation in Sudan is very complicated, that they support the truce process. They supported the idea of sending an augmented force, a United Nations force, to help try to prevent more bloodshed. But as a realistic matter, the only way to get that force in there is with the government’s consent. And I see their point, because to send in United Nations forces without the government’s consent, you would have to send in a massive military force that I do not think any of the countries in the world are prepared to do. So they do not see Bashir as the only villain of the peace. They see it as a complicated internal conflict, and they say that they are quietly working behind the scenes to try to persuade Bashir to accept the United Nations force and to stop the killings by the militias.
JERRY FOWLER: And do you get the sense that that is the case?
SUSAN SHIRK: I have no idea. How do we know what they are actually saying?
JERRY FOWLER: Well that would have been my next question.
SUSAN SHIRK: How do we know? We do not actually know what they are saying, and I do believe that they think that this conflict is bad for them. It is bad for them as an oil importer, it is bad for them because the whole world is pointing the finger and blaming China. So I think they would really like to find a resolution, and they have been working very hard with other countries through the United Nations to try to negotiate a way for those forces to be augmented: a United Nations force with African characteristics. And I do know that the Europeans and the folks at the United Nations have given Wang Guangya, China’s ambassador to the United Nations, they have praised those efforts. So what is actually going on in the room when Hu Jintao visits, or another senior leader visits, it is very hard to say.
JERRY FOWLER: The Chinese government did recently appoint a special envoy for, well it was unclear to me whether it was for Africa with a special emphasis on Darfur, or a special envoy for Darfur. But how unusual is that, for them to appoint a special envoy?
SUSAN SHIRK: It is very unusual. They have one for the Middle East, so it is not unprecedented, and I believe it is a special envoy for Darfur. And again, I think this shows how China is trying to adjust to this situation it has found itself in, with all the criticism of its role. And the fact that China is, I believe it is was Liu [Guijin] or another senior Chinese diplomat who also went out to visit the refugee camps, although that was criticized for only visiting the camps that are in pretty good shape, not the ones that are in pretty bad shape. But China is behaving very differently from the way it used to as it tries to respond to this international criticism.
JERRY FOWLER: Now one thing that advocates in the United States have started to focus on is the upcoming Olympics, and tying the Olympics in Beijing with what is happening in Darfur. Let me ask you first, in a general sense, how important the Olympics are to China, how they view this opportunity to stage a major international event?
SUSAN SHIRK: It is impossible to overestimate how important the Olympics are to China. It is China’s big coming-out party. It is all about international respect, and they really want them to go well.
JERRY FOWLER: And so, in that light, how are they reacting, if they are reacting, to people in the United States who are starting to tie Darfur to the Olympics?
SUSAN SHIRK: I think they are furious, but I also think that it is certainly having an impact. I am not sure that the way – we just mentioned appointing a special envoy, visiting the refugee camps, working to get a diplomatic solution – I think they would be doing all of that anyway, even without the pressure on the Olympics. But it certainly adds to that pressure considerably.
JERRY FOWLER: Is there a point, though, where pushing them on the Olympics or on anything else becomes counterproductive, where there is a sense of...?
SUSAN SHIRK: Yes, it is building suspicions about the intentions of Americans. You know, China wants to believe that it can rise peacefully, China’s leaders want to believe they can rise peacefully, without provoking a conflict with the United States. But if, every time they do something they feel that they are the target of criticism, it breeds all sorts of suspicions that the United States, and Americans, will never accept China as a legitimate player in the world. Let us remember, the United States Congress had votes to deny the Olympics to China when it was competing for the 1994 Olympics because of its human rights record, and it did not get those Olympics. So getting the nod to host the 2008 Olympics was huge for China as a kind of respect and legitimacy. You know, China is more concerned about its international reputation than any country I can think of in the world, because of this kind of insecurity. And that is a huge advantage for us in the sense that they will be induced to do the right thing, because they are so concerned about their international reputation. But we have to play that very carefully. And if everything they do – again, it is all about China – they will start to feel that there is no way, even if they do the right thing, that they will be accepted by the United States.
JERRY FOWLER: So the balance to be drawn is between identifying the things that they are doing that may deviate from international standards or whatever standard it is, but at the same time giving them credit when they take steps in a positive direction.
SUSAN SHIRK: Right, it is very important to notice when they do something positive. And you know, it is also important not to overestimate China’s influence in the Sudan. They cannot tell Bashir what to do anymore, say, than we could tell the leaders of Taiwan or Japan what to do. And let us remember that there are other countries invested in the Sudan: India, Malaysia, other countries. So when we single out China, it definitely feeds a very defensive attitude on the part of the Chinese.
JERRY FOWLER: But the perception - maybe it is not an accurate perception – but the perception is that it is not just the influence that China has in Khartoum because of its involvement in Sudan, but its particular place as a permanent member of the Security Council. And the perception is that China is restraining the Security Council from imposing more vigorous sanctions, or ...
SUSAN SHIRK: Well I do not think that has been true so far. You know, by the way, I predict that because of this concern about reputation, and this predicament they find themselves in of being in Africa, in Sudan, having this role in Darfur, the Olympics, all the finger-pointing at China, trying to adjust to that situation, I think that if there is another sanctions vote in the Security Council, I would not expect China to veto. I think it is more likely to abstain, because it will not want to be seen as the source of the problem.
JERRY FOWLER: So in that sense, then, the idea that they are Khartoum’s heat shield, if it was ever true, may not be true anymore.
SUSAN SHIRK: I do not think it is. But you know, they do not stand up and make a lot of speeches criticizing foreign governments. What they say is that their way of working is important, and we can have this division of labor, perhaps, in which political leaders in the United States and other places make speeches and the Chinese actually try to work behind the scenes quietly to get Bashir to agree. You know, they do make the point that bringing in the United Nations force into Darfur is viewed by Bashir as a surefire way to land in front of the International Criminal Court. That, because he is identified as an international war criminal, he really feels that his own survival is at stake here, and that is why it is so difficult to persuade him. I do not know whether or not that is true, but that is what they say.
JERRY FOWLER: Susan Shirk is Director of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, and her new book is “China, Fragile Superpower: How China’s Internal Politics Could Derail its Peaceful Rise.” Professor Shirk, thanks so much for taking the time to be with us.
SUSAN SHIRK: My pleasure, I enjoyed the conversation.
