I am grateful to my regular commenter, JK, for sending me a link to an article in the NYTimes written by Prof. Zheng Wang, an expert on foreign policy matters, particularly those of China. In it, he suggests that part of the problem with China's foreign policy is that it does not exist! Thinking about it and bearing in mind the last century or two in which, on good days, China was only a small and divided player in strictly regional affairs, adn on bad days, was a wrecked and raped plaything of much greater players on the international scene. Thus, it is hardly surprising that its sudden rise to global domination leaves it somewhat bewildered as it looks about it from on high and wonders what in hell to do!
Prof. Zheng indorms us that none of the members of the very top standing committees who rule China have any experience in foreign policy. In any case, he reminds us, their main, indeed, their imperative, concern is how to maintain 'Communist' Party control of a rapidly acquisitive population, that is, a population that seeks not only prosperity but also political power of a sort that is in direct opposition to the existing one party state. Naturally, the government will, from time to time, use foreign issues in the time honoured way as a means to whip up nationalist fervour, but mostly this is confined to 'neighbourhood' issues like control of the South China Seas.
When it comes to grand strategic plans for China's place in a global context there appears to be a vacuum! This is dangerous in that we have already suffered with the USA blundering from one folly to another and no clear idea on direction or purpose. The thought of a totally inexperienced China doing the same does not bear contemplation. Rather sensibly, they appear to be aware of their shortcomings and - for the moment! - they are not exerting themselves in any one particular direction. However, as a wise man once said, "Stick around, you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"
It may be, as you say, the Chinese leadership have no experience of foreign policy. We on the other hand, have masses of people who have hundreds of years of such experience. As can be seen by the success of our foreign policies!!!
Hang on a minute................
Posted by: backofanenvelope | Saturday, 23 March 2013 at 16:29
David
Ah, Shucks!
I was hoping the Chinese intellignece service would figure out what our forign policy is -- and tell us.
Posted by: Hank | Saturday, 23 March 2013 at 17:03
Hank's comment appears to be in Spam.
Posted by: JK | Saturday, 23 March 2013 at 18:03
Oops. (Again)
Posted by: JK | Saturday, 23 March 2013 at 18:05
Is there any reason to believe the Chinese bigwigs would be any smarter than your bigwigs, or my bigwigs, or any other bloody bigwigs?
I don't think you have to be a Rhodes scholar to answer that one!
Personally, I wouldn't let any one of them operate the tuck shop at the local school.
Posted by: Andra | Sunday, 24 March 2013 at 07:34
"Rhodes Scholar" Andra?
Admittedly I'm both Ark & Covenant so of course I'm "challenged" in that we've given the world both Bill Clinton & Mike Huckabee but only the former was a 'Rhodes' as I understand.
(Personally... I judge any and all the "bigwigs" on the David Duff Formula which, I think you'll agree - tends to cancel out whatever the hell a 'tuck shop' is.
I used to have in mind David was more madder with our "states-persons" but lately I'm thinking he's of a mind to be less so with Cam if only because they share a name.
Nowadays, I'm of the opinion - Duff's The Madder Hadder!
Pity they've been robbed of their silk (sssh, we'll not tell David the Para Plight? Just twixt the two of us?)
Duffster? Are we given to understand you'll be re-enacting your Arnhem Para stuff - by ways of conditioning your 'pensioner status'?
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 24 March 2013 at 09:58
BOE, you are cynic before your time - well done!
Andra, you raise an interesting point. By and large, like you, I do not swallow 'expertise' whole! However, the doreign policy of a nation, particularly one as huge as China, is a matter worthy of considerable thought and analysis. The alternative is to blunder about without a clear (or sustained) notion of where you are going - as Hank implies in his comment. In a nuclear world that could be dangerous.
JK, I have passed your comment to Bletchley Park for analysis - er, you're not in charge of American foreign policy by any chance, are you?
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 24 March 2013 at 10:25