A crucial debate with China at a crossroads
With wealth usually comes influence - and power. So as China's economy grows, it makes sense that its role on the world stage will expand, as well. This should come as no surprise to anyone; it's a natural part of the rise of a new great power. Nor should it come as any surprise that there will be discomfort and unease as the rest of the world adjusts to this new presence; such reactions accompanied the rise of other powers such as the US and the USSR.
In China's case, concerns have recently centred over its intentions in the South China, East and Yellow seas. Beijing's position has been oft-repeated - that the world will see a peaceful rise and non-interference in the affairs of other countries. But senior diplomat Dai Bingguo's recent long essay on the subject is timely and important. And hopefully not so much the last word on the subject as the start of a lively debate on foreign policy, both internationally and among Chinese.
Dai's long article posted on the Foreign Ministry's website last week gives rare insight. He rejects the notion that China wants to replace the US and dominate the world as a myth. The central government doesn't have a hidden agenda or secret ambitions, he says; all it seeks is to focus on China's development while peacefully co-operating with others. These sentiments have been expressed before, but not argued as forcefully or in such detail.
And arguably, now more than ever, Beijing needs to make plain its positions. A tough response was expected by the international community after its ally North Korea shelled the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, killing four, but none has so far been forthcoming. The government's classifying of 'indisputable sovereignty' this year over disputed parts of the South China and East seas has raised concerns in the US and among its Asian allies. There's now an arms build-up under way around the region and the US has declared the South China Sea as being part of its 'national interest'.
The risks are real: the Koreas could well have gone to war. It's not inconceivable that tensions with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands could have escalated. With the number of naval vessels patrolling the Spratley and Paracel islands rising, conflict threatens as never before.
Dai's essay clearly attempts to address such concerns. Its prominent placement seems to have the US and its East Asian allies, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines among them, firmly in mind. But the matter is as much a domestic question as an international one. After all, China's role on the world stage can have far-reaching consequences for the nation as a whole. Just look at the US and its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq for an example.
China's passing of Japan to become the world's No 2 economic power brings it to a crossroads. Some Chinese want it to continue on a low-profile foreign policy path. Others believe it is time to wield more influence and step up to a bigger, and rightful, place on the world stage. This is an important question for the nation, and one which would benefit from much open debate among Foreign Ministry officials, lawmakers, academics and ordinary people.
Dai's article is further proof that the government is aware of the unease in the region over China's growing influence as well as its increasing military capabilities. It's good that he's raised the matter in such a forthright and lucid way. Such a reassurance is a good first step, but that needs to be followed up with more discussion and dialogue - both internationally and domestically.
