Abstract
Leadership transition often leads to new foreign policy orientation. Following Deng Xiaoping’s emergence as the top leader of China in 1978, Chinese foreign policy experienced a series of fundamental changes in principle and substance. The rise of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 with his “new political thinking” led to radical restructuring of Soviet foreign policy. When George W. Bush became the President of the United States in 2001, neorealism and unilateralism quickly replaced Bill Clinton’s neoliberalism and multilateralism. Political scientist Robert Putnam examined close links between domestic politics and foreign relations.1 In almost all the countries regardless of their regime types, foreign policies tend to be affected by changeover of the national leadership.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two Level Games,” International Organization, vol. 42 (1988), pp. 427–60.
For a theoretical analysis of foreign policy restructuring, see Jerel A. Rosati, Joe Hagan, and Martin W. Sampson, eds., Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994).
The Chinese leadership can be divided into five generations: The first generation was led by Mao Zedong who dominated Chinese politics from 1949 until his death in 1976. At the core of the second generation was Deng Xiaoping who was the supreme leader of China from 1978 to the early 1990s. The third generation was headed by Jiang Zemin who became the General Secretary of the CPC in 1989. Jiang remains the Chairman of the Central Military Commission today. Hu Jintao is the leading figure of the fourth generation, but he has not been officially called the “core” of the fourth generation. The emerging young leaders will be the fifth generation. For recent studies of Chinese leadership, see Chen Li, China’s Leaders: The New Generation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001);
David M. Finkelstein and Maryanne Kivlehan, eds., China’s Leadership in the 21st. Century: The Rise of the Fourth Generation (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003);
and Andrew J. Nathan and Bruce Gilley, China’s New Rulers: The Secret Files (New York: New York Review Books, 2002). For an in-depth analysis of the rise of Hu Jintao,
see Richard Daniel Ewing, “Hu Jintao: The Making of a Chinese General Secretary,” China Quarterly, vol. 173 (March 2003), pp. 18–34.
In fact, the transition to the technocracy was achieved in the third generation. The emergence of Jiang Zemin and his colleagues at the center of political power represents a transition of Chinese political leadership from a generation of revolutionary politicians to a generation of technocratic politicians. This new group is characterized by its lack of any absolute authority based on charisma and prestige established through decades of wars and construction and by its relatively narrow power base. No single leader can command unquestioned authority simultaneously in the three major systems of China’s political power—the party, the government, and the military. This has led to a collective decision-making process, with checks and balances reflected in the structure and composition of the Politburo Standing Committee, which has begun to represent more bureaucratic and regional interests. See Lu Ning, The Dynamics of Foreign-Policy Decisionmaking in China (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).
Michael Ng-Quinn, “The Analytic Study of Chinese Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 27 (1983), pp. 203–24. For an overview of literature on Chinese foreign policy, see Michael Hunt, “CCP Foreign Relations: A Guide to the Literature,” Cold War International History Program Bulletin, no. 6–7 (Winter 1995/6), pp. 129, 137–43.
Thomas Kane, “China’s foundations: guiding principles of Chinese foreign policy,” Comparative Strategy, vol. 20, no. 1 (January–March 2001), pp. 45–55.
Yong Deng, “The Chinese Conception of National Interests and International Relations.” China Quarterly, (June 1998), pp. 308–29. For a critical review of Chinese nationalism and its impact on China’s foreign policy in the post-Deng era, see Allen S. Whiting, “Chinese Nationalism and Foreign Policy After Deng,” China Quarterly, vol. 142 (June 1995), pp. 295–316.
For a controversial view of racial nationalism, see Barry Sautman, “Racial Nationalism and China’s External Behavior,” World Affairs, vol. 160, no. 2 (Fall 1997), pp. 78–95.
Alastair Iain Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Cultural and Grand Strategy in Chinese History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
Thomas J. Christensen, “Chinese Realpolitik,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 75, no. 5 (September/October 1996), pp. 37–52.
Joseph Y.S. Cheng and Zhang Wankun, “Patterns and Dynamics of China’s International Strategic Behaviour,” Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 11, no. 31 (2001), pp. 235–60.
Wu Xinbo, “Four Contradictions Constraining China’s Foreign Policy Behavior,” Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 10 (2001), pp. 293–301.
Banning Garrett, “China Faces, Debates, the Contradictions of Globalization,” Asian Survey, vol. 41, no. 3 (2001), pp. 409–27.
Gilbert Rozman, “China’s Quest for Great Power Identity,” Orbis, vol. 43, no. 3 (1999), pp. 383–402.
Robert S. Ross, “Beijing as a Conservative Power,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 2 (March–April 1997), pp. 33–45. For a contrasting view by two journalists,
see Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, “The Coming Conflict with America,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 2 (March–April 1997), pp. 18–32.
Yan Xuetong, “The Rse of China in Chinese Eyes,” Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 10 (2001), pp. 33–39.
Avery Goldstein, “The Diplomatic Face of China’s Grand Strategy: A Rsing Power’s Emerging Choice,” China Quarterly, vol. 168 (December 2001), pp. 835–64.
Some scholars mainly perceive China as a regional power, see Samuel S. Kim, “China as a Great Power,” Current History, vol. 96 (September 1997), pp. 246–51.
For the most through analysis on the rise of China, see Samuel S. Kim, “China’s Path to Great Power Status in the Globalization Era,” Asian Perspective, vol. 27, no. 1 (2003), pp. 35–75.
Joseph S. Nye, “China’s Re-emergence and the Future of the Asia-Pacific,” Survival, vol. 39, no. 4 (Winter 1997–98), pp. 65–79.
Michael Yahuda, “China’s Foreign Relations: The Long March, Future Uncertain,” China Quarterly, vol. 159 (September 1999), pp. 650–59.
Quansheng Zhao, “Chinese Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era,” World Affairs, vol. 159, no. 3 (winter 1997), pp. 114–29.
For a related argument, see Quansheng Zhao, “Modernization, Nationalism, and Regionalism in China,” in Steven Hook, ed., Comparative Foreign Policy: Adaptation Strategies of the Great and Emerging Powers (Upper Saddle Rver: Prentice Hall, 2002), pp. 66–91.
Wang Jisi, “The Role of the United States as a Global and Pacific Power: A View From China,” Pacific Review, vol. 10, no. 1 (1997), pp. 1–18.
See also Yong Deng, “Hegemon on the Offensive: Chinese Perspectives on U.S. Global Strategy,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 116, no. 3 (Fall 2001), pp. 343–65;
and Robert A. Pastor, “China and the United States: Who Threatens Whom?,” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 54, no. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 427–43.
For an insightful overview of US-China relations, see Harry Harding, “The Uncertain Future of US-China Relations,” Asia-Pacific Review, vol. 6, no. 1 (1999), pp. 7–24.
David Shambaugh, “Sino-American Relations since September 11: Can the New Stability Last?,” Current History, vol. 101, no. 656 (September 2002), pp. 243–49.
See also Aaron L. Friedberg, “11 September and the Future of Sino-American Relations,” Survival, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring 2002), pp. 33–50; and David M. Lampton, “Small Mercies: China and America after 9/11,” The National Interest (Winter 2001–02), pp. 106–13.
Denny Roy, “China and the War on Terrorism,” Orbis, vol. 46, no. 3 (Summer 2002), pp. 511–21.
Lowell Dittmer, “The Sino-Russian Strategic Partnership,” Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 10, no. 28 (2001), pp. 399–413.
For a comprehensive survey, see Lowell Dittmer, Sino-Soviet Normalization and Its International Implications (University of Washington Press, 1992).
For a Chinese perspective on Sino-Russian relations and an American response, see Li Jingjie, “Pillars of the Sino-Russian Partnership,” Orbis, vol. 44, no. 4 (2000), pp. 527–39;
and a response to Li by Gilbert Rozman. “A New Sino-Russian-American Triangle?” Orbis, vol. 44, no. 4 (Fall 2000), pp. 541–55.
See also Stephen J. Blank, “The Strategic Context of Russo-Chinese Relations,” Issues and Studies, vol. 36, no. 4 (July/August 2000), pp. 66–94;
and Elizabeth Wishnick, “Russia and China: Brothers Again?,” Asian Survey, vol. 41, no. 5 (2001), pp. 797–821.
Allen S. Whiting, “ASEAN Eyes China: The Security Dimension,” Asian Survey, vol. 37, no. 4 (1997), pp. 299–322.
See also Rosemary Foot, “China in the Regional Forum: Organizational Process and Domestic Modes of Thought,” Asian Survey, vol. 38, no. 5 (1998), pp. 425–40.
Joseph Fewsmith, “The Political and Social Implications of China’s Accession to the WTO,” China Quarterly, vol. 167 (2001), pp. 573–609.
See also Greg Mastel, “China, Taiwan, and the World Trade Organization,” Washington Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3 (Summer 2001), pp. 45–56;
and Zhiqun Zhu, “China, the WTO, and U.S.-China Relations,” in Guoli Liu and Weixing Chen, ed., New Directions in Chinese Politics for the New Millennium (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), pp. 249–73.
Wang Yizhou, “Rethink Approach to Security Threats,” China Daily (May 29, 2003), p. 4. Wang is a researcher with the Institute of World Economics and Politics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He has played a key role in introducing new theories and methodology into China’s international studies. See Wang Yizhou, Xifan Guoji Zhengzhixue: Lishi yu Lilun [Western International Politics: History and Theory] (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1998).
Xiaohong Liu, Chinese Ambassadors: The Rise of Diplomatic Professionalism since 1949 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001).
China’s new leaders have an acute sense of the critical socioeconomic issues. Premier Wen Jiabao pointed out: China has a workforce of over 740 million people, but for the developed economies, European countries and America combined, their workforce stands at 430 million. (One independent research estimated the urban unemployed figure as high as 50 million.) The number of migrant workers who seek job opportunities in cities normally caps around 120 million. More than 30 million farmers are still living under the poverty line. Even for those who have been lifted above the poverty line, their lives are at a low level. Per capita income for them is only 625 yuan (US$75). If we substitute the benchmark for the poverty line with an increase of 200 yuan (US$24), then the total poor population will be 90 million. The gap between China’s East and China’s West is very wide. The GDP from five to six provinces in the coastal areas accounted for more then half of China’s total GDP. China Daily, March 19, 2003. For an in-depth analysis of the major issues facing China, see Joseph Y.S. Cheng, China’s Challenges in the Twenty-first Century (Hong Kong: City Univeristy of Hong Kong Press, 2003).
See Lowell Dittmer, Learning and the Reform of Chinese Foreign Policy (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1999).
Copyright information
© 2005 Weixing Chen and Yang Zhong
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liu, G. (2005). Leadership Transition and New Foreign Policy Orientation. In: Leadership in a Changing China. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980397_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980397_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53004-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-8039-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)