The Logic and Contradictions of 'Peaceful Rise/Development' as China's Grand Strategy

Abstract

Despite the widespread view that China does not have a coherent grand strategy, it does not need to invent one. China has already articulated a grand strategy that is based on the home-grown idea of 'peaceful rise/development' (PRD). The key issue is whether the logic of this grand strategy, and the contradictions within it, are fully understood, and whether China has sufficient depth and coherence in its policy-making processes to implement such a strategy. Although there are elements of longer continuity in China's strategic outlook, the transformation from Mao's revolutionist strategy to Deng's strategy of reform and opening up, involved a radical shift in China's perception of itself, the world, and its place in the world. That shift provides a stable and coherent background against which to think about the ends and means of China's grand strategy. The paper opens by looking at PRD's status as a grand strategy. It then surveys the ends and the means of China's foreign and security policy as they have evolved in practice and rhetoric. Finally, it assesses in depth China's practice against three distinct strategic logics within PRD: cold, warm and hot peaceful rise. The conclusion is that China's current practice points firmly 1 All references to Kindle editions use location numbers. 2 I would like to thank Wang Jiangli, Zhang Feng and Yongjin Zhang and two anonymous CJIP reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

China’s rise in English school perspective

“…Many of its neighbours are, or could quickly become, militarily formidable. As I have argued elsewhere (Buzan, 2014b) China will disadvantage itself, and help the US quite considerably, if it tries to achieve regional primacy by intimidating its neighbours.…”

China in Latin America Then and Now: A Systemic Constructivist Analysis of China’s Foreign Policy

“…That being said, comparing China's foreign policy goals towards Latin America then and now, it is fair to say that China has changed from a revolutionary revisionist power to a reformist one if not an orthodox one. Unlike a status quo power, China today does want to change its status/rank in the international system; however, unlike a revolutionary revisionist power (and an orthodox one), China is accepting some formal and informal institutions of the exiting international system (such as those about market economy promoted by the US and the West in general) while challenging others (such as those about the US/Western-defined democracy and human rights) (Buzan, 2010(Buzan, , 2014(Buzan, , 2018.…”

Russian revisionism in the Putin era: an overview of post-communist military interventions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria

“…Moreover, taking it for granted that such objectives certify the presence of revisionist intentions, what difference is there between a country that pursues its objectives by means of force and one that instead uses diplomacy and economic cooperation? Buzan (2014) has developed a typology of revisionism grounded primarily on the degree of change sought by the state in question and identifying three major types: orthodox, bound up with the improvement of status through policies of self-promotion that have no direct effect on the international distribution of power and preserve the rules of the system unchanged; revolutionary, which involves complete transformation of the rules and hierarchy of the system and challenges the status quo in markedly ideological terms; and radical, an intermediate position characterized by desire to change the rules within the existing framework of international society but without any revolutionary aims.…”

“…For reasons of space it was not possible to discuss the literature accurately. For more details on China, see Johnston (2003); Chan (2004); Feng and He (2017); Wang (2004); Yue (2008); and Buzan (2014). As for Russia see Tsygankov (2011); Oldberg (2016); Trenin (2016); Treisman (2016); Mearsheimer (2014); Karaganov et al, (2009); Wohlforth (2007) rules and norms without resorting to or provoking the use of force.…”