The International Relations of the People’s Republic of China
The thousands of years of Chinese history has helped mold the current economic powerhouse in East Asia, considerable enough to pose a serious threat to the United States of America. Not only does Chinese power contain its economic capabilities for these past decades but also the military strength that it has positioned strategically at the Eastern coast of Asian mainland. With these economic and political realities that the nation has, its role in shaping the affairs of the East Asian region and the global policy in general has become very important. After the Communist Party of China decided to open its socialist economy to private capital and foreign trade and permitted the flow of foreign goods, services and investments, the economy has maintained high productivity if its growth rate of ten percent per annum will be the based upon.
That rate is quite vibrant and holds great promises for a thriving economy considering that after the Second World War and the triumph of a communist revolution in the late 1940’s the nation was generally a backward agricultural nation with intermediary industries in some major cities. It was only until after Chairman Mao Zedong’s Economic Great Leap Forward that the basic and heavy industries were given with due recognition as the most fundamental industries which a developing nation must have. Self reliance was the original goal of the socialist economic program but in the 1980’s the economic framework has shifted dramatically that a capitalist resurgence was envisioned in the People’s Republic. This economic and political situation is very much in connection with the Chinese foreign relations at present. Economic and political conditions had direct influence on how the Chinese government would respond to other states regardless of their ideological leanings. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early nineties, foreign trade was compromised between socialist nations and some of them had begun reconsidering trade partners which are outside the Marxist spectrum.
There are three questions which could lead to the discussion of Chinese foreign relations and whatever answers may be provided by the ruling Party could mean prosperity and peace or hostility and economic crisis for the People’s Republic. The Chinese Nation has been recognized by the global community after the Republic of China based in Taiwan was expelled from the United Nations. Following this development in Chinese position in the international scene, various states have shifted their relations from Taipei to Beijing. Even the United States renewed its diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China in 1972 amidst strains during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. This recognition meant that once again, China has regained its prestige as one of the great nations in history. The imperial past can never be disregarded such that throughout its history, China has provided the necessary elements in the shifts of power in the Asian region and ultimately in the global economic and politico-military affairs. One of the reasons that may have been a part of this recognition was that China has become a major contending power during the Cold War. When Mao Zedong developed ideological differences with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the socialist block has not been completely unified and Western democracies took advantage of this rift. The initiative was taken to polarize the socialists. Today, the Chinese nations provides the promise for a big market for foreign trade goods and as a competitor in the global market, the United States sees China as a rival in the resources and market for their goods and services and subsequently, influence in the region.
Following these premises which has discussed the Chinese reality three questions can be derived regarding the communist government’s foreign diplomatic relations with other nations and states. With due recognition on the Communist Party of China as the leading organ or authority of the state exemplified by its historical position and value in the liberation of the oppressed people of China from the semi-feudal, semi-colonial society before the socialist revolution, would the party be out rightly supportive of the general framework of encapsulating to the capitalist mode of production as witnessed in the recent years and continue to derive possibilities of breaching the socialist path? This question is essential because it may spell China’s commitment with other nations and states as trade partners. The huge Chinese workforce, given its cheap labor, would very much attract foreign investors. These investment opportunities, as it is characterized by an authoritarian regime, would always pass through the bureaucratic channel hence provide the supremacy of the Party above private firms in deciding these trade relations. Historically speaking, the leading role of the Party in these matters is irrevocable and could not be simply disregarded as its negation or bypass would spell strains with the sovereign government. For decades, the Party’s authority was visible in all aspects of governance and policy making. The answer to this question, whether it is pro or against socialism will affect how China would conduct it relations not only economically but also in terms of global diplomacy.
Second, Chinese economic strength at present would undoubtedly contribute to the international position of the PROC and the Communist Party of China especially in Asia and the world in issues of economy and security but would this prestige also mean threat to the United States interests in the region? Once again, the polarization of nations and states within the reach of China could commence after the United States’ policy in the security affairs and international terrorism faced numerous oppositions and condemnation. The nuclear standoff in North Korea has proven that China-US relations could worsen at any given time if the United States would continue its aggression in China-influenced regimes. US branding of North Korea as a rouge state with an evil regime is a spit on the Party’s face and created a sardonic effect on the socialist block. China aligned with Russia together with various central Asian nations and former Soviet satellite states in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which was primarily a security alliance. Although the SCO was an anti-terror alliance it went against the US brand of combating terrorism through wars of aggression and occupation. China did not participate in the Iraq invasion and so was Russia.
Lastly, recent human rights abuses in the Himalayas are dragging international concern over the Chinese government’s resilience in the wake of indignations on its treatment of Tibetan political affairs. Not only in Tibet has that China been accused of breaching international humanitarian laws but also in many parts where dissent has been high against China’s internal policies. The one party rule in the country had greatly manifested a dictatorship over minority groups and opposition forces but will this dictatorship last as envisioned by their own governments and resolve internal conflicts without dragging foreign entities to the issue? If such being the case that China experiences sovereign authority on the political turmoil within its boundaries would it accept international initiatives in the resolution of these concerns? What if international initiatives would become necessarily needed as the situation worsens? Would the Communist Party of China allow foreign efforts or assert its sovereign right and resist any concerted alternative from the international community? The future of China greatly depends on its economic and political security. External threats may have not been effective in reducing Chinese power but ultimate internal conditions would be decisive in shaping the scene.
Works Cited
Pei, MinXin. “The Dark Side of China’s Rise.” Foreign Policy.March/April 2006 (2006). June 16, 2008 <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3373&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3373>.
