On Nov. 15, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平) became General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and chairman of the party’s Central Military Commission (CMC), giving him supreme authority over China’s armed forces. In March, he will become president of China as well.
How does China’s new leader see the world, and how will he handle the country’s foreign policy? Do his style and preferences differ significantly from those of his predecessor, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤)?
The answers will determine China’s relations with the world, and vice versa, for the next decade.
China’s leaders approach power in a very different way than do political leaders in, say, the US. US politicians must sell their ideas and values to voters; China’s leaders do not need to inform the press and the public directly about anything, including their foreign policy positions.
Indeed, with the notable exceptions of former Chinese leaders Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), China’s leaders have seldom imposed their own personalities upon Chinese diplomacy.
In this sense, Xi’s leadership style will most likely continue in the tradition of his predecessors. Nevertheless, Xi’s outlook and world view are surely different from Hu’s.
For starters, Xi is part of a generation raised and educated mostly in China’s reform era, which has been a decisive influence in their lives. China opened itself to the world in 1978, when Xi and his contemporaries were young men eager to understand the world outside China. They are a generation inspired by Deng’s realistic approach to shattering the walls that radical leftists had built around China, and one that believes that knowledge can change the destiny of the country and its people.
When this generation assumes the mantle of leadership, its members will turn their passion and curiosity about knowledge and innovation into real work. They are surely willing to learn from the wider world as they seek to promote China’s national interests abroad and encourage gradual change at home.
Xi may address Chinese diplomacy’s thorniest issues — particularly Sino-US relations — with more realism and flexibility than in recent years. His visit to the US in February was widely regarded as a sequel to Deng’s visit in January 1979.
Xi talked to US President Barack Obama and visited the Pentagon. He gave a luncheon speech and saw old friends from his brief stay in Iowa as a young man. He showed interest in US culture, just as Deng did in 1979. He ate chocolate and watched NBA games.
Most important, instead of spending countless hours drearily discussing political and strategic topics, he spoke directly and vigorously about the current state of Sino-US relations.
“The Pacific Ocean is wide enough to accommodate the two major countries,” he said.
Unhappy with the US’ “pivot” to Asia, Xi remained calm, but emphasized that “one cannot rely too much on military power regarding Asia-Pacific diplomacy.”
Similarly, Xi tried to avoid major arguments on human rights, saying simply: “There’s no best, only better.”
In essence, he sought to demonstrate that however many questions, arguments and potential conflicts exist between China and the US, both countries’ leaders should address them with an attitude of cooperation and sincerity. Leaders should not become entangled in details that fuel suspicion of their counterparts’ motives, lest they lose sight of the bigger picture.
Xi’s confidence extends to China’s domestic politics. His generation is more certain of reform than previous leadership cohorts were, owing less to official ideology than to the country’s enormous achievements in the past three decades.
In practice, Xi may well prove to be a nationalist. Certainly, his generation, like the founding fathers of the People’s Republic of China, dreams of turning China into a stronger, more prosperous country. The country’s new leaders want the world’s applause, but they are more eager for domestic ovations.
Like previous Chinese leaders, Xi firmly believes that the world should respect China’s authority to manage its own affairs. Thus, he is willing to show diplomatic muscle if China is challenged on a core area of concern. His speech in Mexico in 2009 demonstrated this.
“Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us,” he said. “First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and, third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?”
Xi understands that the world expects not only a better China, but also a China that is committed to constructing a better world. He will be a tough and strong-minded leader, but one who understands the world in a pragmatic way and knows how to work well with his foreign counterparts.
His visit to the US left two impressions: First, he is a leader at ease both in front of and away from the television cameras. Second, he is not afraid to have a little fun.
With those simple touches of humanity, Xi could bring a revolution to China’s diplomacy.
Zhu Feng is the deputy director of the Center for International & Strategic Studies at Peking University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US