China Should Abandon the Foreign Policy of “taoguang yanghui”
“Bide our Time, Build our Capacities”

Zhang Binsen

First of all, let us reiterate our foreign policy principle, which is to seek more beneficial international environment, develop our national power as quickly as possible. This principle is still valid. Taoguang yanghui (Bide our Time, Build our Capacities) was a correct policy in the past that had been based upon erstwhile international situation.

One: Basic Judgment of International Situations

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has lost its balance. The entire Western world suddenly lost its focus of confrontation that they had been used to during the Cold War. The inertia of the Cold War confrontational system has been revealed in all htmects of the Western world, including its political, cultural, diplomatic, economic, military and especially mental outlooks. The whole of Western value system is not based upon developing good relations with other civilizations but upon violent confrontations. Stimulated by such a confrontation-based mentality, “demonization of the other” has become an effective cultural strategy. The tenet that “human rights should be placed higher than sovereign rights” must be an open theoretical foundation. The idea of “eliminating potential danger” has become a bold guideline of the international politics. “Preemptive strike” has become the best reason for military adventures into world’s affairs.

The problem is that the West led by the United States has failed to give the world another choice, that is, the choice of whether different cultures, after various confrontations are over, most famous of which being the absolute struggle between modern capitalism and socialism, can exist in peace and harmony. From today’s perspective, it looks like that mankind has to experience yet another round of violent blood shedding in order to gain an awakening. The clash of civilizations is the basic characteristic but it’s not the fundamental causes. The self-critique ability of the West will ultimately triumph over the current misguided and blind political forces.

There are two views here. First, the United States is not focusing on any specific nation as its new target. China, Russia and any nation in the Arab world can be its next target. Second, the 9/11 incident let the U.S. find a new beginning for unleashing its confrontational energy that had been suppressed for a long time. Before the 9/11 incident, Russia and China had narrowly escaped from becoming the new target of the United States. Russia’s flexible and pragmatic strategy and China’s “Bide our Time, Build our Capabilities” [taoguang yanghui] policy and active “opening up” strategy has adroitly avoided the U.S. efforts of retargeting, which had cornered the U.S. to the point of near madness. Therefore, we say the 9/11 incident has not really changed the world; it only symbolizes the tendency of global changes as dictated by the U.S.

There is yet another important factor to consider, which is the historical demand created by the expansion of capital. The 19th century capitalism completed the primitive accumulation of capital and the expansion of profits in various modern nations. At the time, the productive power, and science and technology could no longer satisfy the desire of the capitalists for expansion. As a result, imperialism provided the solution. The First and Second World Wars were the typical cases of imperialist struggles. During the Cold War, science and technology once again made great stride and made many breakthroughs, which in turn tremendously expanded the horizon of economic developments in both production and consumption. Material advancements in human life fundamentally broadened commercial opportunities for the peaceful expansion of capitalism. Therefore, the peace that the world witnessed became necessary during the decades of the Cold War. Today, science and technology are going through yet another round of fundamental changes. But this time, the special emphasis is on information and knowledge, which demands for the development of a new type of capital. The traditional material-based (as opposed to information-based) capital such as arms industry and manufacturing industry must seek new outlets for development. It is this new demand that calls for the re-utilization of the old and blatant imperialism as the simplest solution.

In the mean time, a new era has begun that reflects on the vicious sides of the capital. (A case in point is last year’s Nobel Prize economic theory that introduces the element of life satisfaction as an economic index). This new reflection can not be tolerated by the traditional capital that still extracts profits by using traditional methods.

Two: taoguang yanghui Has Lost its Conditions for Existence

The United States has found a new focus in its pursuit of hegemony, and has developed a clear understanding of what this may take. The new focus, and a new beginning for the United States, is “anti-terrorism,” the method of which is to exterminate the “irrational” national governments in the world. Overnight, “terrorism” is arbitrarily defined by the United States as the world’s “most dangerous enemy.” Regardless of the ample self-mockery contained in this affair, regardless of how many blind followers the U.S. has gathered, the U.S. has dragged everyone onto this track. Judging by American standards, the world not only has a few “irrational” nations that dare to directly challenge the power of the U.S., but also has many potential “irrational” opponents. The United States is not afraid of challenges from “rational” states, because such challenges can be “managed,” whose results can be predicted, with both sides willing to make compromises based upon “rationality.” The “irrational” nations, however, can not be managed and predicted, which is dangerous to the United States. And the rapid rise of these “irrational” nations and their triumphs in certain htmects have in turn enraged those who embrace “cultural unilateralism.” Therefore, no matter how discreetly and indirectly we “bide our time,” we can neither influence an iota of the development strategy of the United States, nor prevent the United States from actively interfering with our internal “rational elements” and “irrational elements.” Being unable to do anything in front of an unambiguous force, we will lose many crucial opportunities, resulting in rapid deterioration of our external environment and the loss of previous time in developing our own diplomatic principle.

Bush’s statement that “if you are not with us, you are with the enemy” can not be interpreted as a matter of personal style. It is a fig leaf for the seemingly wronged United States to carry on an imperialist strategy. This will force us to make a clear choice in various international situations. Being passive in making choices is not the same as making choices backed by strong strategic plans. Adopting an active foreign policy strategy not only makes our specific choices in line with our long-term strategic desire, but also promotes a new thinking that guides our international actions. This demands for our creative contribution, in order that our Chinese civilization can display its full glory.

Our real threats at the time are the U.S. control over the world’s oil in the Middle East and the possibility of the U.S. military intervention in East Asia. The danger of these threats is not only real but also imminent. We are a rapidly developing country; the implication of oil import in foreseeable future is obvious. With the war in Iraq, with the uncompromising confrontation between the United States and North Korea, plus the possible mutations of the situations in the Taiwan Strait, the possibility that our neighboring regions, even our own territories will be attacked with a single and quick military blow is not non-existent.

The prestige of the international laws that helped maintain peace during the Cold War has dropped dramatically. The extent to which we can benefit from these laws is accordingly reduced significantly. The United Nations has been publicly regarded by the U.S. as performing only an “auxiliary role;” the United States can at will withdraw from international agreements; even the rules of WTO, an organization that we have been obsessed with, have been violated by the United States after it calculates carefully the benefits of abiding by them or violating them. We should not harbor any illusions.

In international arena, on the one hand, the big powers waste no time to make demands to satisfy their own interests; on the other hand, smaller nations tend to be opportunistic. The so-called international justice no longer exists. Under this circumstance, it is foolish to still adopt a posture of disengagement on the one hand, and to appeal to the international community for “Five Principles of Co-existence,” and “the Main Theme of Peace and Development” on the other hand.

Three: Formulating Active Diplomatic Principle for a Big Power

Our comprehensive national power has reached the level of a quasi-big power, and we are developing rapidly. This is an inevitable reality that can not be altered by any human will. As a rapidly rising big power, even if there was not the menacing American “cultural unilateralism,” there would still be many other international matters we have to confront. Proper level of engagement proportional to our status will be more beneficial for us to construct a better external environment.

First of all, our diplomatic principle should not be changed, which is to say that we should do our utmost to prolong the peaceful environment that has been beneficial to us. But we have to be clear on one point, i.e. this is completely different from the time of “taoguang yanghui.” We can no longer rely on finding our interests amongst the struggling big powers, although we can still act amongst them as a specific tactic. We can no longer be satisfied with playing an important but not crucial role in a world tinged on strategic balance, as we did during the Cold War, only able to help shape an uncertain balance as a key factor. Imbalance is not beneficial to us, nor is perpetual stability. Therefore, it is imperative for us to “facilitate an unpredictable temporary balance.”

Secondly, in dealing with big powers, and in participating in important international affairs, we must be brave enough to outright pursue our interests. There should be no shyness among tigers and wolves, nor should there be moral holiness. When dealing with the developing countries and their interests, we should take more active action to properly speak on behalf of them, emphasizing their specific interests. However, we should not carry the fig leaf of international justice alone. To do this, we may sacrifice the fig leaf to fetch pragmatic benefits, even though we should not sacrifice the interest of the developing countries in seeking our pragmatic benefits. (A case in point is our concessions in agriculture during the WTO negotiations). From this perspective, even if the role of the United Nations is greatly reduced, it will not become a serious problem. We should act like the United States, brave enough to violate various international agreements and world conventions, because what has been previously holy and divine has all been interpreted by all, including the non-hegemonic nations, with a pragmatic attitude.

Thirdly, in ideological area, we must stress the realistic characteristics of the clash of civilizations, the realistic demand for the compatibility of various civilizations and human principles of preserving civilizations. We must not only stress the clash between Chinese civilization, Islamic civilization, and Indian civilization on one hand, and the Western civilization on the other, but also, and more importantly, emphasize the difference between the Western civilization represented by European continent and the American civilization. European civilization enjoys a long history and a rich heritage. The commercial culture brought out by capitalism is only a form of today’s European civilization, but not its core. In fact, the future critique and rejection of capitalist civilization may come from the basic core of European civilization. However, the United States has no history. Judging from the development since the beginning of the U.S., we can see that capitalist civilization is not only a form or expression of the United States, but also its fundamentals. Some principles of European civilization as reflected in the United States are only a proper dress, but not its nature. We should reduce our level of engagement in the debate over capitalism versus socialism. Instead we should criticize those institutions disguised as progressive, promote those elements that are seemingly failing but beneficial to fundamental human interests.

Fourthly, we should promote nationalism. This is in no way a backward concept. The blatant neo-imperialism as practiced by the United States absolutely needs the support of the increasingly expanding nationalism among the American public. This can equally make the American public lose rationality. The Third Reich is a precedent. We should not profess love of what we actually fear.

Lastly, we should focus more on building and pursuing new international institutions and mechanisms, and not be entangled with preserving the old international order. The existing international principles can not effectively rein in the United States, yet it can pick them up at will to rein in other nations. Under this circumstance, lack of strength will certainly lead us to suffer. Since the existing international mechanisms can not be justly implemented, it is in our interest to destroy them completely, which can at least give us equal opportunity. We should seriously study the benefits and harm of weakening the role of the United Nations before we take any action to do so. To pursue new international mechanisms, we have two battle fields. One is practice, the other is theory. In our practice we must act according to the above mentioned principle. In our theory, we must utilize our maximum imagination to be able to bring out some creative concepts such as erstwhile ones of “Non-Alignment” and “Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence.” This is our pursuit. Our Chinese civilization should have resources for such pursuits.

[Source: Chinese Political Science, 17 May 2003,
http://www.ccrs.org.cn/2233/ReadNews.htm?NewsID=212]