Ever since its founding, the People’s Republic of China has adhered to a foreign policy of non-interference in other country’s internal affairs – or so it claims. But with China’s rapid ascent and ever-closer integration with the outside world, this doctrine has become increasingly anachronistic.
Ever since its founding, the People’s Republic of China has adhered to a foreign policy of non-interference in other country’s internal affairs – or so it claims. But with China’s rapid ascent and ever-closer integration with the outside world, this doctrine has become increasingly anachronistic.
Overseas, China’s role in places like Sudan and Burma not only draws international opprobrium, but also taints its reputation. By maintaining cozy relations with repressive regimes and protecting them from international sanctions, China risks being seen as their accomplice. Even when China’s voice could be decisive in resolving crises or preventing bloodshed, instead of acting, its diplomats repeat the old platitudes about non-interference.
The recent “saffron revolution” in Burma presented China with not only a challenge, but also an opportunity to exert its influence. Yet it failed the test of statesmanship once again by sitting on its hands and merely calling for restraint. Thanks to China’s collusion, the suffering of Burma’s people continues.
China’s mixture of inaction with a mercantilist approach to its Third World trading partners attests to the hypocrisy of its foreign policy. For, where access to natural resources is concerned, China is more than willing to discard its non-interference doctrine.
This has not gone unnoticed, as a wave of anti-China movements has spread across Africa. In Zambia, Chinese mining firms’ indifference to the death of their African employees provoked large protests against China’s presence. Though China finally pacified the situation by threatening to withdraw investment, doing so meant reneging on the promise not to meddle in other countries’ domestic affairs.
Of course, interference in the internal affairs of another country isn’t inherently evil. When it is harnessed to promote growth and human rights, interference should be appreciated, regardless of the regime that is doing it. China’s vast influence over a few fellow dictatorships still holds out the best hope of softening their misrule. But can China be persuaded to wield its influence constructively, rather than maintaining its pretense of neutrality when its assistance is badly needed?
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
So far, China’s leaders have not seen the merits of abandoning non-interference. Their reasons also seem to have a pragmatic ring: they don’t want to cause North Korea to collapse by being too harsh; they fear losing influence in Burma to India or the United States; no one is doing much about Darfur, so to jeopardize the supply of Sudanese oil by pushing the regime in Khartoum appears futile. But pragmatism has its limits, particularly when it permits dangerous situations to fester.
Indeed, China’s pandering to dictators in its quest for resources contradicts its long-term interest in being acknowledged as a benign and legitimate power and commanding the international respect that it craves. Had China put pressure on the Burmese junta to stop slaughtering its own people, it would have earned substantial moral credit around the world. Moreover, the suspicions of China’s neighbors fueled by its rise could be partly allayed by such efforts to improve regional stability.
China now faces a dilemma. Should its parochial interests give way to more cosmopolitan responsibilities? How it answers this question will largely determine how the world views it for decades to come. If China doesn’t want to be seen as complicit in the crimes of its client regimes, then it is time for it to alter its concept of diplomatic interference.
If China maintains its non-interference policy, it will become increasingly difficult to mask that doctrine’s malevolence behind the façade of the country’s “charm offensive.” China still has a long way to go before it will be perceived as a responsible stakeholder in the world. Reforming the non-interference doctrine is a necessary step in that direction.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
While the Democrats have won some recent elections with support from Silicon Valley, minorities, trade unions, and professionals in large cities, this coalition was never sustainable. The party has become culturally disconnected from, and disdainful of, precisely the voters it needs to win.
thinks Kamala Harris lost because her party has ceased to be the political home of American workers.
This year’s many elections, not least the heated US presidential race, have drawn attention away from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku. But global leaders must continue to focus on combating the climate crisis and accelerating the green transition both in developed and developing economies.
foresees multilateral development banks continuing to play a critical role in financing the green transition.
Ever since its founding, the People’s Republic of China has adhered to a foreign policy of non-interference in other country’s internal affairs – or so it claims. But with China’s rapid ascent and ever-closer integration with the outside world, this doctrine has become increasingly anachronistic.
Overseas, China’s role in places like Sudan and Burma not only draws international opprobrium, but also taints its reputation. By maintaining cozy relations with repressive regimes and protecting them from international sanctions, China risks being seen as their accomplice. Even when China’s voice could be decisive in resolving crises or preventing bloodshed, instead of acting, its diplomats repeat the old platitudes about non-interference.
The recent “saffron revolution” in Burma presented China with not only a challenge, but also an opportunity to exert its influence. Yet it failed the test of statesmanship once again by sitting on its hands and merely calling for restraint. Thanks to China’s collusion, the suffering of Burma’s people continues.
China’s mixture of inaction with a mercantilist approach to its Third World trading partners attests to the hypocrisy of its foreign policy. For, where access to natural resources is concerned, China is more than willing to discard its non-interference doctrine.
This has not gone unnoticed, as a wave of anti-China movements has spread across Africa. In Zambia, Chinese mining firms’ indifference to the death of their African employees provoked large protests against China’s presence. Though China finally pacified the situation by threatening to withdraw investment, doing so meant reneging on the promise not to meddle in other countries’ domestic affairs.
Of course, interference in the internal affairs of another country isn’t inherently evil. When it is harnessed to promote growth and human rights, interference should be appreciated, regardless of the regime that is doing it. China’s vast influence over a few fellow dictatorships still holds out the best hope of softening their misrule. But can China be persuaded to wield its influence constructively, rather than maintaining its pretense of neutrality when its assistance is badly needed?
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
So far, China’s leaders have not seen the merits of abandoning non-interference. Their reasons also seem to have a pragmatic ring: they don’t want to cause North Korea to collapse by being too harsh; they fear losing influence in Burma to India or the United States; no one is doing much about Darfur, so to jeopardize the supply of Sudanese oil by pushing the regime in Khartoum appears futile. But pragmatism has its limits, particularly when it permits dangerous situations to fester.
Indeed, China’s pandering to dictators in its quest for resources contradicts its long-term interest in being acknowledged as a benign and legitimate power and commanding the international respect that it craves. Had China put pressure on the Burmese junta to stop slaughtering its own people, it would have earned substantial moral credit around the world. Moreover, the suspicions of China’s neighbors fueled by its rise could be partly allayed by such efforts to improve regional stability.
China now faces a dilemma. Should its parochial interests give way to more cosmopolitan responsibilities? How it answers this question will largely determine how the world views it for decades to come. If China doesn’t want to be seen as complicit in the crimes of its client regimes, then it is time for it to alter its concept of diplomatic interference.
If China maintains its non-interference policy, it will become increasingly difficult to mask that doctrine’s malevolence behind the façade of the country’s “charm offensive.” China still has a long way to go before it will be perceived as a responsible stakeholder in the world. Reforming the non-interference doctrine is a necessary step in that direction.