FOREIGN POLICY OF CHINA

 

Shaltykov A. (Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty)

 

 

     International relationship is important indicator of development of world society. In connection with this foreign policy affairs are most important for a state. What forces form policy, who makes major decisions in this sphere, what factors influence this policy? It requires theory and history study.

     In light of international relations China’s history is of special interest.

     As it’s known, since ancient times China has been taken important role in international relation system on Asian continent and has been key country. Today when all world states are strongly interconnected, multifactor influence of China is touching world situation as a whole without mentioning China factor in policy of Kazakhstan and Russia.

     Main principles of foreign policy of China within its whole history are directly connected to character and form of its state. Structure of centralized imperia which was formed and became solid on early stages of society development of Ancient China supposed absolute rule of internal policy where main principles were fixed “weak people – strong state” and absolute support to state power. One can notice, this very sphere of internal policy acted as ideological principles for “hegemonies”, “Great Power chauvinism” etc.

    Such type of state caused formation of special foreign policy course which obeyed the same principles. However, general course was objectively peaceful due to formed circumstances. In favor of the statement  there is fact that military forces were on second and even third place in state hierarchy after  emperor and official scientists. Traditional state structure had civil staff where army was in depressed condition.      Chinese rulers in name of the highest power chain – emperor and his entourage resolved matters of their international contacts by peace and diplomacy preferring “economic” advantages to “diplomatic’ ones. It was important for All-powerful to protect himself.

      It’s important to notice that aggressive foreign policy aimed at conquer of new territories and peoples was used by them as forced tactical step in periods of dynasty crisis, before crush of united state or in times of decentralization. When traditional state agriculture structure of China failed which happened cyclically and centrifugal forces started, conquers were the last chance to save authority of central power. Conquers of Turkistan in mid of XYIII were the beginning of state crisis when gradual destruction of its main elements resulted in foreign aggression. This process coincided with the beginning of active contacts with Russia and confrontation of these two Powers about “cross border zone” Mongolia, Jungaria, East Turkistan, Kazakhstan.

     New period of history is transformation of traditional state of china and together with it changes in its foreign policy course.

      In Gomindan state construction (1912-1949), when China was not united state formation and it was itself object of foreign aggression, it’s necessary to notice that new component of Chinese state was formed at that time which would be playing important role in its further policy. It is militarism. Many researches notice that militarism appeared in China as a result of “political vacuum in crisis times which began in mid of XIX century and resulted in monarchy decomposition, colonial enslavement etc.” Empty political niche was occupied by militarists. Military factor was decisive in further political development of the country and “new revolutionary political regime had been formed first of all as military-administrative one.” Today upon multiple forces acting in China the key role is playing military force.

      State as civilized base of Chinese culture has exclusive steadiness and stability. History of China up to today is continuation of transformed traditional state.  Does it mean that derivative principles of foreign policy are also stable? This statement is true in our opinion in relation to following principles of modern Chinese policy: 

    - individual decisions on foreign policy by state leaders;

    - National character of foreign policy;

    - attitude to foreign policy as important leverage to internal policy;

    - huge role of propaganda;

   - “workability” of traditional political culture.

      Individual decision making is a fact not only of Chinese reality but in China it has the brightest character due to special “depressed’ population. Strong leaders such as Tsin Sihuan, Mao Tse Dun, Dan Siapin and others ruled here alone, however person role is not key one for Chinese history. When there was not leader decisions were made by group of officials or party officials.

      In this connection, one can notice that “hesitation” of Mao Tse Dun in foreign policy can not be explained by his personal ambitions or character of ruling “class’ forces. The main role here plays traditional state which formed leader’s view by way of political culture.

      Specifically Chinese phenomena is “real strategic interests of China are not independent specified value…” and make strategic partnership from sphere of political rhetoric.

     Nationalism means general for power and for people of China strong conviction that sovereignty is a key to national power. This principle is connected with ancient political culture which is strong today in China and like a filter keeps norms and orientations which stabilize political system. The main value for all Chinese people is support of stability in the state and it is used by system powers. On this basis internal and foreign policy is created. Such values cannot be quickly transformed.   

 Today’s development of China proves “workability” of main principles of traditional state, political culture and correspondingly policy itself. What will be stronger then: ancient state or market evolution, what will change: political culture or policy?

    

 

Literature:

1.     Syroyezhkin K.. Political role of working class in China, - Almaty, 1992.P.49

2.     Lampton L.. American – Chinese relationships,- 1996, No. 1, P.22

3.     Likhachev V. About strategic partnership between Russia and China,- 1997, No2

4.     Kokarev K. Traditional political culture -  1997, No.2