SILLY FINANCIAL TIMES: This FT
SILLY FINANCIAL TIMES: This FT story on the emergence of realpolitik in China’s foreign policy is so ahistorical that it just looks silly. The key thesis: “The restraint that has characterised China’s response to the crises in Iraq and North Korea demonstrates a fundamental shift in the way that Beijing pursues its foreign policy, Chinese ...
SILLY FINANCIAL TIMES: This FT story on the emergence of realpolitik in China's foreign policy is so ahistorical that it just looks silly. The key thesis: "The restraint that has characterised China's response to the crises in Iraq and North Korea demonstrates a fundamental shift in the way that Beijing pursues its foreign policy, Chinese academics and foreign diplomats said. As Colin Powell, US secretary of state, holds talks with Chinese leaders today, the importance of Beijing's new-found pragmatism may be on display. Chinese leaders are not expected to stand in the way of Washington's desire to attack Iraq, nor are the two sides likely to hit an impasse over North Korea, analysts said.... 'China now publicly tells the world that our foreign policy serves our interests,' says Yan Xuetong, director of the institute of international studies at Tsinghua University." China's acting in its own interests? Stop the presses!! The unstated implication -- that in recent years China has not acted to advance its own interests -- is ridiculous. What's dangerous is that this article completely ignores an alternative explanation for China's inaction on both Iraq and North Korea -- a struggle for leadership at the top (UPDATE: Sam Crane makes the same point even more concisely in this LA Times op-ed). The North Korea crisis has been percolating for almost six months now, and the principal Chinese reaction has been to insist it will do nothing. This might be pragmatism in the form of buckpassing. Or it might be a sign of paralysis. You'd never know from the FT.
SILLY FINANCIAL TIMES: This FT story on the emergence of realpolitik in China’s foreign policy is so ahistorical that it just looks silly. The key thesis: “The restraint that has characterised China’s response to the crises in Iraq and North Korea demonstrates a fundamental shift in the way that Beijing pursues its foreign policy, Chinese academics and foreign diplomats said. As Colin Powell, US secretary of state, holds talks with Chinese leaders today, the importance of Beijing’s new-found pragmatism may be on display. Chinese leaders are not expected to stand in the way of Washington’s desire to attack Iraq, nor are the two sides likely to hit an impasse over North Korea, analysts said…. ‘China now publicly tells the world that our foreign policy serves our interests,’ says Yan Xuetong, director of the institute of international studies at Tsinghua University.” China’s acting in its own interests? Stop the presses!! The unstated implication — that in recent years China has not acted to advance its own interests — is ridiculous. What’s dangerous is that this article completely ignores an alternative explanation for China’s inaction on both Iraq and North Korea — a struggle for leadership at the top (UPDATE: Sam Crane makes the same point even more concisely in this LA Times op-ed). The North Korea crisis has been percolating for almost six months now, and the principal Chinese reaction has been to insist it will do nothing. This might be pragmatism in the form of buckpassing. Or it might be a sign of paralysis. You’d never know from the FT.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
