On China’s Whitepaper on National Defense 2010
The Chinese government publishes a Defense White Paper approximately every two years with this year’s white paper published well beyond previous publication dates. The Economist argues that this date reflects the complexity and drastic changes in the international community over the past few months, particularly in the Middle East and in North Africa. Somethings to note about The Economist article on the white paper:
- The articles argues China claims a “world resentful of China emergence as a world power” with a citation from the text: “Suspicion about China, interference and countering moves against China from the outside are on the increase.”
- Heavy criticism of China’s human rights record and recent crackdown of political activists.
- Emphasize the importance of the internet on sustainability of long-term regimes and China’s efforts to stifle internet usage.
A copy of a translated defense paper can be found here:
Since I have looked at the translated document rather than the original Chinese version, I cannot make any textual comments on the language used (there are obvious attitude and voice differentiations between the two version) nor can I say much about human rights but I would like to make some comments on the actual context regarding international security.
Interesting to note is China’s approach to the state of international affairs. The paper claims a changing international balance of power filled with contradictions between developed and developing countries and between traditional and emerging countries. It implies that China is in fact a developing countries (many argue otherwise) but also has a mediator role between traditional and emerging countries (no doubt to explain its growing influence in Latin America and Africa). Most significant of all is the statement “Prospects for world multi-polarization are becoming clearer”. This quote within the context of the white paper reveals a cautious yet confident China ready to oppose what is called “American hegemony”. The brief mention of the U.S. strengthening its “military alliances” in the Pacific in the paper’s discussion of Asia-Pacific security and Taiwan issue demonstrates this view.
Another issue I found particularly noticeable was the fact that the paper avoided referring directly to the political and social turmoil in the ME and Africa. Rather it cites political turbulence due to economic, religious, and ethnic issues. The paper did, however, mention Afghanistan followed by a short remark on “relevant powers increasing their strategic investments” and the U.S. increasing its involvement in regional affairs. Given the context and placing of these statements, no doubt China sent the U.S. a quick jab in the side.