Comment on Looking Back to Look Forward: Geopolitics, Identity, and Engaging China
D a recent visit to a local bookstore, I stumbled upon a monograph by the Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei (Zhang, 2012). It would have been easy to overlook among the voluminous literature seeking to make sense of China’s much-debated ascendancy in the international arena. Entitled The China Wave, it follows many other works focusing on the exceptionalism of the Asian state, signaling its upward trajectory as a unique (albeit important) global actor. However, what really attracted my attention was the front cover, which boasts sales of one-half million copies of its Chinese edition, making it one of most popular books in China in 2011. Turning to the preface, the author explains that the book was originally intended for a Chinese audience, and the purpose for translating it is to enable the “West” to “emancipate the mind and learn a little more about or from China’s approach and the Chinese ideas, however extraneous they may appear, for its own benefit” (Zhang, 2012, p. xi). Indeed, in the subsequent pages, Zhang proceeds to qualify his claim; by positing China as a civilizational state amalgamating modern state structures with distinct traditions and features originating from its civilization, Zhang argues that there are eight historically embedded ideas that the state follows in charting its developmental pathway. He concludes that this set of political discourses raises questions about many commonplace assumptions of democracy, good governance, as well as human rights, and that “the West may actually gain from China’s rise of power and ideas, just as many developing or transitional economies have done” (Zhang, 2012, p. ix). Zhang’s thesis confirms John Agnew’s (2012) observation that there has been no lack of voices within China reflecting on the country’s positioning in world politics. Indeed, Zhang’s work seems to fall under Agnew’s narrative of “international relations theory with Chinese characteristics.” Rather than suggesting the existence of a singular Chinese (meta)narrative, Agnew traces the genealogies of four different geopolitical themes prevalent in China, to demonstrate how such (selective) histories and geographies have been revived (at different junctures) to envisage the country’s geopolitical futures. Agnew’s intent is neither to privilege these Chinese accounts as necessarily more authentic nor uphold an essentialist view that there are fundamental ideas intrinsic to the existing Chinese polity (which Zhang’s writings seem to connote). Rather, Agnew’s contribution lies in his exposition of how China’s past has been mobilized by intellectuals and politicians alike to provide justifications for the pursuit of particular foreign policy agendas. Accordingly, as opposed to Zhang’s lofty proclamations of the value of Chinese modes of thinking for different societies, Agnew appears more concerned with gaining insight into the mindsets and practices of these Chinese political actors given China’s status as an emerging world power.
What’s territorial about China? From geopolitical narratives to the ‘administrative area economy’
A human geographer and China specialist introduces perspectives on territory in China from the vantage of guowai (outside the country) and guonei (inside the country). This relational comparison extends analysis of Chinese geopolitical narratives to current questions about state power in China, and opens up the geopolitical perspective to recalibrate analysis of territory and territorial boundary formation inside the nation-state. Territorial change is particularly significant in China because subnational territories are not constitutionally guaranteed and state development strategies regularly depend on strategic boundary changes to form new governing spaces. The article introduces the concept of the “administrative area economy” from the Chinese literature to explain how the Chinese political economy crucially depends on reterritorialization to establish and promote contemporary urbanization and achieve political and economic goals. This analytical approach, based on the international scholarship and the Chinese-language literature, also reflects Agnew’s incorporation of methodological advances from new area studies in political geographical analysis.
The Internet and the Changing Beijing-Taipei Relations: Toward Unification or Fragmentation?
Information and its technologies facilitate the exercise of what has been called “soft power,” a concept that differentiates information from the conventional dimensions of “hard power,” which is mainly associated with military force and economic influence. Soft power, according to Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, means that “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons.”1