Chinese International Relations Scholars Research Articles

How Should China Respond to Trump’s New Round of Trade War? An Unprecedented Debate Among Chinese IR Scholars

The US-China trade war finally broke out in 2018 after more than a decade of gradual decline in bilateral relations. This article reviews the fierce debates among China’s most prominent international relations (IR) scholars and, respectively, some economists and business elites on various topics related to US-China relations, in particular, the trade war, from 2017 to 2020. Specifically, it addresses four topics: the causes for the decline in US-China relations, Beijing’s policy and strategy for dealing with Trump’s trade war, the impact of the ‘decoupling’ on China and the prospects for future bilateral relations. Intellectual elites try to influence government policies by participating in debates while the government also applies various means to influence scholars’ views and shape public opinion on the Internet. The article finds that Chinese scholars’ discussions on the trade war and Beijing’s policies were actually influenced by factors other than trade. If Washington adopts appropriate policies in the future, Beijing may still make concessions in the interests of the United States on trade and security issues.

The study of Chinese scholars in foreign policy analysis: an emerging research program

A review of studies of China’s foreign policy reveals three dominant methods: the area studies approach, the IR theory method, and the integrated approach. We suggest that it is time to pay close attention to an emerging research program focusing on the study of Chinese international relations (IR) scholars, especially their internal debates, as a new venue to understand China’s foreign policy. Although Chinese IR scholars are normally quoted as valuable sources in the study of Chinese foreign policy in general, there is no systematic study of China’s IR scholars per se. In order to transform the study of Chinese IR scholars to a full-fledged research program, researchers need to pursue theoretical innovations on the relationship between different types of IR scholars and foreign policy inquiries, advance multi-method research designs across the different methods of field interviews, textual analysis, and opinion surveys, as well as encourage international collaboration between Chinese scholars and non-Chinese scholars.

Is China's IR Academic Community Becoming More Anti-American?

Is China's IR Academic Community Becoming More Anti-American? Meng Weizhan It is my impression that the majority of American scholars who study China and the majority of Chinese scholars who study the United States are committed to promoting friendly relations between the two countries and to helping their own people understand each other better. Unfortunately, their efforts are often misunderstood. Starting at the end of 2018, a disturbing rumor began to circulate in China's international relations (IR) academic community: several scholars told their peers that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was prohibiting them from visiting the United States. By April 2019, a report in the New York Times confirmed that "the FBI has mounted a counterintelligence operation that aims to bar Chinese academics from the United States if they are suspected of having links to Chinese intelligence agencies. … As many as 30 Chinese professors in the social sciences, heads of academic institutes, and experts who help explain government policies have had their visas to the United States canceled in the past year, or put on administrative review, according to Chinese academics and their American counterparts" (Perlez 2019). According to a report in the Global Times (Fan 2019), more than 280 Chinese scholars have been investigated or harassed by the FBI. These incidents have shocked academic circles in both China and the United States. Perhaps the US government assumes that this is fair treatment for Chinese scholars because many American scholars have complained that they have been banned from entering China due to expressing views that offend the Chinese government. I fully support academic freedom and believe that all governments should be tolerant of any views expressed by scholars. Nevertheless, it is puzzling that the Chinese scholars whose visas have been canceled include some of those best known for their balanced views of the United States and its foreign policy. In order to verify this, we should explore whether the Chinese scholars whose US visas have been canceled have said anything that would harm the interests of the United States. If they have not done so, then they have been treated unjustly. [End Page 139] I will also examine the changes in the perceptions of the US among mainstream IR scholars in China since President Donald Trump took office, focusing in particular on the period after the Sino-US trade war that began in June 2018. Despite the trade war, there is no evidence of a trend toward greater hostility among mainstream IR scholars in Beijing toward the United States. Many doves (wen he pai) with respect to US policies openly and strongly advocate pacifism, oppose nationalism, and call for maintaining friendly relations with the United States. Some well-known hawks (qiang ying pai) have also expressed their views that the Chinese government should seriously reflect upon its own domestic and foreign policy decisions to consider how it may prevent China from becoming isolated. In short, my conclusion, from extensive reading of these scholars' writings and listening to their public remarks, is that an overwhelming majority of Chinese IR scholars do not regard the United States as an enemy at all, and I argue that China should continue to reform its economic system and be more open to better integration with the Western-led international economic system. My assessment is that few among them advocate that the Chinese government should adopt tougher policies toward the United States or promote anti-American sentiment among the general public. China's state media and public opinion are indeed becoming increasingly anti-American, but mainstream IR scholars rarely publish extreme views in newspapers or new media. In this essay, I examine the public views of IR scholars at universities and research institutions in Beijing. The vast majority of Chinese IR scholars and the editorial departments of academic and policy research journals on this subject are based in Beijing, and they are likely to have a direct impact on decision making within the Chinese government. In Beijing, there are only ten universities and institutions with a true academic and policy influence on China's strategies, including policies toward the United States. Four of these are top universities, namely Peking University...

Introduction

Introduction Benjamin Tze Ern Ho (bio) Of late, Chinese scholars have argued for the need to incorporate traditional Chinese ideas into mainstream international relations (IR) theory, which is seen as privileging a Western-centric reading of international affairs. Given the global prominence of China, it behooves scholars and policymakers alike to consider how these ideas are being translated into contemporary Chinese conceptions of international order and influencing China's foreign policy practices. The four essays in this roundtable attempt to do just that. First, Feng Zhang adopts a historical perspective on the study of China's engagement with the international order and examines the implications of the Xi Jinping doctrine for the country's foreign policy. Second, Xiaoyu Pu discusses China's policies and actions in the Indo-Pacific, including its strategic calculations, its perceptions of the U.S. role in the region, and the sources of rising tensions between the United States and China. Using a "status dilemma" framework, Pu argues that Sino-U.S. competition is fueled by concerns in the United States and China that the other side seeks domination and regional hegemony, respectively. Third, Beverley Loke analyzes Chinese and U.S. discourses of great-power management. She examines how each country sees itself as a responsible stakeholder and assesses their respective approaches to a "new model of great-power relations." Finally, Catherine Jones argues that, despite the use of grand political slogans, Beijing's foreign policy practices reflect more modest objectives, not unlike the behavioral strategies of middle powers. Taken together, these essays provide important analytical insights for better understanding China's foreign policy actions and the extent to which Chinese ideas concerning international affairs are playing out in practice. The rest of this introduction provides a brief sketch of Chinese thinking about international relations in light of China's rise and its importance for our understanding of Chinese political worldviews. [End Page 2] China's prominence in international relations has emboldened Chinese IR scholars in recent years to advocate a "Chinese way" of thinking about international relations and incorporate traditional Chinese ideas into mainstream IR scholarship. Qin Yaqing, the president of the China Foreign Affairs University, observes that efforts to develop Chinese IR theory have gathered momentum since the start of the 21st century, given China's growing economic strength and international influence.1 While these concepts have yet to obtain universal traction and are still largely in an embryonic stage, the ability to theorize, as Qin puts it, "is a sign of intellectual maturity."2 Chinese scholars are increasingly using indigenous resources to articulate what they view as a unique Chinese contribution to the wider discipline. The importance of articulating a Chinese approach to IR theory lies in part in the need to establish and present Chinese national interests to the international community. In a study of the relationship between China's global ascendancy and its IR theory, Hung-Jen Wang identifies the three main features of Chinese scholarship as "identity, appropriation, and adaptation."3 In the first phase of scholarship, the identities of Chinese IR scholars were shaped by China's political systems, cultural values, and historical experiences. Such work emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s following China's reintegration into the international system. Chinese scholars next began to appropriate Western IR theories using the Chinese principle of ti-yong (substance-function)—that is, by combining Chinese concerns with the learning of foreign concepts. The third phase saw Chinese scholars adapt these concepts of Western IR scholarship (such as "balance of power" and "nation-state") to analyze events in China. To this end, Wang observes that "repeated cycles of learning and appropriation may ultimately relativize the universal values of those and other concepts found in Western IR theories so as to transform their original Western meanings."4 Similarly, in his survey of the development of IR theory in China, Qin argues that the development of IR as an academic discipline in China has moved from pre-theory to a theory-learning (or theory-deepening) stage. The theory-innovation phase, whereby scholars "seek to explain reality and understand social phenomena from a distinctly Chinese perspective," [End Page 3] has yet to materialize...

China’s Troubled Waters: Maritime Disputes in Theoretical Perspective, by Steve Chan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 250 pp. US$99.99 (cloth).

<i>China’s Troubled Waters: Maritime Disputes in Theoretical Perspective</i>, by Steve Chan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 250 pp. US$99.99 (cloth).

How Chinese scholars think about Chinese foreign policy

ABSTRACTChina’s assertive diplomacy in recent years has ignited intense debates among international relations (IR) scholars. Some argue that China’s assertive behaviour is rooted in its perception of increasing power and capabilities. Others suggest that it is US policies that triggered China’s assertive reactions. Relying on an original survey of China’s IR scholars conducted in Beijing in 2013 and using structural equation modelling, we empirically examine Chinese IR scholars’ attitude towards Chinese power versus the United States, their perceptions of US policy in Asia, and their preference for an assertive Chinese foreign policy. We find that both the power perception and policy reaction arguments make sense in accounting for Chinese IR scholars’ attitude regarding China’s assertive diplomacy. However, our research suggests that a more pessimistic view on Chinese power is more likely to be associated with a preference for an assertive foreign policy.

China’s Rise and the International Politics of East Asia: The Development of Chinese IR Theory

The rise of China has important implications for the regional order in East Asia. Such implications are not limited to material calculations, such as the size of China’s economy and its military expenditure, but also include an ideational dimension. This article examines the rise of China from the perspective of the recent development of Chinese international relations (IR) theory. Rather than being a purely academic pursuit of theoretical pluralism in the discipline, the development of IR theory in China is also a political practice seeking to address the important problem of China’s rise; that is, the threat perception of a rising power informed by rationalist IR theory. Drawing upon traditional Chinese political thought, Chinese IR scholars have engaged to debate the possibility of a benevolent power within a hierarchical international order, similar to Asia’s historic tribute system. Nevertheless, such a proposal faces limitations, at both the theoretical and practical levels, that cast doubt on the efficacy of (re)creating Asia’s future in the image of its past.

Is There a 'Chinese School' of IR?

Research on Chinese International Relations (IR) theory has produced a variety of discourses, including post‐positivist analyses, contributions by area specialists and China watchers, and articles by Chinese IR scholars. These strands, however, hardly overlap or communicate with each other. To close the gap between “the self‐reflection of the core” (“Western” IR) (Waever/Tickner 2009: 3) and “the periphery’s revolt against [“Western”] IR” paradigms (ibid.), it is necessary to view China (and other non‐“Western” regions) as more than simply a playground for theory testing. This paper thus goes beyond the metatheoretical debate about the possibility of non‐“Western” IR. It argues that even though the IR debates in China are heavily influenced by the trends of “Western” IR Studies, the claim regarding the establishment of a “Chinese school of IR” is not a hollow slogan. Indigenous frameworks are already under construction.

The Tsinghua Approach and the Inception of Chinese Theories of International Relations

Now marks the first time in China’s nascent International Relations (IR) studies that a prestigious Western academic press has translated into English and published a collection of articles by Chinese IR scholars. Until now, this honour has been the preserve of history and philosophy, fields with distinguished pedigrees in China’s intellectual history, and whose scholarly accomplishments have long been internationally recognized.1 The publication by Princeton University Press of these articles, most of them originally written in Chinese by Professor Yan Xuetong and his colleagues at Tsinghua University in Beijing, that comprise Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power suggests a turning point in China’s international studies.2 As it turns out, in addition to being important in the disciplinary history of Chinese IR, the book also carries implications for the global IR discipline. It contains, moreover, theoretical insights and policy implications worth thorough review. My aim is to situate the book within the disciplinary context of Chinese IR; to identify its promise as well as problems, and to suggest its implications for the development of Chinese IR, the emergence of Chinese theories of international relations, and the policy problems of China’s rise. In what follows, I first identify what I call ‘the Tsinghua approach’ in Chinese IR, its significance in China’s international studies and its implications for the debate on the so-called ‘Chinese school of IR.’ I then discuss the book’s methodological assumptions and problems, its theoretical promise and problems and finally its policy implications. Professor Yan has been a distinguished pioneer of the policy, method, and theory of China’s international studies for two decades, and this book leaves no doubt as to his achievements. This article is a critical engagement with his scholarship, in the hope that the Tsinghua team may address existing problems and achieve greater accomplishments on the basis of Professor Yan’s pioneering groundwork.

Research on International Studies in The People's Republic of China

As is the case with other social science disciplines and sub-disciplines, the field of international relations (IR) is beginning to assume a scholarly identity in China today. In some respects the field is building upon a foundation laid prior to the Cultural Revolution (when in 1964 then-Premier Zhou Enlai ordered the establishment of several IR research institutes and academic training programs), but in a very real sense it is only now being established for the first time. China's current opening to the world has provided additional stimulus to the development of the field as China's leaders and bureaucrats seek policy-oriented analyses of foreign nations. The field is expanding rapidly. This study will assess the current state of the field and will evaluate the potential for and impediments to developing the discipline.Defining the DisciplineVarious complex problems arise in trying to define the scope of the discipline of international relations in the Chinese context. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Chinese IR scholars and specialists have not themselves clearly delineated the parameters of their field. International relations therefore does not yet have a distinct identity as a discipline despite an increasingly strong institutional base of scholarship and analysis.

Research on International Studies in The People's Republic of China

As is the case with other social science disciplines and sub-disciplines, the field of international relations (IR) is beginning to assume a scholarly identity in China today. In some respects the field is building upon a foundation laid prior to the Cultural Revolution (when in 1964 then-Premier Zhou Enlai ordered the establishment of several IR research institutes and academic training programs), but in a very real sense it is only now being established for the first time. China's current opening to the world has provided additional stimulus to the development of the field as China's leaders and bureaucrats seek policy-oriented analyses of foreign nations. The field is expanding rapidly. This study will assess the current state of the field and will evaluate the potential for and impediments to developing the discipline.Defining the DisciplineVarious complex problems arise in trying to define the scope of the discipline of international relations in the Chinese context. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Chinese IR scholars and specialists have not themselves clearly delineated the parameters of their field. International relations therefore does not yet have a distinct identity as a discipline despite an increasingly strong institutional base of scholarship and analysis.

Research on International Studies in The People's Republic of China

As is the case with other social science disciplines and sub-disciplines, the field of international relations (IR) is beginning to assume a scholarly identity in China today. In some respects the field is building upon a foundation laid prior to the Cultural Revolution (when in 1964 then-Premier Zhou Enlai ordered the establishment of several IR research institutes and academic training programs), but in a very real sense it is only now being established for the first time. China's current opening to the world has provided additional stimulus to the development of the field as China's leaders and bureaucrats seek policy-oriented analyses of foreign nations. The field is expanding rapidly. This study will assess the current state of the field and will evaluate the potential for and impediments to developing the discipline.Defining the DisciplineVarious complex problems arise in trying to define the scope of the discipline of international relations in the Chinese context. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Chinese IR scholars and specialists have not themselves clearly delineated the parameters of their field. International relations therefore does not yet have a distinct identity as a discipline despite an increasingly strong institutional base of scholarship and analysis.