Modern Chinese Power Research Articles

To Rejuvenate, China Must Continue Opening Up

New Perspectives QuarterlyVolume 35, Issue 4 p. 17-20 Original Article To Rejuvenate, China Must Continue Opening Up YAN XUETONG, YAN XUETONG Dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University and author of “Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power.” This article is a translated adaptation of an essay in the “Quarterly Journal of International Politics.”Search for more papers by this author YAN XUETONG, YAN XUETONG Dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University and author of “Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power.” This article is a translated adaptation of an essay in the “Quarterly Journal of International Politics.”Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/npqu.12170AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume35, Issue4October 2018Pages 17-20 RelatedInformation

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).

Book Review: Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power

Book Review: <i>Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power</i>

Primacy or World Order? The United States and China's Rise—A Review Essay

How should the United States respond to China's rise? What are China's longterm strategic goals? What are the implications of U.S.-China strategic interactions for world order? Three recent works—Aaron Friedberg's A Contest for Supremacy, Hugh White's The China Choice, and Yan Xuetong's Ancient Chinese Political Thought, Modern Chinese Power—grapple with these questions in authoritative and revealing ways. This review essay examines the answers provided by these authors, with the aim of clarifying the different underlying assumptions that led them to their conclusions. Four themes are found to be especially pertinent. These are the assumptions the authors hold about the existing distribution of power, China's strategic objectives, the role of economic interdependence in Asia, and the relationship between democracy and political legitimacy. The way the authors parse these themes—which ones they bracket or admit into their analysis, and how they weigh and combine them—helps to reveal the underlying bases of their and, by implication, our policy preferences. The essay concludes by suggesting that contrary to the view of some, time has something to offer both sides. And if those opportunities are properly understood by the United States and China, the prospects for peaceful competition and coevolution improve.

Building Castles in the Sand: A Review of Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power

This article reviews Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power (Princeton University Press, 2011). The key concept argued in the volume is ‘humane authority’ or moral authority (wang dao), as opposed to hegemony (ba dao).1 Daniel Bell suggests in the introduction that Yan Xuetong, the main author, is a political realist because his analysis is about ‘the way the political world actually works, not just an ideal’.2 Nevertheless, ‘A Note on the Translation’ highlights that the term ‘wang’ in ‘wang dao’ represents ‘the political ideal of pre-Qin [classical3] thinkers’.4 Indeed, as the book title suggests, Yan’s analysis relies on ‘ancient Chinese thought’ rather than ancient Chinese history. Without solid grounding in history, the analysis of ‘humane authority’ largely falls into the realm of the ideal. This article first analyzes the disjuncture between ancient Chinese thought and ancient Chinese history. It then reviews the analysis of effective governance that is central to the establishment of moral authority. It also examines the volume’s efforts to draw lessons from ‘ancient Chinese thought’ for ‘contemporary International Relations (IR) theory’ and ‘modern Chinese power.’ Because the understanding of ‘ancient Chinese thought’ is unhistorical and that of IR theory is untheoretical, the authors’ attempts to develop new theoretical insights and policy recommendations are no more fruitful than building castles in the sand. While this volume should be applauded for introducing ‘ancient Chinese thought’ to the IR discipline, it falls short in delivering the promises.

Book Review: Other Areas: Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power

Book Review: Other Areas: Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power

Yan Xuetong. Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. Edited by Daniel A. Bell &amp; Sun Zhe. Translated by Edmund Ryden. Princeton &amp; Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2011.

Yan Xuetong. Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. Edited by Daniel A. Bell &amp; Sun Zhe. Translated by Edmund Ryden. Princeton &amp; Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2011.

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.

Ancient Chinese Power, Modern Chinese Thought

Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power is the latest publication to come from Yan Xuetong's ongoing research project that explores the interstate political philosophy of China's pre-Qin era.1 This book is interesting on many levels, and has already drawn attention from public intellectuals and scholars in the West.2 This essay thus first will examine the scholarly issue of how Yan and his colleagues are employing pre-Qin thought to make philosophical and political arguments about how China will rise. It will consider the relation of the ‘kingly way’ (wang 王) and the ‘hegemonic way’ (ba 霸) to critically analyze Yan's argument that China should create a new kind of world leadership by pursuing political power, rather than economic and/or military power. While the book translates wang loosely as ‘humane authority’, we will argue that the literal translation ‘kingly way’ better reflects Yan's arguments for a new world order that is determined by the moral leadership of China's political elite. Building on this detailed textual analysis, the essay then will locate the book's arguments in wider academic debates about international relations theory, the role of the public intellectual in China, and the politics of translation. Lastly, the essay argues that the book is geared towards two audiences beyond the academy, to advise China's political leaders and reassure the West. The goal is to see how Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power revives—and reinterprets—traditional ideals to chart China's future as the world's future.

A Realist's Ideal Pursuit

It is no exaggeration to say that Yan Xuetong’s Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power is a path-breaking project that integrates ancient Chinese philosophy, Pre-Qin history, and contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. Although Yan has not introduced a new grand theory of IR in the book per se, he has paved a fresh theoretical and intellectual path to reforming current, western-philosophy-and-history-based IR theory. If scholars follow Yan’s guidance and approach as laid out in the book, it will be no surprise to see developed more than one new IR theory. The book is translated from Yan’s research on pre-Qin international political philosophy and its implications for the rise of China. It consists of three parts: Yan’s three articles on pre-Qin philosophical masters’ writings on international politics; 1 three critical reviews of Yan’s articles by three brilliant Chinese scholars, as well as Yan’s responses to his critics; and three useful appendixes giving background information on Yan’s research. The book raises three major arguments in the book. They are: (i) norms and morality determine the stability of interstate order, and the hierarchical relation among states is conducive to world peace; (ii) humane authority is a superior model for great powers compared to hegemony and tyranny in international politics; and (iii) political power is the most important element of power compared to economic, military, and soft power. It is obvious that each of these arguments poses fundamental challenges to the major canons of contemporary IR theory. In this review article, I first discuss the three significant contributions of Yan’s book to the studies of ancient Chinese philosophy, IR theory, and China’s foreign policy. I then raise certain questions after a reading of the