The Enduring Relevancy of Nation-States in International Politics: The Case of China

We are well in to the second decade of the 21st century and may observe the contemporary security challenges in global politics. The international environment is fraught with transnational threats, from national disasters to infectious diseases, politically-motivated organized violence to technologically-sophisticated cross border threats. It is difficult to look with optimism at the 21st-century international security situation. It may be even more difficult to prepare for it.

But, there remains a crucial element of international politics and the insecurity therein—whatever the time period—that is known, namely, the preeminent role of nation-states. Understanding the interests and objectives of a nation-state, its intentions and objectives as well as its capabilities, plans, and operations, prepares us for the most daunting challenges of the 21st century.

Indeed, nearly every day in newspapers around the world we read about one nation-state in particular, China. Asia to Africa, the Middle East to the Americas, the activities, products, and services of China and its state-owned enterprises and citizens fill the headlines of business and economic news headlines. Moreover, politically, China is making its presence known throughout the world, well beyond its borders.

Is this all by design? Does China have a strategy in place to effect international politics? Current events give us a glimpse, perhaps, of China’s strategic intentions. For example, from May 20-21, 2014, China hosted the fourth summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) in Shanghai, taking over the chairmanship for two years. On the sidelines of CICA, China and Russia signed agreements for Russia to supply China with natural gas for 30 years to help fuel the economic development of both nation-states, but especially China. Worth an estimated $400 billion, China is developing closer strategic ties to Russia; however, for what purpose? How do China and Russia envision international politics in the 21st century?

Within its own borders, meanwhile, China is facing daunting economic as well as social challenges. Recent events reveal problems at home. In the predominantly-Muslim region of Xinjiang, multiple attacks on May 22, 2014 killed dozens and injured nearly 100 Chinese citizens in the city of Urumqi. The central government in Beijing blamed ethnic Muslims, locally known as Uighurs, and labeled them as terrorists. To what extent will security challenges like this affect Chinese policies, domestic and foreign? How will China address its internal challenges in the face of external events, both regionally and beyond?

In fact, this is the traditional strategic tension for China, managing relations within and outside of its own borders. To understand recent events such as the CICA summit, the Sino-Russian gas deal, or the attacks in Urumqi, one needs a foundational understanding of the strategic aspects of China.

In China, as elsewhere in Asia, history plays a vitally important role in political affairs, domestic and international. Edited by Donovan C. Chau and Thomas M. Kane, China and International Security devotes an entire volume comprising 13 chapters to understanding the strategic history and relationships of China. From dynastic to modern times, China’s history has much to inform us about its strategic intentions and plans, including in international politics today.

To capture a sense of the internal debates and challenges of China, the second volume of China and International Security focuses on Chinese national security, also in 13 chapters. We learn that China’s Muslim minority is but one example of the strategic tensions within China. Areas challenging China internally include its demographics and Communist Party as well as its views of human rights and the international security environment.

Taken together, these two volumes, one historical and another inwardly focused, provide the strategic framework for better comprehending China’s contemporary security challenges, which is the focus of volume three, comprising 15 chapters. From regional to international strategies, China is exhibiting purposeful plans and relationships to further Chinese strategic interests. While the character of these interests may be debated, what is clear is that China has national interests, and it is attempting to promote and preserve them. Thus, the role of nation-states in international politics is revealed.

China will have a profound influence on the 21st-century world. What happens in China will have political, economic, and, therefore, strategic effects beyond its borders. What China does, near and far—that is, how China behaves—will also impact politics, regionally and internationally. To prepare strategically for the 21st century, we must look to the past and within China as well as examine its regional and international strategies; this is the purpose and utility of China and International Security.

 

 

Donovan C. Chau, PhD, is associate professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino. Educated at Claremont McKenna College, Missouri State University, and the University of Reading, his teaching and research focus on international politics, particularly in Asia and Africa. He has written book chapters, journal articles, monographs, and two books, including Exploiting Africa: The Influence of Maoist China in Algeria, Ghana, and Tanzania.

Thomas M. Kane, PhD, is senior lecturer at the University of Hull, specializing in strategic studies and international relations with a particular interest in East Asia. His published works include Chinese Grand Strategy and Maritime Power and Ancient China on Postmodern War. His book Strategy: Key Thinkers includes substantial material on ancient and 20th-century Chinese military thought.

North Korean Human Rights Concerns and Its Challenges

North Korea draws the world’s attention for its many idiosyncrasies: The Korean peninsula remains the last Cold War frontier with the Communist North and the capitalist South still at a war; the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is one of the poorest nations, yet one of the proudest; it is one of the most sanctioned states, yet one of the most defiant; it is one of the weakest, yet one of the most resilient. This paradox sums up its presence in the world community.

As the globalization process unfolds, human rights concerns have emerged as a major variable in international interactions. The fashionable buzz words such as human security, humanitarian intervention, life security, and securitization of non-traditional security issues point to a gradual shift of focus from Hobbesian guns-and-bullets paradigm to Kantian moral-ethical interests. The general trend in Northeast Asia is, though, still preoccupied with national security priority over human rights protection. Here we have the North Korean problem confabulated with nuclear threats and human rights abuses.

The summary execution of Jang Sung-taek, the current North Korean leader Kim Jung-un’s relative and patron, on December 12, 2013 alerted to the systematic human rights violations which did not evade the highest echelon of Pyongyang’s ruling strata. It took only four days for the regime to execute Jang since his arrest on December 8 of that year. The expeditious execution implies the denial of defendant’s rights to attorney and total dismissal of legally stipulated procedures. This high profile case supports the existing testimonies of North Korean refugees on the arbitrary and summary executions in the totalitarian regime.

North Korea acknowledges universality of human rights, while advocating “socialist democracy” and “our theory of human rights.” The contradictions lie in the obvious gap between rhetorical claims as stated in the DPRK Constitution and empirical reality as testified by the refugees. One of the challenges in North Korean human rights lies with the fact that the Pyongyang regime is the violator as well as the potential protector of the rights. The concerned parties of international community, therefore, have to tread the precarious waters in inducing the North Korean government’s cooperation to abide by rule of law, while trying not further push it to a self-isolating, defensive corner.

Making it more challenging, North Korea sees human rights not as a norm to protect, but a politically motivated pressure tool. The regime calls for self-vigilance in facing the criticisms raised and voiced by the international community. The Pyongyang leadership dismisses the concerned voices of the “imperial powers” as unjustifiable interference into domestic affairs. North Korea’s self-perception as the weak surrounded by the hostile and powerful nations makes it ever more conscious of slight belittlement, imagined or real, of its sovereignty. The human rights violations add more complexity to the existing ‘North Korean problem’ where its primary concern lies with nuclear capability.

Pyongyang’s aversion to the human rights discourse originates from two primary reasons: overriding prerogatives to maintain a domestic ruling hierarchy and the suspicions towards Western-centric rights discourse. The world order perceived by North Korea derives from a struggle between the imperialists and the subjugated. The two exemplary imperialist countries in their perception are the U.S. and Japan, whilst member nations of the opposing camp which they identify with include Cuba, Egypt, and Indonesia. This simple dichotomy of ‘with us vs. against us’ are often demonstrated at the United Nations Human Rights Council sessions. On March 25, 2010, for example, North Korea refused to accept the Council’s final resolution by stating that it will either “take note of” or “reject” the 117 recommendations. 

The advancement of human rights is a noble enterprise. As democracy aims to amend the unequal distribution of power, universal rights is to respect the innate humanity of all regardless of external attributes. Human rights discourse in this regard can be both empowering and potentially subversive. The tension between heightened awareness and the tenacity of ancient regime explains one of the challenges of the 21^st-century global society where North Korea raises concerns for its unique challenges.

 

Mikyoung Kim is Associate Professor at Hiroshima City University-Hiroshima. She was a Fulbright visiting professor at Portland State University, OR, and served with the U.S. State Department at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Korea, as a public diplomacy specialist. She has published many articles on memory, human rights, and gender in Northeast Asia, and is the author of Securitization of Human Rights:North Korean Refugees in East Asia (Praeger Security International, 2012).