sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Kevin Rudd says President Xi is driving China in a new direction, and whether we like it or not, the rest of us had better understand his agenda sooner rather than later

Business
Kevin Rudd says President Xi is driving China in a new direction, and whether we like it or not, the rest of us had better understand his agenda sooner rather than later

By Kevin Rudd*

The West, by and large, has no idea what awaits it as China continues its rise.

The United States, under President Donald Trump, has become a global laughingstock in less than a year.

Europe, with the notable exception of French President Emmanuel Macron, remains a rolling seminar on itself, oblivious to its declining relevance to the rest of the world.

And the less said about Britain’s collective act of national political and economic suicide in last year’s Brexit referendum, the better.

In short, the West has turned decisively inward, while China, breaking with its 3,000 years of dynastic history, has turned decisively outward, so that today few corners of the world are untouched by its influence. Deng Xiaoping’s maxim, “hide your strength, bide your time, and never take a lead” has already been dead for some years. The just-completed 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was its state funeral. Xi is now proclaiming explicitly to his own people and the world that it is time for China to take center stage within the global order, and to create a new type of international relations.

So, beyond the pomp and ceremony of the 19th National Congress, it is crucial to understand what its outcomes will mean for China and the world.

Xi the Thought Leader

CPC congresses are about three things: leadership and personnel, ideology, and political vision. Even before this Congress, Xi had strengthened his position to the point that he is now China’s paramount leader. Five years ago, I said he would be China’s most powerful leader since Deng. I was wrong. He is now China’s most powerful leader since Mao Zedong. His absolute control over the CPC is reflected in its deepest structures, from which, in an arcane process resembling the workings of the Roman Curia, an entirely new body of “Xi Jinping thought” has been elaborated – and has now been incorporated into the Party’s constitution.

Xi’s achievement is no small matter. In one fell swoop, he has transcended his immediate predecessors and joined the ranks of Mao and Deng, who have until now been the only leaders to hold this political status.

Clearly, Xi’s anti-corruption campaign over the last five years helped him consolidate his position. Since the campaign began, some 278,000 officials have been punished, including 440 at ministerial rank and above – several of which were Xi’s politburo rivals. And, rather than loosening the screws, Xi’s report to the 19th National Congress suggested just the opposite: the Party should prepare for further tightening.

The new Politburo Standing Committee also reflects Xi’s personal preferences; indeed, its members will be loyal ultimately to Xi himself. Li Zhanshu, who will chair the National People’s Congress, and Zhao Leji, who will chair the Party’s disciplinary authority, are both members of Xi’s inner circle. Han Zheng, the executive vice premier, and Wang Huning, who is in charge of all CPC affairs, are both protégés of former president Jiang Zemin. And Premier Li Keqiang and Wang Yang (likely to be Chair of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Committee) are from the Tuanpai, the Communist Youth League faction. This political balance will likely favor Xi enough to allow him to secure a third term as president.

Xi’s priorities are reflected in other key appointments. Liu He – a Harvard-educated economist and Xi confidant, who is the current vice-chair of the National Development and Reform Commission – has been appointed to the Politburo, the top ruling body after the Standing Committee. Already one of Xi’s closest financial and economic advisers, Liu is now likely to become Vice Premier, gaining even more influence over China’s economic-reform agenda. This, together with the elevation of Han – who has brought with him from Shanghai a reputation for strong economic governance – to the Politburo Standing Committee, suggests that economic reform will be a top priority for Xi in the next five years.

On the foreign-policy front, Yang Jiechi’s appointment to the Politburo is a sign that Xi intends to lift the status of the Chinese foreign-policy establishment within the system. This will put him in a stronger position to realize his ambition of a more globally assertive China.

Then there is the question of Xi’s own future. Everything about the 19th National Congress points to Xi continuing as China’s paramount leader beyond the next five years, and possibly for the next 15. His report didn’t point to the conclusion of his mandate by 2021, the centenary of the CPC’s birth and the date (announced in 2013) by which China would become “a moderately prosperous society” against global benchmarks. Rather, the speech points to 2035, when the next national milestone is to be reached on China’s path to becoming a global power by 2049, the centenary of the People’s Republic. The strong inference is that Xi is likely to remain in office through the 2030s.

What all of this reflects is that Xi is likely to be in power for longer than any other major national leader serving today, including Vladimir Putin. What he thinks and says to the Party, the country, and the world, therefore, must be taken with the utmost seriousness. Xi is driving China in a new direction, and whether we like it or not, the rest of us had better understand his agenda sooner rather than later.

Grand Ambitions

This brings us to the actual content of Xi’s ideology, which can be found behind the CPC’s almost impenetrable dialect. First, Xi’s China will remain permanently governed by a Leninist party that monopolizes state power. The decades-long hope of many in the West that China will gradually transform itself into something approaching a Singaporean-style or Western-style democracy is the stuff of dreams.

Xi states that China will never import a political system from anywhere else in the world. “China’s socialist democracy,” he argues, “is the broadest, most genuine, and most effective democracy to safeguard the fundamental interests of the people,” and it now represents an alternative model for the rest of the developing world.

China’s official media have taken the cue. Government-controlled news outlets have flooded the country with story after story on why Western-style liberal democracy is now moribund. Moving beyond the conventional arguments that democratic decision-making has been ineffective in bringing about long-term economic development, a new set of arguments has been unveiled: Western democracy is corrupt, hypocritical, and fails to meet the needs of the poor. Under Xi, the CPC senses that the global spread of liberal democratic ideas has ground to a halt, leaving the West’s geopolitical power and prestige ripe for challenge.

Xi has outlined two grand objectives for the CPC and the Chinese people. During the 15 years from 2020 to 2035, China should become a “fully modern” economy and society. This is to be followed by another 15-year period until mid-century, when China’s quest for national wealth and power, first dreamed up in the 1890s, will finally come to fruition. By then, according to Xi, China will have become “a global leader of composite national strength and international influence.”

Global China

As for China’s role in the world, we have seen its outlines emerging since the CPC’s 18th National Congress in 2012, particularly in Xi’s speech to the Central Work Conference on Foreign Affairs in November 2014. The heavily edited published version of this speech provides an invaluable glimpse of the contours of Xi’s strategic vision.

It is a vision of a new type of great power relations, by which Xi means geopolitical parity between the US and China. Moreover, China is to shape the rules governing a new international system that includes not only the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, but also China’s own institutional innovations in the form of the Belt and Road Initiative, the New Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Where we will see even greater Chinese diplomatic innovation is in Xi’s concept of a ”global community of common destiny for all humankind.” Whereas strategic “realists” in the West simply roll their eyes when they hear this type of language, for the Chinese, Xi’s concept looms as large as the Atlantic Charter, the Bretton Woods conference, or even the UN Charter.

But the world should be prepared, because Xi’s “global community” remains very much an experimental concept – and for good reason. The truth is that Chinese history provides little guidance on how China should act on the world stage. Throughout most of China’s history, its leaders have focused on domestic governance and how to keep foreigners from entering the country. Still, the message conveyed by Xi’s coded language is easy to decipher: the rest of us should get ready for a new wave of Chinese global policy activism.

It’s Still the Economy

The third dimension of any CPC National Congress is, of course, policy. Foreign analysts will complain that Xi’s report to the 19th Congress is short on details. A careful read of the text suggests very little variation from China’s existing economic, foreign, and defense policy settings. But spelling out the details is not the traditional role of a National Congress. These will come in the subsequent annual plenums to be convened by the CPC’s newly elected central committee.

Nonetheless, the central policy question remains the economy. The challenge for Xi is to implement the Party’s 2013 blueprint for economic reform. That plan outlined a comprehensive market-based strategy to replace China’s current economic-growth model, based on low-wage, labor-intensive export manufacturing, with one based on technology-driven productivity gains, high wages, and a booming service sector driven by the rapid emergence of the domestic consumer market.

If Xi succeeds in implementing this economic-reform agenda, notwithstanding significant social – and some political – instability along the way, China will entrench its position as the world’s largest economy. If, on the other hand, Xi deems the transition too difficult, China’s economy may fall short of both domestic and international expectations. We should have our first reliable read on Xi’s intentions either at the next Central Economic Work Conference (likely to be held later this year or early next year), or at the Third Plenum of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC, in the autumn of 2019.

When China does become the world’s largest economy over the next decade, the global system will be led by a non-English-speaking, non-Western, non-democratic state for the first time since George I ruled Great Britain and Ireland. The current rule-based international order will not remain immune from this fundamental geo-economic and geopolitical change. Nor will the conceptual foundations of the West – Judeo-Christian values and the Enlightenment principles of science, liberty, and universal human rights – be immune from challenge. To believe otherwise is willfully to ignore the deep changes that are now afoot.

The list of what can go wrong for China’s unfolding economic and international project is formidable. Still, for the last 40 years, China has implemented a national strategy that, despite its many twists and turns, has produced the economic and political phenomenon that we see today. It would be reckless to assume, as many still do in the US, Europe, and elsewhere, that China’s transition to global preeminence will somehow simply implode under the weight of the political and economic contradictions they believe to be inherent to the Chinese model.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been little, if any, grand strategy to guide the future of the West. Instead, we find a West – particularly its twin pillars, the European Union and the US – that is increasingly self-absorbed, self-satisfied, and internationally complacent.

It is sobering to reflect on the fact that the CPC’s 19th National Congress occurs on the 200th anniversary of Napoleon’s famous reflection on China’s prospects and potential. “China is a sleeping giant,” he wrote in 1817 from the splendid isolation of his exile on Saint Helena. “Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will move the world.”


Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia, is President of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York. He is studying for a PhD at Oxford University in the UK on Xi Jinping. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017, and published here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

41 Comments

Well, well, well.

China will remain permanently governed by a Leninist party that monopolizes state power.

The decades-long hope of many in the West that China will gradually transform itself into something approaching a Singaporean-style or Western-style democracy is the stuff of dreams.

I question whether China's government could really be described as Leninist. Certainly it once was Leninist but then so was Lee's People's Action Party that still rules Singapore with a massive majority today. The PAP has a very interesting banner. Very similar to Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

China’s socialist democracy,” he argues, “is the broadest, most genuine, and most effective democracy to safeguard the fundamental interests of the people,” and it now represents an alternative model for the rest of the developing world.

The most important aspect are the words I have highlighted above. The Chinese are Nationalist as well as Socialist. Ponder upon that.

Western democracy is corrupt, hypocritical, and fails to meet the needs of the poor.

Failing to meet the needs of the poor is pure propaganda. When I last visited China I saw many beggars, whole families on some occasions living on the street. The corrupt and hypocritical part is correct though.

the CPC senses that the global spread of liberal democratic ideas has ground to a halt, leaving the West’s geopolitical power and prestige ripe for challenge.

China should become a “fully modern” economy and society.

If you look at what the Chinese politburo wear, the houses they live in, the cities they are building, the technology they use, they are rather westernized. Modern society is Western. The only bright aspect, the only hope, in all of this.

global community of common destiny for all humankind

Interesting. A lot of countries could certainly benefit from following China's example, it is hard to deny that. Compare the Philippines with it's Western democracy and China today.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been little, if any, grand strategy to guide the future of the West.

Multi-culturalism and the drive against White male privilege could be a flawed strategy for the West if it needs to offer a strong defence against this challenge. Civilizations and Empires are essentially a male thing. Time will tell but it's not looking particularly promising as Rudd points out.

Up
0

"Multi-culturalism and the drive against White male privilege could be a flawed strategy for the West if it needs to offer a strong defence against this challenge. Civilizations and Empires are essentially a male thing. Time will tell but it's not looking particularly promising as Rudd points out." - Bloody hell. Sometimes, the things you print can be truly sick making.

Up
0

I agree.

Up
0

I mean, in a way, what he says is true, it is just that I get the definite feeling that that is exactly the way he wants to keep it.

Up
0

Triggered!
Check out this picture of the Politburo Standing Committee:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI343_crt_17_F_201211122314…

The Chinese government is dominated by males and their culture is dominated by the Han.
I did say it could be flawed and time will tell. Rudd does paint a bleak future for the West after all.

Up
0

Whatever. If you were saying that sort of rubbish as a way to point it out and not promote white male dominance as something to prize, then you might get away with it, the only thing you don't like about it that they are not WHITE males.

Up
0

Well the "features" I have pointed out are significant changes that have been introduced since the mid sixties, the peak of Western civilization in my view, epitomized in the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Up
0

Yes totally agree with you PocketAces and David. Zachary has the trendacy to prattle on. Surprised he hasn't dragged out his Elysium ideals where the poor will live in cages to service the rich in gated communities.

Though I am impressed how China has tackled corruption to stem their capital outflows which really seems to be working. Rather puts a crump on Zacs ideals, oh well.

Up
0

Chinese government is not golden by any stretch of the imagination, Zachary Quack does himself no favours with his white supremacist leanings

Up
0

While the wording is certainly not the best, I think what he may mean is that in a relatively mono-cultural society, such as China (92% Han), consensus is much easier to reach and the population is relatively easily united behind a common set of values, whereas in a multicultural society reaching consensus is very difficult as is finding a common set of values to unite behind.

Up
0

白左

Up
0

If China were your home instead of Philippines you would...

use 7.4 times more electricity
be 44.59% less likely to be unemployed
make 2.1 times more money
spend 2.7 times more money on health care
consume 2.5 times more oil
be 91.4% less likely to be murdered
be 16.16% less likely to die in infancy
live 2.67 years longer
experience 5.58% more of a class divide
be 5.31% more likely to be in prison
be equally likely to have HIV/AIDS
have 49.79% fewer babies

Up
0

The Chinese are Nationalist as well as Socialist. Ponder upon that.

One reason why the globalism mantra may be slightly overblown...it doesn't really look like everyone's playing the same game. I think we're going to continue to see a retreat from globalism, or a remodeling of it in the face of issues upcoming this century (climate change, food security etc.).

Up
0

Can everyone stop using the word democracy in different categories, as if western and China style democracy are equally valid democracies.
If China is a democracy, then we need a new word to define actual democracy.

And we need to stand against dictatorships, just like everyone did against South Africa.

Up
0

I tend to use the word "democracy" ironically. However I guess the inventors of democracy, Greeks, did not really have a democracy by our standards.

In Athens in the middle of the 4th century there were about 100,000 citizens (Athenian citizenship was limited to men and women whose parents had also been Athenian citizens), about 10,000 metoikoi, or “resident foreigners” and 150,000 slaves. Out of all those people, only male citizens who were older than 18 were a part of the demos, meaning only about 40,000 people could participate in the democratic process.

Up
0

Dictionary.com defines democracy as:
"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

China-style democracy by this definition is not a democracy, so let's call it what it is; a dictatorship.

Up
0

The USA has been making a stand against dictators and look how that has gone.
Dictators have made a better fist of it and been safer for the populace than a USA/CIA puppet govt.
The western world is very arrogant about the supremacy of their democracies.
The USA needs to stop exporting freedom and have a hard look in the mirror.
China is going to displace the US dollar as the world reserve currency of trade. This could lead to catastrophic war if the US throws all its toys out of the cot.

Up
0

“China is determined to reform the international order created under Western leadership -- it has not yet revealed an interest in overthrowing or replacing that order,” said Avery Goldstein, a University of Pennsylvania professor of global politics and international relations. “Whether this goes smoothly or not, however, depends on the interaction of choices that China and others make going forward.” Read more

Up
0

I never stop to be astonished by the fixation on the western democracy.

The western democracy is a result of industrialization and modernization.

And what is for sure is that western democracy alone will NOT lead to industrialization and modernization.

Up
0

Just call it democracy; no need for the redundant adjective.
So I take it you prefer a dictatorship?

Up
0

I prefer a system that fits for a nation's development stage and improve its ppl's standard of living.

World is not black and white. If one system is not viewed as democracy then it is a dictatorship. Do you find this logic laughable?

Up
0

Nice deflection. I'll keep hitting the mark though.
Firstly, why do you think the Chinese people are not capable of freely electing leaders that will govern in the people's best interests? Are they not educated enough? I certainly agree that education is important in a democracy. Is the party afraid that they would not get voted in?

Secondly, you tell me what we should call a one-party system, but please leave out the word democracy. Then we can all laugh at your logic.

Up
0

The USA stands on a pedestal admiring its democracy and boasting of freedom.
NZ polishes their boots while the CIA administers vaccinations of freedom all around the planet.
The US industrialists make and sell weapons that are always needed after a CIA vaccination.
Yes we can sure be arrogant about the superiority of our democracy.

Up
0

Not sure how the US fits into this discussion.
Have another look at the definition of democracy, and if you don't like it, tell us why (without referring to the CIA????), and tell us a better alternative.
Maybe you could be our benevolent dictator?

Up
0

I half agree with you. One thing China has in its favour is homogeneity.

Up
0

Our democracy is very flawed. Originally issues were much simpler. The result we have now (Labour Green NZ First) is a car wreck. No voter can be clear on what outcome they will get.

Up
0

How the hell can you make that assumption, barely a week has passed. You make yourself look silly, you and everyone passing such high and mighty judgment at this point.

Up
0

With National you knew exactly what you'd get, and not in a good way.

Up
0

jh, you are confusing our electoral system (MMP), with democracy. There are other electoral systems, but the main thing is that the people got to vote in a free election.
Clearly you would like a different electoral system, but I am glad to see that you value democracy.
The point being debated here (worryingly), is on a much larger and more scary scale, being whether democracy is better than a one-party state. I cannot believe I am having to argue in favour of democracy in 2017!!!!!

Up
0

The curious rise of the ‘white left’ as a Chinese internet insult

Meet the Chinese netizens who combine a hatred for the ‘white left’ with a love of US president Donald Trump.
If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo (白左), or literally, the ‘white left’. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates. 
So what does ‘white left’ mean in the Chinese context, and what’s behind the rise of its (negative) popularity? It might not be an easy task to define the term, for as a social media buzzword and very often an instrument for ad hominem attack, it could mean different things for different people. A thread on “why well-educated elites in the west are seen as naïve “white left” in China” on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point. 
The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.     

https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/chenchen-zhang/curious-ri…

Up
0

If that was picked up on a local chat board we could make a complaint to the HRC on behalf of the HRC?

Up
0

Rudd seems very derisive of Trump and Brexit in this piece yet aren't they attempts by the people of the US and the UK to have a go at rehabilitating their former glory? The situation that Rudd describes with the West being complete doofuses in comparison with China developed long before the rise of Trump and Brexit. You will note that Rudd doesn't offer any solutions for the West. Not even anything wildly hypothetical let alone practical Just says we better understand it. Why is that? Also he is studying for a PhD at Oxford University in the UK on Xi Jinping. Seems kind of strange. I would have thought Peking University would be the place to do that? Closer to the action.

Rudd writes, China’s official media have taken the cue.
What? China's official media is a wing of the government, they don't take cues they take orders.

Also Rudd doesn't call out Xi claiming that China’s socialist democracy is the broadest, most genuine, and most effective democracy....

I don't like this Rudd guy. He doesn't sound like he is on our side or the side of freedom at all.

Up
0

He is the essential bureaucrat to the core. A very bright guy who thinks he knows what's best for us, ie an advocate for a Mandarin state, in the sense of a state run by the bureaucracy for the bureaucracy.

Up
0

...and his wife is good at getting people jobs! She has an accented name and all...Thérèse...

Up
0

One of the faults of our so called freedom is that it permits parasites of our economy to flourish while reducing the incomes of more productive members.

Up
0

Somebody of some note once said something like, "Western Civilisation reached its peak one Saturday night in 1896 in the Moulin Rouge in Paris". That is around the mid point between 1870 and 1914.

Up
0

Certainly some very bad decisions were made around about 1914.

Up
0

All pre-democracy.
Then again in 1939 - why? Some German guy made himself the dictator! And some Italian guy did the same thing and joined in, and then some Imperialist from Japan joined in as well. What did they all have in common?

Up
0

B-Rocker that's like a child's view of history. The Italian guy and imperialists from Japan came before the German guy. Anyway 1939 was a resumption of hostilities that started big time in 1914. The British Empire served as an inspiration for all those that came later. The British had America, Australasia and Africa so the Japanese, Germans and Italians thought they could have Manchuria, Eastern Europe and parts of North Africa. That's how the thinking went anyway.

Up
0

The point is about what they had in common - no democracy. Yes it was a continuation of what started in 1914, because the Germans did not secure a democracy. Neither did the Italians. And Japan never did have one.

Up
0