(Huiyun Feng) Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign

1111
2
3
4
5 C H I N E S E S T R AT E G I C
6
7 C U LT U R E A N D F O R E I G N
8 POLICY DECISION-MAKING
9
1011
1
2
3111 This book examines the motivations and intentions of a rising China. While
4 most scholarly work on this question approaches it at a structural level by
5 looking at the international system and its impact on China’s foreign policy,
6 this book tests rival hypotheses by examining the beliefs of contemporary
7 Chinese leaders and their strategic interactions with other states since 1949,
8 when the communist regime came to power. The focus is on tracing the
9 historical roots of Chinese strategic culture and its links to the decision-
20111 making of six key Chinese leaders via their belief systems. Applying both
1 qualitative and quantitative analysis, the book draws upon the disciplines of
2 history, psychology, and political science to provide a better understanding of
3 China’s past and present, and its strategic culture. In addition, an assessment
4 is made concerning the impact of China’s rise on major US security concerns
5 in the Asia Pacific, especially the future of Taiwan. The findings suggest that
6 the Chinese leaders are not offensive realists, as often thought, but, rather,
7 defensive Confucian leaders.
8 This book will be of much interest to students of Chinese politics, Asian
9 security, international relations, and US foreign policy.
30111
1 Huiyun Feng is Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at
2 Utah State University. She holds a PhD in International Relations from
3 Arizona State University.
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
1111
2
3
4
5 ASIAN SECURITY STUDIES
6 Series editors:
7 Sumit Ganguly, Indiana University, Bloomington and
8
Andrew Scobell, US Army War College
9
1011
1
2
3 Few regions of the world are fraught with as many security questions as Asia. Within this region
4 it is possible to study great power rivalries, irredentist conflicts, nuclear and ballistic missile
proliferation, secessionist movements, ethnoreligious conflicts and inter-state wars. This new
5
book series will publish the best possible scholarship on the security issues affecting the region,
6 and will include detailed empirical studies, theoretically oriented case studies and policy-relevant
7 analyses as well as more general works.
8
9 CHINA AND INTERNATIONAL RELIGION AND CONFLICT IN
20111 INSTITUTIONS SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
Alternate paths to global power Disrupting violence
1
Marc Lanteigne Linell E. Cady and Sheldon W. Simon (eds)
2
3 CHINA’S RISING SEA POLITICAL ISLAM AND
4 POWER VIOLENCE IN INDONESIA
5 The PLA Navy’s submarine Zachary Abuza
challenge
6
Peter Howarth US–INDIAN STRATEGIC
7 COOPERATION INTO THE
8 IF CHINA ATTACKS 21ST CENTURY
9 TAIWAN More than words
30111 Military strategy, politics Sumit Ganguly, Brian Shoup and
and economics Andrew Scobell (eds)
1
Steve Tsang (ed.)
2 INDIA, PAKISTAN AND THE
3 CHINESE CIVIL–MILITARY SECRET JIHAD
4 RELATIONS The covert war in Kashmir, 1947–2004
5 The transformation of the Praveen Swami
People’s Liberation Army
6
Nan Li (ed.) MILITARY STRATEGY IN THE
7 THIRD INDOCHINA WAR
8 THE CHINESE ARMY TODAY The last Maoist war
9 Tradition and transformation Edward C. O’Dowd
40111 for the 21st century
Dennis J. Blasko CHINESE STRATEGIC CULTURE
1
AND FOREIGN POLICY
2 TAIWAN’S SECURITY DECISION-MAKING
3 History and prospects Confucianism, leadership and war
44111 Bernard D. Cole Huiyun Feng
1111
2
3
4
5 CHINESE STRATEGIC
6
7
8
CULTURE AND
9
1011
FOREIGN POLICY
1
2
DECISION-MAKING
3111
4
5
Confucianism, leadership and war
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
Huiyun Feng
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011 First published 2007
by Routledge
1 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
2
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
3 by Routledge
4 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
5 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
6 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.
7
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
8 collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
9
© 2007 Huiyun Feng
20111
1 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
2 or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
3 and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
4 without permission in writing from the publishers.
5 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
6
7 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Feng, Huiyun, 1971–
8 Chinese strategic culture and foreign policy decision-making:
9 Confucianism, leadership and war/Huiyun Feng
30111 p.cm
Includes bibliographical references
1 1. China—Military policy. 2. China—Foreign relations—1949–3.
2 3. Confucianism and state—China—History. I. Title
3 UA835.F45 2007
355v.033573–dc22 2006034186
4
5 ISBN 0-203-08890-5 Master e-book ISBN
6
7
ISBN10: 0–415–41815–1 (hbk)
8 ISBN10: 0–203–08890–5 (ebk)
9
40111 ISBN13: 978–0–415–41815–7 (hbk)
ISBN13: 978–0–203–08890–6 (ebk)
1
2
3
44111
1111
2
3
4
5 T O M Y PA R E N T S ,
6 X I U H U A WA N G A N D H A O R A N
7 FENG, AND MY MENTOR,
8
S T E P H E N WA L K E R
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
1111
2
3
4
5 CONTENTS
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 List of illustrations viii
4 Acknowledgments ix
5 List of abbreviations x
6
7
8 1 China as a rising power 1
9
20111 2 China’s strategic culture and war 17
1
2 3 Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in the Korean War 36
3
4 4 China as a regional power: Mao, Zhou, and
5 Deng in India and Vietnam 53
6
7
5 Post-cold war China under new leaders: Jiang
8
9 and Hu–Wen 81
30111
1 6 Taiwan and the future of Sino-American relations 99
2
3 Methodological appendix: content analysis and
4 sequential game analysis 124
5
6
7 Notes 132
8 Selected bibliography 166
9 Index 179
40111
1
2
3
44111
vii
1111
2
3
4
5 ILLUSTRATIONS
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3 Figures
4 1.1 Contents of the revised Holsti operational code typology 9
5 1.2 Steps in the Verbs in Context System for coding verbs 10
6 1.3 Indices for philosophical and instrumental beliefs 11
7 2.1 Strategic culture and operational code beliefs 34
8 3.1 The general operational codes of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai 45
9 3.2 The operational codes of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai for
20111 pre-war, war, and post-war periods in the Korean War 46
1 4.1 The operational codes of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and
2 Deng Xiaoping in the Sino-Indian War 60
3 4.2 The operational codes of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Zhou
4 Enlai from pre-war to war to post-war periods in the Sino-Indian War 61
5 4.3 The operational code of Deng Xiaoping for pre-war, war, and
6 post-war periods in the Sino-Vietnamese War 77
7 5.1 The operational codes of Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Wen Jiabao 90
8 5.2 The operational codes of China’s leaders in different situations 91
9 6.1 The operational codes of Jiang Zemin and Lee Teng-hui 108
30111 6.2 The operational codes of Hu Jintao and Chen Shuibian 112
1
2 Tables
3
3.1 A comparison of the general operational codes of Mao and
4
Zhou with the norming group 42
5 3.2 Mao and Zhou’s mean scores for pre-war, war, and post-war
6 periods in the Korean War 43
7 4.1 Mean scores of Mao, Zhou, and Deng’s beliefs in the Sino-Indian
8 War 58
9 4.2 A comparison of the general operational codes of Mao, Zhou,
40111 and Deng with the norming group of world leaders 76
1 5.1 A comparison of the operational codes of Jiang, Hu, and Wen
2 with the norming group 88
3 6.1 A comparison of the general operational codes of Jiang, Hu,
44111 Lee, and Chen with the norming group 107
viii
1111
2
3
4
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 This book would not be possible without the instructions, consistent help,
4 and support from my mentors/advisers Professors Stephen Walker, Sheldon
5 Simon, and Stephen MacKinnon. Professor Mark Schafer at Louisiana State
6 University and Dr Michael Young at Social Science Automation provided
7 valuable technical support. This project is completed with the generous
8 funding of a Peace Scholar Award from the US Institute of Peace and a
9 Millennium Fellowship from Arizona State University. The views expressed
20111 in this book are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
1 of the US Institute of Peace. The author also thanks Kai He for his consistent
2 and persistent love, care, and encouragement.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
ix
1111
2
3
4
5 ABBREVIATIONS
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3 APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
4 ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations
5 CBMs confidence-building measures
6 CCP Chinese Communist Party
7 CPV Chinese People’s Volunteers
8 DPP Democratic People’s Party
9 GMD Guo Min Dang
20111 NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
1 NSC New Security Concept
2 NMEs nonmyopic equilibria
3 NUC National Unification Council
4 PLA People’s Liberation Army
5 PRC People’s Republic of China
6 ROK Republic of Korea
7 TIP Theory of Inferences about Preferences
8 TMD theater missile defence
9 TOM Theory of Moves
30111 TRA Taiwan Relations Act
1 UN United Nations
2 VICS Verbs in Context System
3 WTO World Trade Organization
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
x
1111
2
3
1
4
5 CHINA AS A
6
7 RISING POWER
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4 The art of war, then is governed by five constant facts to
5 be taken into account in one’s deliberations, when seeking
6 to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. These are:
The moral law; Heaven; Earth; the commander; method and
7
discipline.
8
Sun Tzu
9
20111 War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to
1 fulfil our will.
2 Clausewitz
3
4 Let China sleep, for when the Dragon awakes, she will shake
5 the world.
6 Napoleon
7
8
Will there be a war between the US and China now that China is rising and
9
catching up? China is the largest remaining communist state that is dictatorial,
30111
nationalistic, and, at the same time, uncivilized to many Westerners. What
1
kinds of problems will such a state pose to the world? In order to explore the
2
3 decision-making motivations behind China’s decisions for war, in this book
4 I construct a historical analysis of the roots of Chinese strategic thinking
5 by key Chinese leaders during three major war cases—the Korean War
6 (1950–53), the Sino-Indian War (1962), and the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979).
7 Did Chinese leaders follow a defensive or offensive strategic culture when
8 making foreign policy decisions for war? The central conclusion from this
9 analysis is that Chinese decision-makers followed the norms of a defensive
40111 strategic culture, which questions the view that China has an offensive
1 realist culture. How and why this pattern occurred within a communist
2 revolutionary regime is an intriguing historical and cultural puzzle with
3 political and strategic implications for the future, which I address by also
44111 analyzing China’s new leaders Jiang and Hu–Wen.
1
CHINA AS A RISING POWER
1111 First, I present a theory of strategic culture that examines the historical
2 roots of China’s foreign policy, unlike many realist descriptions and analyses
3 of Chinese foreign policy behavior which focus on material power. This theory
4 aims at better understanding some unique Chinese behavior on the world
5 stage as well as predicting Chinese foreign policies regarding current disputes
6 over Taiwan and other strategic issues. My theoretical framework draws
7 heavily from the cognitive branch of social psychology and from game theory
8 in political science to advance three major propositions: first, Chinese strategic
9 culture is defensive in nature; second, Chinese leaders under this defensive
1011 culture display a preference for peaceful strategies rather than aggressive ones;
1 third, Chinese foreign policy behavior as analyzed during three major wars
2 is in line with a defensive subjective game of strategic interaction.
3 This argument employs cultural norms—deeply rooted, shared beliefs—to
4 broaden the understanding of international relations especially of countries
5 other than Western Europe and America, which have experienced different
6 historical and cultural influences. The mainstream theory in Western political
7 science—realism—has been under attack for decades. Chinese foreign policy
8 behavior, in particular, poses a serious puzzle to neorealist, balance-of-power,
9
offensive or defensive realist theories. Moreover, the constructivist cultural
20111
realist argument by Alastair Iain Johnston also fails in its deterministic
1
insistence on the exclusive impact of a Parabellum strategic culture of
2
offensive realism in Chinese grand strategy, which results in the wrong
3
prediction that Chinese leaders under this strategic culture are all offensive
4
in nature.1
5
After identifying the deviations in Chinese behavior from the predictions
6
of these theories, this book presents new propositions to understand, explain,
7
8 and predict the dynamics of Chinese foreign policy behavior. Why and how
9 did the policies of the revolutionary Mao and the reformist Deng differ under
30111 similar crisis or non-crisis situations? What are the causes of these differences?
1 Contrary to the predictions of realist theories, why do leaders’ beliefs change
2 over time and across situations of war and peace? This analysis aims to catch
3 the variations and changes of leaders’ beliefs under different temporal, social,
4 and historical contexts in order to specify and delineate the conditions under
5 which different decisions are made and why beliefs differ between leaders
6 and change across situations.
7 To test my argument that Chinese strategic culture is defensive in nature,
8 I use both quantitative content analysis and qualitative case study methods
9 to test its main hypothesis against rival hypotheses from structural realist
40111 and cultural realist arguments, both of which predict offensive Chinese
1 behavior. Quantitative methods provide scientific rigor and permit the analysis
2 of several leaders under different situations. This book will employ a
3 quantitative content analysis of Chinese leaders’ public statements through
44111 an automated computer program, the Verbs in Context System (VICS).
2
1111 Quantitative results can be replicated easily due to the application of

2 automated content analysis, which provides high reliability. Together with
3 in-depth case studies, VICS provides a closer mapping of the decision-making
4 process, clarifies further the causal chain of actions, and supplies the necessary
5 clues for tracing strategic interactions between China and its adversaries.
6 Sequential game theory links the historical case studies and psychological
7 content analysis methods, complementing each other with their respective
8 contributions of behavior and beliefs in constructing patterns of strategic
9 interaction.2
1011
1
2 China as a rising power
3111 Will China become the next enemy of the US? Is China going to be a benign
4 power? Will there be war between China and the US over Taiwan? Will a
5 change of leadership in China result in a new foreign policy dynamic? With
6 the impressive economic growth of the last two decades, the answers to these
7 questions have far reaching implications for the security of the Asia Pacific
8 region and for world peace. The study of Chinese decision-making behavior
9
also has significant policy implications for the US as the hegemon in the
20111
current international system.
1
In Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese
2
History (1995), Alastair Iain Johnston has made a historical study of Chinese
3
strategic culture and concludes that, historically, China’s strategic culture has
4
been offensive despite its weak material capability. He claims that as seen
5
from its grand strategy, a realpolitik Parabellum strategic culture—not a
6
7 Confucian strategic culture3—is guiding Chinese foreign policy behavior.
8 Elsewhere Johnston argues, “Chinese decision makers have internalized this
9 strategic culture [Parabellum strategic culture] such that China’s strategic
30111 behavior exhibits a preference for offensive uses of force, mediated by a keen
1 sensitivity to relative capabilities.”4
2 Johnston’s argument is problematic first because his use of classic Chinese
3 philosophical works and military works raises issues of face validity.5 I also
4 question some of Johnston’s interpretations of ancient Chinese language.
5 Ancient Chinese language is different from modern Chinese language, which
6 leads to quite different interpretations. One character in Chinese can have
7 different pronunciations and can be translated into different meanings. For
8 example, the word “yi” with a third tone can mean first “use,” or “through
9 means of,” or “depending on,” etc., much depending on the will of the writer
40111 and the context. Also, the punctuation of sentences may mean different things.
1 Misinterpreting some key characters can result in a completely different
2 meaning and understanding.
3 Johnston’s sources also display a selection bias that some other scholars
44111 have pointed out.6 His use of the Seven Military Classics focuses on military
3
1111 strategies and the tactics of how to fight a war after it has started, which are
2 appropriate only for war-fighting situations; the cases that Johnston uses to
3 test his theory also focus mostly on military generals and not top political
4 leaders. Further, his Ming Dynasty case ignores the fact that it is immediately
5 after the Yuan Dynasty when the Mongols invaded the Han people’s Southern
6 Song Dynasty from the north. After the defeat of the Yuan Dynasty, the
7 northern border of the Ming Dynasty was constantly harassed by the troops
8 of the Mongols. Defense at the northern border was tough and urgent all the
9 time because threats in the north were always high during the Ming Dynasty.
1011 On the other hand, the Ming Dynasty was weak in control and governance.
1 The Mongols tried to take back the lands from the Han people. Therefore,
2 the Ming Dynasty would naturally be a time of belligerence. Finally, Chinese
3 behavior in the Korean (1950–53), the Sino-Indian (1962), and the Sino-
4 Vietnamese (1979) cases shows a defensive pattern,7 which is difficult, even
5 impossible, to explain empirically using Johnston’s theory. These puzzles lead
6 me to question both Johnston’s theory and his methodology.
7 Whether China’s strategic culture is offensive or defensive in nature is an
8 important question for describing and explaining Chinese foreign policy
9
behavior. Different theories provide different explanations. Structural realism
20111
can only provide a partial explanation for Chinese foreign policies. It can
1
hardly explain the balancing behavior of Mao’s China during the height
2
of the cold war. The post-cold war “new security practices” adopted by
3
China’s leaders are also difficult for the structural realists to fathom. China
4
has not balanced against power, nor has China balanced against threat, as
5
the balance of threat theory would predict.8 Instead, China has formed
6
friendly strategic “partnerships” constructively with most of the major powers
7
8 in the world.
9 Offensive realists also fail in providing a comprehensive explanation of
30111 Chinese foreign policy behavior.9 First, China did not expand in history when
1 it was strong. Second, China did not seek a conflictual settlement over the
2 South China Sea but has pursued a policy of “putting aside differences for
3 mutual development” towards the other claimants. Third, during the Sino-
4 Indian War, Chinese troops retreated back to the Chinese border without
5 taking any disputed territory. Furthermore, the border issue between China
6 and India was finally settled in 1994 through confidence-building measures.
7 While the foregoing suggests theories other than variants of realism are
8 needed to explain Chinese foreign policy behavior, there is no denying that
9 the international system constrains state behavior. As Reiter states, “the
40111 barebones structure of realism is a good starting point for understanding
1 international relations,”10 but as Reiter also acknowledges, the parsimony of
2 realism limits the accuracy of predictions and displays an indeterminacy
3 preventing falsification.11 Chinese foreign policy decisions are under structural
44111 constraints, but domestic politics cannot be excluded from the picture.12
4
1111 After the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, Mao
2 soon adopted the “lean-to-the-one-side” policy after calculating the choices
3 presented under the bipolar system. However, the complex picture of domestic
4 politics was the major reason for Mao’s initiation of the Great Cultural
5 Revolution. Bureaucratic politics also provides an institutional perspective
6 in understanding some unique decisions by China.13 “Unit-level factors, such
7 as evolutions in weaponry and the development of nuclear weapons, also can
8 play a decisive role.”14 Some unit-level factors can strongly influence systemic
9 ones, as seen from the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of the
1011 bipolar international system in the early 1990s.
1 Moreover, to understand comprehensively and completely Chinese foreign
2 policy behavior, the beliefs of individual Chinese leaders cannot be ignored
3111 or underestimated. The footprints of major Chinese leaders—Mao Zedong,
4 Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping—can never be erased nor can the historical/
5 philosophical impact of such major Chinese philosophers as Confucius,
6 Mencius, and Sun Zi. Structural realist theories share the microfoundation of
7 classical rationality borrowed from economic theories.15 They assume that
8 actors (states) do not differ in making rational decisions, acting to preserve
9 their survival under the anarchic system where there is no overarching
20111 authority to oversee state interactions. However, as Herbert Simon points
1 out, “If we take into account the limitations of knowledge and computing
2 power of the choosing organism, then we may find it incapable of making
3 objective optimal choices.”16 Therefore, in decision-making, when state
4 leaders are faced with limited information and knowledge, what we are
5 discussing is bounded (subjective) rationality as opposed to substantive
6 (objective) rationality when considering both the constraints from external
7 situations and the limits of the organism in processing information.17
8 Consequently, structural realist theories that focus mostly on the external
9 constraints of material power distribution for explanation are radically
30111 incomplete. As Simon points out, “To deduce the procedurally or bounded
1 rational choice in a situation, we must know the choosing organism’s goals,
2 the information and conceptualization it has of the situation, and its abilities
3 to draw inferences from the information it possesses.”18 Jervis also identifies
4 the danger of war resulting from misperceptions of state leaders.19 This
5 possibility represents a common critique of structural realist theories. In
6 response, structural realists argue that beliefs change and leaders also change
7 or die. Leaders’ beliefs never last, and are hard to measure or predict, and,
8 therefore, remain epiphenomena. In addition, leaders constrained by the same
9 structure and following the same material interests will react the same way
40111 regardless of their different historical and cultural experiences.
1 Some neoclassical versions of realist theories do tend to touch on the issue
2 of leaders’ beliefs when discussing state intentions and identities. Walt’s balance
3 of threat theory points to the threat perceptions of states; however, he does not
44111 specify how perception comes about but rather relies on material factors to
5
1111 measure threat perceptions. Schweller provides us with a “zoo analogy” of

2 states with different interests—revisionist (jackals and wolves) vs. status quo
3 states (lions)—yet he does not elaborate where these identities come from,
4 that is, why the “lions,” “wolves,” and “jackals” are what they are, and what
5 motivates them to act the way they do. In addition, how we can tell for sure a
6 state is a wolf when we see it, that is, what measurement can we apply?20
7 By admitting the necessity of realist arguments about structural constraints,
8 other scholars have rediscovered a “realism-plus-beliefs” framework.21 In two
9 works in the 1950s, Nathan Leites studied the Soviet Politburo’s Bolshevik
1011 doctrine regarding the exercise of power through analysis of “operational
1 code” beliefs, that is, the conceptions of political strategy. The significance of
2 his research was to point out that (Bolshevik) operational code beliefs
3 significantly influenced Bolshevik decisions. The operational code is a psycho-
4 cultural construct influencing the behavior of individuals. Who you are
5 influences what you do.22 Alexander George systematically refined the Leites
6 approach and defined two sets of operational code beliefs; philosophical and
7 instrumental beliefs.23 Research by Ole Holsti and Stephen Walker developed
8 a typology of belief systems that connected motivations with operational code
9 beliefs.24A content analysis computer program, VICS, has recently been
20111 developed for “retrieving and analyzing a leader’s operational code beliefs.”25
1 The development of the operational code research approach provides useful
2 tools to measure and analyze beliefs as elements of strategic culture. As a
3 psycho-cultural construct, the operational codes of individual leaders can be
4 studied through careful research designs and tested against rival theories for
5 confirmation. When Jack Snyder first proposed the term strategic culture in
6 the 1970s26 to study its implications for foreign policy decision-making, he
7 explicitly acknowledged that there is some significant “Soviet-ness” in Soviet
8 behavior. Like Leites, he assessed the ideological impact of Marxist-Leninist
9 thinking on Bolshevik decision makers’ views of the world. Similarly, in the
30111 1990s, studies of Gorbachev’s beliefs as a leading cause of the collapse of the
1 Soviet Union further popularized studies of leaders’ beliefs.27 I will employ
2 operational code analysis at its current stage of development to analyze
3 Chinese leaders.28
4 The focus of this book, therefore, is twofold: (1) the nature of Chinese
5 strategic culture and its historical and philosophical roots, and (2) how strategic
6 culture affects the decision-making of key Chinese leaders (Mao Zedong,
7 Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao–Wen Jiabao) as
8 they make decisions for war or peace. I use Johnston’s argument about an
9 offensive Chinese strategic culture as a starting point and test his hypotheses
40111 and my counter-hypotheses using the methodology of operational code
1 analysis. I will also look backward into the Warring States Period when
2 Confucianism was formed and then engage in a process-tracing analysis of
3 Chinese decision-making in three wars (Korean War, Sino-Indian War, and
44111 Sino-Vietnamese War).29
6
1111 Specifically, I analyze the operational codes of China’s decision-makers in

2 these wars to test the rival hypotheses that, contra Johnston, (1) Confucianism
3 is a key factor in the historical origins of the Chinese strategic culture, and
4 (2) it is still applicable in the policies of the PRC. Last, I include an analysis
5 of the current leaders—Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao—to assess whether the
6 new Chinese leaders will become more offensive-minded as China’s national
7 power grows and whether there will be potential conflicts in the Taiwan
8 Straits, as many realist theorists have predicted.
9 The application of both quantitative and qualitative methods offers double
1011 verification of the results. A traditional case study is first carried out on the
1 historical materials, and new evidence is introduced to process-trace how
2 China’s decisions for war were made under different historical circumstances.
3111 The documentation includes sources in both English and Chinese languages.
4 Translations and interpretations inferred from Chinese sources are made by
5 the author in some parts. Chinese Pin Yin is provided in the standard
6 Mandarin form. A quantitative content analysis is also performed on the
7 major leaders’ speeches. The major sources for speeches are:
8
9 • the selected works of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Zhou Enlai plus
20111 the following sources for Jiang, Hu, and Wen;
1 • Beijing Review (Peking Review);
2 • People’s Daily (online version);
3 • Chinese Foreign Ministry and Embassies in Foreign Countries’ web pages;
4 • Lexis-Nexis Academics; and the following archival and news sources:
5 – Xin Hua News Agency Web;
6 – FBIS (WNC);
7 – Far Eastern Economic Review;
8 • National Security Archives; and the following archival sources for Mao,
9 Deng:
30111 – international Cold War History Project;
1 – transcripts of telegrams;
2 – letters exchanged (Zhou to Nehru).
3
4 Variations in beliefs among China’s leaders during different time periods
5 show that leaders matter in relation to environment. Unlike the domination
6 of a single strategic culture thesis advanced by Johnston, Chinese leaders’
7 beliefs are actually much more complicated and display significant variance
8 over time and settings. These differences in beliefs can help us understand the
9 foreign policy behavior of China at a given historical time. Then, sequential
40111 game models developed by Steven Brams are used to link beliefs and behavior,
1 because they mimic strategic interactions between states in a sequential
2 manner.30 To model more effectively the strategic preferences of Chinese
3 leaders during particular strategic interactions, the subjective games embedded
44111 in their operational codes are analyzed with Brams’ Theory of Moves (TOM).
7
1111 The operational code construct

2
The operational code construct was developed by Nathan Leites to study the
3
beliefs of the Soviet Bolshevik Politburo in the 1950s.31 It was a psycho-
4
cultural construct that incorporated cognition, character, and culture.32
5
6 Alexander George modified this broader view of operational code in 1969 into
7 two sorts of beliefs: “philosophical” and “instrumental” beliefs. Philosophical
8 beliefs refer to the assumptions and premises made by an actor regarding the
9 fundamental nature of politics and political conflict and the image of the
1011 opponent; the general prospects for achieving one’s fundamental political
1 values; the extent to which political outcomes are predictable; the extent to
2 which political leaders can influence historical developments and control
3 outcomes; and the role of chance. Instrumental beliefs, on the other hand,
4 have to do with questions of correct strategy and tactics, such as the
5 best approach for selecting goals for political action; how such goals and
6 objectives can be pursued most effectively; the best approach to calculation,
7 control, and acceptance of the risks of political action; the matter of “timing”
8 of action; and the utility and role of different means for advancing one’s
9 interests.33
20111 The operational code construct offers a perspective that bridges the gap
1 between motivation and cognition as mechanisms of political choice.34
2 Operational code analysis is advantageous for studying the systematic
3 relationships between an individual’s political beliefs and the needs for power,
4 affiliation, and achievement.35 Depending upon a person’s constellation of
5 needs for power, affiliation, and achievement, the contents of the operational
6 code beliefs differ.36 The motivational needs of leaders position them within
7 a typology of belief systems in Figure 1.1 developed by Holsti and modified
8 by Walker.
9 Four key beliefs locate a leader in the Holsti typology. The horizontal axis
30111 in Figure 1.1 represents the leader’s belief in the degree of control over
1 historical development (P-4). The vertical axis represents increasing
2 friendliness and cooperation (upper-half) vs. increasing hostility and conflict
3 (lower-half), attributed by a leader to self (I-1) and other (P-1). The VICS
4 indices for these key operational code beliefs, P-4, I-1, and P-1, locate the
5 coordinates for self (P-4a, I-1) and other (P-4b, P-1) within the Holsti
6 typology. The location of self in a quadrant reveals the leader’s strategic
7 preferences for different political outcomes. For example, a leader with a
8
Type A operational code attributed to self has the following strategic
9
preference ranking: settle > deadlock > dominate > submit. The different
40111
types of beliefs represent different motivational imagery associated with
1
operational code beliefs. Type A’s beliefs contain images of affiliation while
2
Type DEF expresses images for power. Types B and C share an image of
3
achievement while differing in their images of power (Type B) and affiliation
44111
(Type C).37
8
1111
(Low Ach, High Aff) (High Ach, High Aff)
2 Type A (P-1/I-1) Type C
3
4 Conflict is temporary, caused by human misunderstanding +1.0
Conflict is temporary; it is possible to restructure the state
and miscommunication. A “conflict spiral,” based upon |
5 misperception and impulsive responses, is the major dan- | system to reflect the latent harmony of interests. The
| source of conflict is the anarchical state system, which
6 ger of war. Opponents are often influenced by nonrational
conditions, but tend to respond in kind to conciliation and | permits a variety of causes to produce war. Opponents
7 firmness. Optimism is warranted, based upon a leader’s | vary in nature, goals, and responses to conciliation and
firmness. One should be pessimistic about goals unless
ability and willingness to shape historical development. |
8 The future is relatively predictable, and control over it is | the state system is changed, because predictability and
control over historical development is low under anarchy.
9 possible. Establish goals within a framework that
emphasizes shared interests. Pursue broadly inter-
|
Establish optimal goals vigorously within a
|
1011 national goals incrementally with flexible strategies | comprehensive framework. Pursue shared goals, but
control risks by limiting means rather than ends. Act
that control risks by avoiding escalation and acting |
1 quickly when conciliation opportunities arise. | quickly when conciliation opportunities arise and
delay escalatory actions whenever possible; other
2 Emphasize resources that establish a climate for
negotiation and compromise and avoid the early use of
|
resources than military capabilities are useful.
|
3111 force. |
Preference Order:
|
4 Preference Order: | Settle > Dominate > Deadlock > Submit
5 Settle > Deadlock > Dominate > Submit |
|
6 (P-4) .00--------- ---------- ------------ ------------------------- ---------- -------------------- -------- ------- ---------- -------- +1.0 (P-4)
7 |
Preference Order: |
8 Dominate > Settle > Deadlock > Submit |
Preference Order:
Dominate > Deadlock > Settle > Submit
9 Conflict is permanent, caused by human nature (D); |
|
| Conflict is temporary, caused by warlike states; miscalcu-
20111 nationalism (E), or international anarchy (F). Power | lation and appeasement are the major causes of war.
disequilibria are major dangers of war. Opponents may |
1 vary, and responses to conciliation or firmness are uncer- |
Opponents are rational and deterrable. Optimism is war-
ranted regarding realization of goals. The political future
tain. Optimism declines over the long run and in the short
2 run depends upon the quality of leadership and a power
|
|
is relatively predictable, and control over historical
development is possible. One should seek optimal goals
3 equilibrium. Predictability is limited, as is control over | vigorously within a comprehensive framework.
historical development. Seek limited goals flexibly with |
4 moderate means. Use military force if the opponent |
Control risks by limiting means rather than ends.
Any tactic and resource may be appropriate, including
and circumstances require it, but only as a final |
5 resource. |
the use of force when it offers prospects for large gains
with limited risk.
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 –1.0
9
30111 Type DEF (P-1/I-1) Type B
(Low Ach, High Pow) (High Ach, High Pow)
1
2
3 Figure 1.1 Contents of the revised Holsti operational code typology. (Instrumental
beliefs are in bold and philosophical beliefs are not.)
4 Source: Walker 1983, 2003
5
6
7 The typology is a dynamic one that can catch the variations in the beliefs
8 of leaders under different contexts. A cooperative type leader might shift to
9 conflictual type beliefs during war/crisis time or under diplomatic pressure.
40111 A leader’s operational code beliefs can be very complex and vary over time
1 and situations so that the same leader might exhibit different types of
2 operational code beliefs under different situations. Operational code analysis
3 focuses on the choice propensities of leaders through diagnosing the use of
44111 power by others in the political universe and on the leader’s own propensities
for exercising political power.38
9
1111
2
3 STEPS IN THE VERBS IN CONTEXT SYSTEM
4
1. IDENTIFY THE SUBJECT AS
5
6 SELF OR OTHER
7 2. IDENTIFY THE TENSE OF THE TRANSITIVE VERB AS
8
9 PAST PRESENT FUTURE
1011 AND IDENTIFY THE CATEGORY OF THE VERB AS
1
2 POSITIVE (+) OR NEGATIVE (–)
3 ----------------------------------------------------
4
APPEAL, SUPPORT (+1) OPPOSE, RESIST (–1)
5
6 WORDS OR OR
7
PROMISE BENEFITS (+2) THREATEN COSTS (–2)
8
9 ----------------------------------------------------
20111 DEEDS REWARDS (+3) PUNISHMENTS (–3)
1
2 3. IDENTIFY THE DOMAIN AS
3 DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN
4
5 4. IDENTIFY TARGET AND PLACE IN CONTEXT
6
7 AN EXAMPLE
8 A quote taken from President Carter's January 4, 1980 address to the nation: “Massive Soviet military
9 forces have invaded the small, non-aligned, sovereign nation of Afghanistan ...”
30111 1. Subject. The subject is “Massive Soviet military forces” which is coded as other, that is, the speaker is
1 not referring to his or her self or his or her state.
2 2. Tense and Category. The verb phrase “have invaded” is in the past tense and is a negative deed coded,
3 therefore, as punish.
4
3. Domain. The action involves an actor (Soviet military forces) external to the speaker's state (the United
5 States); therefore, the domain is foreign.
6
7 4. Targets and Context. The action is directed toward Afghanistan; therefore, the target is coded as
Afghanistan. In addition, we designate a context: Soviet-Afghanistan-conflict-1979–88.
8
9 The complete data line for this statement is: other –3 foreign past Afghanistan Soviet-Afghanistan-conflict
1979–88.
40111
1 Figure 1.2 Steps in the Verbs in Context System for coding verbs
2
Source: Walker et al. 1998
3
44111
10
1111
2
3 PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS
Elements Index* Interpretation
4
5 P-1. NATURE OF THE POLITICAL %Positive minus %Negative +1.0 friendly to
UNIVERSE (Image of Others) Transitive Other Attributions –1.0 hostile
6
7 P-2. REALIZATION OF POLITICAL Mean Intensity of Transitive +1.0 optimistic to
VALUES (Optimism/Pessimism) Other Attributions divided by 3 –1.0 pessimistic
8
9 P-3. POLITICAL FUTURE (Predict- 1 minus Index of Qualitative 1.0 predictable
ability of Others’ Tactics) Variation** for Other Attribu- to 0.0 uncertain
1011 tions
1 P-4. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Self Attributions divided by 1.0 high to 0.0
2 (Locus of Control) [Self plus Other Attributions] low self control
3111 P-5. ROLE OF CHANCE (Absence of 1 minus [Political Future 1.0 high role
4 Control) Historical Development Index] to 0.0 low role
5
INSTRUMENTAL BELIEFS
6
7 Elements Index Interpretation
8 I-1. APPROACH TO GOALS (Direction %Positive minus %Negative +1.0 high coop-
9 of Strategy) Transitive Self Attributions eration to –1.0 high
conflict
20111
I-2. PURSUIT OF GOALS (Intensity Mean Intensity of Transitive +1.0 high coop-
1 of Tactics) Self Attributions divided by 3 eration to –1.0 high
2 conflict
I-3. RISK ORIENTATION (Predicta- 1 minus Index of Qualitative 1.0 risk accept-
3 bility of Tactics) Variation for Self Attributions ant to 0.0 risk
4 averse
5 I-4. TIMING OF ACTION (Flexibil- 1 minus Absolute Value [%X 1.0 high to 0.0
6 bility of Tactics) minus %Y Self Attributions] low shift propensity
7 a. Coop v. Conf Tactics Where X = Coop and Y = Conf

8 b. Word v. Deed Tactics Where X = Word and Y = Deed
9 I-5. UTILITY OF MEANS (Exercise Percentages for Exercise of +1.0 very frequent
of Power) Power Categories a through f to 0.0 infrequent
30111
1 a. Reward a’s frequency divided by total
b. Promise b’s frequency divided by total
2 c. Appeal/Support c’s frequency divided by total
3 d. Oppose/Resist d’s frequency divided by total
e. Threaten e’s frequency divided by total
4 f. Punish f’s frequency divided by total
5
6
Figure 1.3 Indices for philosophical and instrumental beliefs
7
8 Notes:
* All indices vary between 0 and 1.0 except for P-1, P-2, I-1, and I-2, which vary between –1.0
9 and 1.0. P-2 and I-2 are divided by 3 to standardize the range (Walker et al. 1998).
40111 ** The Index of Qualitative Variation is a ratio of the number of different pairs of observations
1 in a distribution to the maximum possible number of different pairs for a distribution with
the same N [number of cases] and the same number of variable classifications (Watson and
2 McGraw 1980: 88).
3
44111
11
1111 A computerized automated content analysis system, VICS, was developed

2 to perform a content analysis of public statements and draw inferences from
3 these public statements. To the extent that a particular leader is in control of
4 the state’s behavior or to the extent that a leader’s beliefs are shared by those
5 individuals with the power to act on behalf of the state, these inferences then
6 become predictions about a state’s behavior.39 The VICS scores are calculated
7 through extracting values for six attributes in Figure 1.2 for each recording
8 unit (verb) and its surrounding context: subject, verb category, domain of
9 politics, tense of the verb, intended target, and context.40
1011 The raw VICS scores are used to calculate aggregate scores and standard
1 deviations from group means. The leader’s operational code indices in Figure
2 1.3 are related in a hierarchical order. Content analyses of leaders’ operational
3 codes are conducted through the automated computer software Profiler Plus
4 and the VICS dictionary.41 The indices for I-1 and P-1 summarize the balance
5 between the leader’s attribution of cooperative and conflictual properties to
6 self and others. P-4 scores show the leader’s belief in his/her control over
7 historical development. I-1, P-1 and P-4 are “key indices” because they
8 summarize the information from the indices for all of the other beliefs in
9 Figure 1.3 by calculating the balance between the two basic elements used to
20111 construct the indices: valence (+/–) and actor (self/other).42
1
2
3 Subjective games
4 Recent developments in the operational code research program indicate that
5 a subjective games framework can help map out strategies, tactics, and moves.
6 Steven Brams offers a TOM for 2 = 2 sequential games of strategy.43 The
7 Holsti typology provides the possibility of linking strategies with beliefs
8 through subjective games following TOM. Subjective games can model the
9 strategic interactions of players with ordinal preference rankings for the
30111 outcomes of settlement, domination, submission, and deadlock formed by
1 the intersection of cooperation (CO) and conflict (CF) choices by two
2 players.44 A common culture could lead the players toward the same strategies
3 over other alternatives.45
4 By using sequential game theory, it is assumed that most games have a
5
history; therefore, it is essential that an initial state is specified. “The choice
6
of the initial state, and what constitute future states and eventually an
7
outcome, depends on what the analyst seeks to explain.”46 The payoffs for a
8
game are strictly ordinal, and the final state or outcome is reached when the
9
move–countermove process cannot proceed further by either player.47 Because
40111
TOM is a sequential game theory, each move by one player alternates with
1
the previous one taken by the other player. Instead of having just a Nash
2
equilibrium,48 in a sequential game there may also be different nonmyopic
3
equilibria (NMEs)49 based on which player is the initiator and what the initial
44111
state is. Thus, it provides more possibilities for actors to make strategic choices
12
1111 of tit-for-tat or reciprocity and to avoid deadlocks. Brams identifies five rules
2 of play for TOM:50
3
4 1 Players start at an outcome, called the initial state, which is at the
5 intersection of the row and column of a 2 = 2 payoff matrix.
6 2 Either player can unilaterally switch its strategy, and thereby change the
7 initial state into a new state, in the same row or column as the initial
8 state. The player who switches is called player 1 (P1).
9 3 Player 2 (P2) can respond by unilaterally switching its strategy, thereby
1011 moving the game to a new state.
1 4 The alternating responses continue until the player (P1 or P2) whose turn
2 it is to move next chooses not to switch its strategy. When this happens,
3111 the game terminates in a final state, which is the outcome of the game.
4 5 A player will not move from an initial state if this move:
5 a leads to a less preferred final state (i.e., outcome); or
b returns play to the initial state (i.e., makes the initial state the
6
outcome).
7
8 Intersecting preferences for Self and Other from the Holsti typology identify
9 the possible formal models of the subjective game in a leader’s operational code
20111 belief system, based on the VICS scores calculated from a leader’s public
1 statements. In the Holsti/Walker typology, each type of leader has a corres-
2 ponding preference ranking for outcomes depending on their instrumental
3 and philosophical beliefs as shown in the following simple theory of inferences:
4 Prop. 1 (Type A); Prop. 2 (Type C); Prop. 3 (Type DEF); Prop. 4 (Type B),
5 where the midpoint of the vertical axis in the typology is divided between +
6 and –, and the midpoint of the horizontal axis is divided between < and >.
7
8
9
A simple Theory of Inferences about Preferences (TIP)
30111
1 Prop. 1. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, <), then Settle > Deadlock >
2 Dominate > Submit.
3 Prop. 2. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, >), then Settle > Dominate
4 > Deadlock > Submit.
5
6 Prop. 3. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, <), then Dominate > Settle
7 > Deadlock > Submit.
8 Prop. 4. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, >), then Dominate >
9 Deadlock > Settle > Submit.
40111
1
2
By locating a leader in a quadrant of Figure 1.1, the leader’s ranking of
3
strategic preferences for Self and Other can be obtained. This ordinal
44111
preference ranking then can be inserted into the matrix for a subjective game.
13
1111 The strategies of passive and active Confucian leaders are defined by the
2 first two propositions while defensive realist and Parabellum offensive realist
3 leaders are defined by the last two propositions above. Either type of leader
4 may define others as similar or different from themselves. The following
5 games may be played as examples based on this simple theory of preferences
6 and TOM.
7
8 • When a Confucian leader (Self) in Quadrant A meets another Confucian
9 leader (Other), the outcome is always settlement. The predicted outcome
1011 of this no conflict game will always be settlement (4,4), the best outcome
1 for both (see No Conflict Game below). Brams (1994: 25) notes (4,4) is
2 always an NME and Nash equilibrium in a no conflict game.
3 • When a Confucian leader in Quadrant A meets a defensive realist leader
in Quadrant DEF, mutual cooperation is the predicted outcome as seen
4
from the Mixed Motive Game below, where one player ranks cooperation
5
(CO) highest while the other ranks conflict (CF) highest and settlement
6
(4,3) is the NME (see Game 27 in Brams 1994: 217).51
7
8 When a Parabellum offensive realist leader in Quadrant B meets a defensive
9 realist leader in Quadrant DEF and they both rank conflict (CF) highest, it
20111 generates a Total Conflict Game below with deadlock (2,3) as an outcome that
1 is both an NME and a Nash equilibrium (see Game 11 in Brams 1994: 218).
2 Brams has calculated the NMEs for the 57 2 = 2 ordinal games of conflict in
3 which (4,4) is not an outcome.52 In the case studies of subjective games for
4 this book, I report the NME as the equilibrium for the subjective games of
5 China’s leaders from the Appendix in Brams (1994), based on an expanded
6 theory of preferences developed by Walker and Schafer.53
7
8
9 No Conflict Mixed Motive Total Conflict
30111 Game Game (27) Game (11)
1 Alter Alter Alter
2 CO CF CO CF CO CF
3 CO 4,4* 1,3 CO 4,3 1,4 CO 3,2 1,4
4 Ego Ego Ego
5 CF 2,1 3,2* CF 2,1 3,2* CF 4,1 2,3*
6 (I-1, P-4a) Ego: (+, <) (I-1, P-4a) Ego: (+, <) (I-1, P-4a) Ego: (–, <)
7 (P-1, P-4b) Alter: (+, >) (P-1, P-4b) Alter: (–, <) (P-1, P-4b) Alter: (–, >)
8
9 * Both the final state and the NMEs are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked.
“A Nash equilibrium is a state—or, more properly, the strategies associated with a state—from
40111
which no player would have an incentive to depart unilaterally because its departure would
1 immediately lead to a worse, or at least not a better, state. . . . In a two-person game, an NME is
2 a state from which neither player, anticipating all possible rational moves and countermoves
3 from the initial state, would have an incentive to depart unilaterally because the departure would
44111 eventually lead to a worse, or at least not a better, outcome” (Brams 1994: 224).
14
1111 The expanded version of a simple TIP is “a more nuanced model of

2 subjective games,” based on inferences about the standard deviations of the
3 leaders’ operational code raw scores above or below the mean of the average
4 world leaders’ scores with respect to the master beliefs for Self (P-4a, I-1) and
5 Other (P-4b, P-1). The signs for the six propositions below indicate whether
6 the I-1 and P-1 indices are above (+) or below (–) the means (I-1 = +.33; P-1
7 = +.25) for a norming group (n = 35) of world leaders from different
8 geographic regions and historical eras. The signs for the P-4 indices indicate
9 whether they are greater than (>), less than (<), or within ( = ) one standard
1011 deviation (SD = .10) of the mean (P-4 = .21) for the norming group.54
1
2
3111 An expanded TIP
4
Prop. 1. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, <), then Settle > Deadlock >
5
Submit > Dominate.
6
Prop. 2. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, = ), then Settle > Deadlock
7
> Dominate > Submit.
8
Prop. 3. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, >), then Settle > Dominate
9
> Deadlock > Submit.
20111
Prop. 4. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, <), then Dominate > Settle
1
> Submit > Deadlock.
2
Prop. 5. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, = ), then Dominate > Settle
3
> Deadlock > Submit.
4
Prop. 6. If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, >), then Dominate >
5
Deadlock > Settle > Submit.
6
7
8
9 Conclusion
30111
1 To sum up, this book emphasizes the role of beliefs in foreign policy decision-
2 making and behavior. By tracing back historically the philosophical roots of
3 Chinese strategic culture, an effort is made to answer the following questions:
4 where do beliefs come from and what motivates state behavior? In looking
5 more deeply at the motivational foundations of state identity, I argue that it
6 is possible to understand and predict the foreign policy behavior of a
7 particular state—no matter whether it is revisionist or status quo.
8 This chapter has provided a road map by presenting the main theoretical
9 and empirical puzzles in this book and how I propose to solve them. Chapter
40111 2 begins with a historical elaboration of how different strategic cultures were
1 formed in China during the Warring States Period and why Confucianism
2 blossomed and was practiced in political and foreign relations in Chinese
3 history. This narrative is followed by demonstrating the method of content
analysis and game theory’s formal modeling for studying strategic culture and
44111
interaction. Chapter 3 provides an analysis of Mao and Zhou as revolutionary
15
1111 leaders in the Korean War, while Chapter 4 focuses on the Sino-Indian War
2 in the 1960s and the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979, with an emphasis on
3 analyzing Deng Xiaoping as a reformist leader.
4 Chapter 5 focuses on three contemporary Chinese leaders (Jiang, Hu, and
5 Wen) and three crises during their leadership (the Chinese Embassy bombing
6 in Belgrade, the EP-3 incident in the South China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait
7 election crises). This chapter is followed by Chapter 6—an analysis of the
8 Taiwan Strait issue and a look at the future of Sino-American relations.
9 Finally, a brief methodological appendix is also included as a reference for
1011 readers unfamiliar with automated content analysis or the analysis of
1 sequential games in the operational code analysis research program.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
16
1111
2
3
2
4
5 CHINA’S STRATEGIC
6
7 CULTURE AND WAR
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 History is always so old, and so new.
4 Hsu Chuo-yun
5
6 For more than a century, the U.S. has been the world’s largest
7 economy. The only nation with a chance of surpassing it in the
8 next generation in absolute scale is China.
9 Larry Summers1
20111
1 Chinese philosophical thinking has deep cultural and historical roots impacting
2 Chinese strategic behavior. According to the ancient Chinese philosophy of
3 Confucianism, the Chinese are a people who love peace and harmony. Even
4
the military strategist Sun Zi2 stated the preferred strategic goal is to win a
5
war without fighting (resorting to the use of force). This chapter provides
6
a historical analysis of how different strategic cultures were formed during the
7
Warring States Period in China by exploring the different schools of thought
8
and how they evolved and were practiced in China’s international relations.
9
It will also discuss China’s Confucian strategic culture, which provides a
30111
guidepost for Chinese strategic preferences. While Johnston argues that
1
2 Chinese strategic culture exhibits an aggressive and expansionist preference,
3 this chapter provides evidence from history that challenges Johnston’s
4 interpretation. To assess the merits of the Parabellum hypothesis of China’s
5 strategic culture and war, I use operational code analysis. This chapter will
6 also look into why and how the operational code construct can help provide
7 a valid and reliable explanation of Chinese strategic culture and beliefs.
8
9 China’s strategic culture
40111
1 To understand the philosophical roots of Chinese strategic beliefs, it is
2 necessary to seek the historical origins of different philosophical beliefs. The
3 Warring States Period (463–222 BC) was the time when major political
44111 institutions defining the Chinese state system were created. The creation of
17
C H I N A’ S S T R AT E G I C C U LT U R E A N D WA R
1111 the territorial state system was accompanied by the emergence of what later
2 was called “a hundred schools of thought,” among which Confucianism and
3 Legalism were the major schools. This is also when major military works
4 such as The Art of War were written. The Qin State succeeded finally in
5 unifying China through Legalistic reformation (Lord Shang Yang was the
6 major figure); however, it was Confucianism that finally won out in the
7 philosophical struggles among different schools. From the Han Dynasty on,
8 Confucianism was the major dominating state philosophy in the institutional
9 and spiritual frameworks of the Chinese state.3
1011 Hsu Chuo-yun argues that during the Zhou (Chou) Dynasty preceding the
1 Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States Period, a common cultural
2 identity emerged, embracing the whole of China.4 What the Chinese then saw
3 as “China” or “Zhongguo” was only the northern part of the Yellow River
4 with Luoyang5 as the center. “Inter-state relations were conducted as though
5 the leaders were cousins within a big extended family.”6 During the Warring
6 States Period, “[A]ncient China witnessed considerable evolution in the nature
7 of war, the composition of military forces, and the conduct of battle,”7 and
8 warfare was usually closely tied to rituals. The rituals conducted by the ruling
9
family before and after wars brought about considerable suffering to the
20111
general population both materially and spiritually.8
1
The evolution of military warfare depended on improved productive
2
capability as well as exploitation of the general public. The social, political,
3
and military consequences of constant warfare were two-fold: on the one
4
hand, the Warring States Period produced a large body of interesting military
5
literature with Sun Zi’s Art of War the best known. However, the period also
6
saw a “hundred schools of thought” blossom, debating how to avoid endless
7
8 warfare and improve the leaders’ ruling strategy and human life. Thus, the
9 Warring States Period is named by David Nivison as an “age of philosophers
30111 . . . of exuberant originality and variety, that settled into something steadier
1 and less varied in the long subsequent centuries of empire.”9
2 During this period, scholars advocating different philosophies and ideas
3 made consistent efforts to “sell” their ideas on state reforms and warfare
4 to rulers, and successful ones became the advisors to the ruling elites. Their
5 ideas also dominated the administrative and strategic rule of different
6 kingdoms. These scholars are called persuaders.10 Their roles resemble today’s
7 diplomats or negotiators if authorized to represent a king to approach
8 other kings to form or end an alliance. They also acted as councilors to state
9 leaders in advocating reforms and persuading the rulers of the dangers of
40111 certain policies. The best known schools include the Confucian school
1 (rujia), the Legists or Legalists (fajia),11 Daoists (daojia),12 Mojia,13 and
2 the military strategists (bingjia).14 These scholars and their works provide
3 the philosophical underpinnings of Chinese state ruling philosophy and
44111 military thought.
18
1111 Confucianism: Confucius and Mencius

2
Nivison states, “The repertory of Chinese philosophers begins with
3
Confucius.”15 Confucius (Kong Fuzi, his personal name is Qiu) was born in
4
551 BC. As the first philosopher, the impact of his philosophical ideas pervades
5
all dimensions of Chinese social and political life. Confucianism was later
6
further developed by Mencius—“the second sage”16 in the Confucian tradi-
7
tion. Confucianism provides the most essential elements in Chinese military
8
thought and Chinese conduct of international relations.
9
1011 Confucianism emphasizes the rule of virtue for harmony (he), hence the best
1 way to govern for a ruler is through the moral standards of “ren”
2 (benevolence) and “li” (rituals, moral standards).17 A ruler with high moral
3111 standards will be able to maintain harmony in family, stability in a kingdom,
4 and peace in the world at large (xiu shen, chi jia, zhiguo, ping tianxia).
5 “According to Confucius and Mencius, the virtue of rulers is symbolized by
6 being benevolent towards their subordinates.”18 As Hsu elaborates, the
7 Confucian virtues of governing emphasized that only a compassionate and
8 just king would be supported by the people, would be able to avoid violence,
9 and would promote moral values among the citizenry.
20111 According to Confucius, only moral individuals can create a moral order
1 at every level of society and, therefore, a moral world with China at its center.
2 The Confucian, Sino-centric concept of morality and ethics, which dictated
3 both domestic and international policies, maintained that through good
4 government and internal peace and prosperity China would play a leadership
5 role in the world and serve as a universal paradigm for other nations.19 One
6 example of this universal benevolence is that the barbarians (even the
7 Mongols) adopted Chinese institutions and systems such as the Chinese civil
8 service system. In the Qing Dynasty, Confucius scholars—Kang Youwei,
9 Liang Qichao—advocated moral reforms to extend Chinese benevolence to
30111 the Westerners to avoid direct conflict.
1 Following Confucius, Mencius further developed the idea of humane ruler
2 and humane government (ren), having virtuous rulers to win the support of
3 people, therefore avoiding war. Mencius believed human nature is benevolent.
4 This goodness enabled people to cultivate morality and virtue in inter-state
5 relations based on the belief that good will prevail over evil even if the evil
6 force is strong. The Confucian scholars emphasized that in order to achieve
7 harmony and universal tranquility and love, no state was to attack another.
8 Mencius defined “yi” (righteousness) as inseparable from human nature.
9 If “ren” focuses more on self-cultivation, then “yi” stresses more the attitude
40111 and virtue towards the other.20 If one follows these principles, they will elicit
1 the others’ respect and support. This personal to collective connection
2 consolidates the final goal of universal harmony and order (a culturally
3 hierarchical ruling order). This principle also applies to neighbors and the
44111 peripheral barbarians.21 Trade and marital relationships were established to
19
1111 pacify the minority border states even when the Chinese dynasties were much
2 stronger than the bordering states.
3 Confucianism in its later development borrowed heavily ideas from
4 other schools of thought. Confucianism survived much longer than the other
5 schools and finally became the dominating philosophy. However, the first
6 winner of the philosophical struggle was Legalism rather than Confucianism.
7 The Warring States Period ended with the unification of China under the Qin
8 Dynasty (221 BC). However, the Qin rule lasted only 15 years. Some scholars,
9 such as Victoria Hui attribute the collapse of the Qin Dynasty to the rising
1011 costs of expansion and conquest (which Hui thinks Qin had mastered) but
1 also the suppression of resistant populations (which Qin could have avoided).
2 Yet, Hui’s analysis based too much on material factors. The dominating
3 philosophy that the Qin Dynasty adopted was Legalism,22 which directed the
4 emperors to expand and rule domestically through severely strict regulations
5 and cruel punishments.
6 Though Qin Emperors—“tianzi”23— were able to consolidate their grip on
7 power for some time24 regarding the degree of bureaucratic coherence and
8 coercive apparatus, and the amount of material resources, the Qin Dynasty
9
failed to recognize that after centuries of war, the people were largely tired of
20111
war and violence. The Qin Emperor also tried to destroy Confucian scholars
1
by the famous “fen shu keng ru”—burn all Confucian writings and bury alive
2
all Confucian followers. This horrible attempt to control the intellectual
3
heritage actually increased the dissemination of Confucian ideas. The Han
4
Dynasty Emperors succeeding Qin abandoned many Qin institutions and
5
6 practices, and, most important of all, Han adopted Confucianism as the
7 national philosophy. This led to institutional changes in the bureaucracy and
8 the military.
9 Confucianism won in the philosophical struggle among different schools
30111 of thought for many reasons.25 First, like other schools, Confucianism
1 reflected the people’s general aspiration for peace. Second, the hierarchical
2 ruling advocated by Confucianism had enormous appeal to the ruling elite.
3 Third, Confucianism remained a domestically focused ruling philosophy;
4 therefore, the Chinese way of expansion of the Chinese order was through
5 cultural rather than military means and the final goal was not territorial or
6 political rule over other states.
7
8 Confucius scholars differed most with their opponents in their view
9 that the universalized order of the Chinese world should be a cultural
40111 order and that the only way to accommodate an expansion should
1 be by means of an outward radiation of cultural influence.26
2
3 However, the emphasis on peace and peaceful means does not rule out the
44111 possibility of punitive expeditions, although the first preference is effective
20
1111 border defense. The strategic preference is first to fend off the intruders but
2 not pursue them further; then negotiation for peace through gifts and
3 marriages; and only last to fight wars and penetrate the enemy’s territory.27
4 Mencius argued that “to seek domination by force will simply turn the world
5 against you”28 because that will be against the virtue and the will of the people
6 (mandate from heaven). As “the benevolent one has no enemy” the benevolent
7 king will draw people to him.
8 Confucian philosophy dominated the thinking and administration from
9 the Han Dynasty on in Chinese history. Han emperors initiated a movement
1011 to “get rid of the other schools of thoughts, respect only the Confucian
1 thought” (ba chu bai jia, du zun ru shu). A number of Confucian scholars
2 maintained significant positions in the royal court. The Confucian influence
3111 was also seen in the educational system, officialdom, bureaucratic institutions,
4 domestic ruling principles and systems, societal relations, military affairs, and
5 even relationships with other states. The impact of Confucianism on inter-
6 state relations was mainly seen through the Central Kingdom’s relationship
7 with bordering minorities in history. The emphasis was not affected much by
8
the strength of the royal court. From the Han Dynasty, Emperor Wu sent out
9
envoys to Xi Yu (today’s Xinjiang) and India with gifts of agricultural
20111
products and silk mainly for cultural exchanges.29
1
2
3 Sun Zi and The Art of War30
4
Sun Zi’s name is Sun Wu. The Art of War was written around 400 BC during
5
6 the Warring States Period. Many works on Sun Zi and The Art of War recog-
7 nize the fact that his work reflects not only the wisdom of military strategies
8 but also a strong Confucian philosophical underpinning. Comparisons of Sun
9 Zi with the famous Western philosopher and military strategist Clausewitz
30111 further demonstrate that Sun Zi and his work differs from the more pragmatic
1 Western works.31
2
3 The military wisdom of Sun-tzu would be valued and preserved not
4 because he was the first military mind of China but because the
5 Chinese already boasted a rich military and intellectual tradition with
6 sophistication enough to appreciate the genius of Art of War.32
7
8 Famous Chinese military works were compiled into the famous Seven
9 Military Classics (Wu Jing Qi Shu). The Art of War is undoubtedly the core
40111 piece of the Seven Military Classics.33 Lynn acknowledges, “The Chinese
1 military classics regard the state as founded on virtue not simply power.
2 Authority, punishment, and reward play a role as well, but a state without
3 virtue lacks the Mandate of Heaven and will be unsuccessful in war.”34
44111 The Chinese military texts admit war is natural but disclaim it as evil.
21
1111 The unavoidable warfare is “the Way to survive or extinction,”35 and the
2 ethical and moral virtue of Mandate of Heaven for the rulers of the state pose
3 a dilemma for the state as to when and under what conditions war becomes
4 necessary.
5 Therefore, the right and just cause for war is emphasized and only those vir-
6 tuous leaders fighting for a righteous cause will ensure victory. The difference
7 between “wang dao” (the righteous/kingly way) and “ba dao” (expansionist/
8 hegemonic way) lies in the just cause fought by the just ruler with the Man-
9 date from Heaven. The right Dao (way) is essential to win the support of
1011 the people and to maintain harmony (he). O’Dowd and Waldron argue,
1 “[T]he concept of conflicting interests and turbulent competitiveness, which
2 Westerners accept, was foreign to these early Chinese (of the Warring
3 States period in particular),”36 because Chinese society places a high value on
4 harmony.
5 Sun Tzu argues that by disturbing the harmony of an enemy’s society by
6 destroying the enemy’s Shi Qi (or Ch’I, morale, life energy), the political goal
7 of warfare can be achieved.37 With the same line of argument, ensuring
8 domestic order and stability through the rule of benevolence can ensure
9
victory over the enemy. For Sun Tzu, warfare was a last resort. When having
20111
to fight, Sun Tzu provided a hierarchy for courses of action: “attack walled
1
cities only as a last resort; engage battle only under the most favorable
2
conditions; isolate the enemy from his allies; and most important of all, attack
3
the enemy’s strategy.”38 O’Dowd and Waldron argue that the Chinese forces’
4
behavior in the Korean War reflected this preference, especially the strategies
5
and tactics adopted by Commander Lin Biao. Instead of confronting the much
6
7 stronger American military directly, the Chinese volunteers attempted instead
8 to create chaos (luan, the opposite of he/harmony) in the enemy and destroy
9 the chi of the enemy.39 The American soldiers noted the strange patterns of
30111 Chinese troops’ movement. Instead of direct contact with the enemy, “the
1 typical formation contained two units forward and one back.” This one unit
2 will later attack the breakthroughs the first two units created in the enemy’s
3 line or attack the flanks of the enemy to cut the enemy in two, therefore
4 creating chaos. American soldiers admitted the success of this strategy in the
5 Korean War.40
6 There is much in Sun Tzu that reflects Chinese Confucian thinking.
7 However, Sun Tzu’s views on the operations of warfare, strategies, and tactics
8 of fighting are also similar to some Western military writings. The comparison
9 of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz done by Burles and Shulsky shows that the
40111 notion of an abiding Chinese cultural aversion to the use of force seems over-
1 stated, but they admit some differences between the Chinese and Western
2 perspectives toward the use of force.41 Despite these, the fundamental
3 philosophical underpinning of The Art of War remains Confucian. In other
44111 words, Sun Tzu remains Chinese in nature and his articulation of the art of
22
1111 war maintains the preferences of war fighting strategies and tactics with
2 Chinese characteristics. Green argues that armies “with similar organizations,
3 doctrine, and equipment still exhibit markedly different behavior, especially
4 during combat.” He quotes Richard Holms as saying that “there is con-
5 siderable evidence that battlefield performance is influenced, if not by race in
6 the biological sense, at least by a society’s culture and norms.”42 Therefore:
7
8 To understand any army, one must look at not only its “body,” but
9 also its “soul.” An army does not create its own culture out of thin
1011 air, but builds it through the selective use of its own past, as well as
1 the history and culture of its larger society.43
2
3111 There is no need to argue for a universality of Sun Tzu, as O’Dowd and
4 Waldron argue, because “if there are universal principles, they are best learned
5 through one’s own culture,” and “if the task is to understand another person’s
6 strategy, then the parts that require the most exploration are those that are
7 most unlike our own.”44 One interesting point that O’Dowd and Waldron
8 make is that they divide the ideas of Sun Tzu into two groups, fundamental
9 philosophical concepts and universal strategic concepts, which to some extent
20111 here reflects the operationalization in this volume for strategic culture. Griffith
1
also points out the “realism and moderation” in Sun Zi’s The Art of War.45
2
This acknowledgment of the philosophical and instrumental/operational
3
underpinnings of Sun Tzu facilitates my research in measuring its impact on
4
Chinese leaders’ beliefs through operational code analysis.
5
6
7 The philosophical influences on inter-state relations
8
9 Were the Chinese unique in their international behavior? Hsu Chuo-yun
30111 argues that the inter-state relations of the ancient Chinese system (especially
1 the Spring and Autumn Period 722–464 BC and the Warring States Period
2 463–222 BC)46 resemble the European balance of power, the Greek city-states,
3 and the cold war’s two blocs in confrontation. “The history of the Spring and
4 Autumn period and the Warring States period, for instance, actually looks
5 quite familiar to us who have witnessed formation of blocs, efforts to organize
6 collective security, and multi-lateral struggles among big powers.”47 Victoria
7 Tin-bor Hui argues further: “European theories of international politics
8 indeed operated in the ancient Chinese system. The logic of balancing—which
9 encompasses the mechanisms of balance of power and rising costs of
40111 expansion—was triumphant for several centuries.”48 For Hui, the ancient
1 Chinese system is like the early modern European system with war, inter-
2 national anarchy, territorial states in formation, balance of power, and
3 attempts at universal domination.49 However, unlike Victoria Hui, Hsu
44111 recognizes that there are differences between the Chinese and the West.
23
1111 Lynn also points out that “Chinese battle in the sixth century BC did not
2 resemble the collision of polis phalanxes in Greece.”50 These differences
3 mainly lie in how the Chinese states treat inter-state relations culturally, how
4 they treat the barbarians, and how warfare is treated in history and major
5 historiography.51 As Hsu states, “[I]ronically, after centuries of confrontation,
6 cultural influences and economic exchanges finally incorporated these
7 ‘barbarians’ into the world of Chou China.”52
8 Furthermore, some scholars point out that despite a relatively rich record
9 of ancient Chinese history, there is little military history, particularly historical
1011 records on wars, battles, and how they were fought. This paucity was attrib-
1 uted by some scholars to a Chinese preference for a pacific culture, that is,
2 under the influence of the Confucian culture the Chinese despised the use of
3 force and had always longed for peace. On the other hand, some scholars
4 argue that this resulted from the fact that civilian officials (wen guan) not
5 military officials (wu guan) recorded most of the historiography; therefore, it
6 reflected a bureaucratic preference rather than a cultural preference.
7 David Graff and Robin Higham note that, despite the importance of armed
8 conflict in Chinese history,
9
20111
the existing literature has tended to neglect or downplay the role of
1
war and the military. Works on pre-modern China have emphasized
2
(and reflected) the Confucian pacifism and anti-military bias of the
3
scholar-official class, while the literature on the nineteenth and
4
twentieth centuries gives pride of place to intellectual, cultural, and
5
political developments.53
6
7
8 Echoing Graff and Higham’s argument that “armed conflict has always played
9 an important role in Chinese history,”54 Green also argues that ignoring or
30111 downplaying the warfare in Chinese history “inevitably paint a falsely pacific
1 picture.”55 For Green, the considerable bloodshed in Chinese history dis-
2 proves the claim that “warfare in China was invariably a forced defensive
3 response to foreign aggression.”56
4 However, putting aside the dispute over who wrote history and why
5 the historiography of Chinese warfare featured heavily a wen-dominated
6 emphasis, there is no denying the impact of those historical writings from
7 ancient times on the following dynasties in Chinese history. Lynn states that
8 the clash of wen (civilization or culture) and wu (war, force or military)
9 in ancient China reflects “an overarching struggle in Chinese history and
40111 historiography [which] goes beyond battles between particular armies or
1 states—it is a clash between principles”57 of the people who recorded history.
2 Although wu was always important in history as well, the dominance of wen
3 documentation of stratagems and tactics rather than the bloody depiction of
44111 different wars and battles, that is, words of minds rather than deeds, shows
24
1111 pacific Chinese strategic and military preferences despite constant external
2 threats from minorities in the border areas.
3 The cyclical feature of dynastic changes was punctuated by wars.58
4 Traditionally, the Confucian ruling orthodoxy based on virtues probably
5 assumes a high level of economic and military strength/power. Without this
6 basis it would be difficult to maintain a united Chinese nation. The difference
7 of attitude about power lies in the means of achieving it. Wealth and strength
8 were significant in the Chinese state-building process. However, the unique
9 part of Chinese Confucian thought is that, after achieving self-sufficiency, it
1011 relies on virtue and self-cultivation of leaders/rulers to maintain peace and
1 prestige rather than resorting to the use of force to expand and invade for
2 more wealth or power. The ruling elites depended more on cultural appeal
3111 and personal charisma to attract followings than resorting to force for obed-
4 ience in handling inter-state relations. One problem for the century-long
5 humiliation of the Qing Dynasty was that the ruling elites misunderstood the
6 intentions of the Western countries but followed its traditional practice of
7 exerting virtuous rule through self-cultivation. The Qing Dynasty’s encounter
8 with the West severely damaged the self-centered and isolated Chinese.
9
20111
1 An interpretation of the Confucian strategic culture
2
3 The works of Confucius and Sun Zi significantly affect Chinese strategic
4 thinking and behavior. In the following, I will lay out my understanding of
5 the Confucian strategic culture whose role in Chinese decision-making has
6 been downplayed or neglected recently by Western scholars.59 I will explore
7 the major characteristics of a Confucian strategic culture and why it is
8 necessary in understanding Chinese leaders’ beliefs and behavior.
9 The Confucian view on Chinese strategic behavior is that China, in general,
30111 shows a reluctance to use force. Even under security threats, diplomatic means
1 and negotiations are preferred and proposed as the first preference. But this
2 does not mean that the Chinese are so reluctant to use force that, when facing
3 foreign invasions, they will not fight back. If needed, the Chinese will fight as
4 bravely as anyone to protect their territory and national pride as shown in the
5 anti-Japanese war.60 However, even if force is employed under the condition
6 that all other means turn out to be unsuccessful, the Chinese will still pursue
7 opportunities to go back to the negotiation table for peaceful settlements,
8 thus reducing further destruction as seen from the Civil War, the Korean War,
9 and the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars.
40111 Several scholars have criticized traditional idealist Confucianism by
1 questioning the impact or extent of the impact of this culture on Chinese
2 behavior. However, they seem to ignore the fact that the directing and
3 constraining impact of Confucianism is a constitutive process with deep
44111 historical and philosophical roots. In my view, this process consists of three
25
1111 steps: an emphasis on non-violence (feigong), defensiveness (fangyu), and

2 righteous war (yizhan),61 creating a Chinese strategic culture that has been
3 primarily defensive since Sun Zi’s time.
4 This pacific strategic culture is rooted in the Confucian-Mencian dispar-
5 agement of the use of force. Unlike Johnston, my reading of China’s history
6 indicates that in over 2,000 years of feudal rule the feudal empires of China
7 seldom displayed aggressive intentions toward other countries nor made any
8 attempts at expansion despite the capability to do so. In China’s 5,000 years
9 of history, there were only two large-scale military expansionist movements
1011 carried out by the nomadic minorities of Mongolian and Manchurian
1 people.62
2 Much scholarly thinking has documented that peace-loving and non-
3 violence are key characteristics of China’s strategic culture.63 Even Johnston
4 does not dispute the existence of these traditions, just their influence. For
5 example, he cites a famous strategic notion from the Chinese ancient strategist
6 Sun Zi, Buzhan Ersheng, “win without fight or use of force.” Buzhan
7 Ersheng means that the highest tactic to defeat an adversary is not to use force
8 but, instead, to win through non-violent or non-military actions. In the
9 traditional philosophy of Confucianism, he wei gui, “peace is the most
20111 precious” was the key thought for maintaining national unification and
1 stability. Fairbank argues that “in the standard formulation in the Chinese
2 classics, ‘war and weaponry is an inauspicious tool, and should only be
3 used in unavoidable circumstances’ . . . in Chinese strategic thinking, war
4 should be the ‘last resort’.”64 Thus, in Chinese culture, Wu and Bing, “force
5 and military” are not welcomed. “Disparagement of the soldier is deeply
6 ingrained in the old Chinese system of values” and can be understood by an
7 old Chinese dictum, “good iron is not used to make a nail nor a good man
8 to make a soldier.”65
9 China’s defensiveness can be seen from the world-famous Great Wall built
30111 during the Warring States Period (403–221 BC), and until the Ming Dynasty
1 (1368–1644), it was the defensive forefront against outside aggression. In
2 fact, the Great Wall was a symbol of China’s defensive security strategy. The
3 Great Wall served as a huge shield for safeguarding the integrity of the nation.
4 The evolution of thousands of years of civilization also cultivated a peace-
5 loving and defensive strategic culture. Parallel to the Great Wall, Dao De,
6 “civility and virtue” were considered the key means morally to maintain
7 security and defeat the enemy. According to this security rationale, the Chinese
8 people believed that “if one has virtue, one cannot be matched [e.g. by an
9 enemy] (youde buke youdi)” and that one should “display virtue and do not
40111 flaunt the military instrument” (guan de bu yaobing).66
1 Third, when the use of force becomes “unavoidable,” it must be based on
2 the righteous standard (yizhan), which means that the aim of war is to fight
3 against those who have created the condition of war (invasion) or to stop the
44111 strong from bullying the weak. According to Confucius’ thinking, the yi or
26
1111 “righteousness or high moral standard” was the basis for getting mass support
2 and for uniting the people. China’s political and military elite broadly believed
3 that “there will be no escape from defeat if fighting a war without a right-
4 eous cause” (buyi zhishi bi zibi) and stressed that “force must be used under
5 a just cause” (shichu youming). When war breaks out, the Chinese strategic
6 propensities still lean toward the defensive and limited use of force. Offensive
7 campaigns will only be launched for a punitive purpose, deterrence, and
8 pacification rather than annihilation.67
9 Johnston summarizes the three basic elements of the Confucian culture
1011 discussed above as “war is inauspicious and to be avoided; the enemy is not
1 necessarily demonized; violence is a last resort.” He explains:
2
3111 When violence is used by the state to deal with external security
4 threats, it is generally applied defensively and is limited in nature.
5 This reflects a view that violence is not particularly efficacious in
6 eliminating threats or producing security. Rather, the more reliable
7 basis for state security is the moral and administrative quality of
8 internal ruler-ship.68
9
20111 However, Johnston denies the impact of this Confucian strategic culture on
1 Chinese behavior.
2 The idea of the unique cultural impact of Confucianism on China is nothing
3 new to Western scholars.69 Recently some scholars questioned the traditional
4 Western view towards Chinese culture, as articulated and exemplified in
5 earlier works of Fairbank and others.70 Unlike this recent trend among
6 scholars, I am arguing that China does have a unique strategic culture, which
7 is more peaceful and non-violent than the realpolitik Western one. By
8 revisiting some of the works and arguments of old and current scholarship
9 on the topic both for and against this view, I intend to provide a different
30111 understanding of cultural influence on state motivations, and thereby on state
1 behavior.
2 Culture is not simply a context, and the cultural impact vs. non-cultural
3 impact can be distinguished. There is universality in culture in that culture is
4 a norm impacting on beliefs, and thereby culture can proceed to affect
5 behavior. Under different social and historical contexts, however, culture
6 develops with different features and produces different propensities for state
7 preferences. The distinct characteristics of Chinese foreign policy-making and
8 Chinese behavior make it an interesting case to test the views presented by
9 different parties in the debate over strategic culture: What kind of strategic
40111 culture influences the Chinese most? From ancient history to the present, does
1 Chinese strategic culture evolve? Does the impact of the strategic culture
2 change over time and situations? How does the impact of strategic culture
3 differ from other contextual and systemic impacts? How can we study
44111 strategic culture?
27
1111 Confucian strategic culture in Chinese decisions

2 for war
3
The question of whether Confucian strategic culture affects Chinese thinking
4
directly relates to the current debate over what kind of power China will
5
become. As China is acquiring increasing power capability, scholars posit that
6
7 China’s rise poses problems for the US, but it is not actually catching up in
8 terms of relative or absolute power.71 Under a Confucian strategic cultural
9 influence, will China’s rise be different from the Western ones, that is, peaceful
1011 as current Chinese leaders and scholars have been trying to argue?
1 Shambaugh evaluates the current Bush administration’s policy toward
2 China as appropriate, neither partners nor competitors.72 Shambaugh argues,
3 “China’s clear and consistent opposition to alliances, including in East Asia,
4 make China the revisionist power.”73 And even though China constantly
5 advocates multilateralism through its preferred “New Security Concept,”
6 China only accepts “multilateralism in form, but not in essence.”74 Further-
7 more, China has persistently taken steps that damage US–China strategic
8 relations since the 1980s, not only relations with the current Bush adminis-
9 tration. Mearsheimer, in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,
20111 predicts that China and the US are destined to be adversaries as China’s power
1 grows.75 “China matters most for the West because it can make mischief,
2 either by threatening its neighbors or assisting anti-Western forces further
3 afield.”76 Friedberg further argues that in China’s case, China is an emerging
4 power that seeks to overthrow the status quo for their own conception of
5 their status.77 He predicts that China will cause serious problems for the future
6 of East Asia. However, Peter Gries points out that the approach adopted by
7 some scholars to “China’s motivation is too narrow. Intentions should not
8 be inferred from power alone, whether relative or asymmetric.”78 Chinese
9 foreign policy behavior is an anomaly for many theories. Chinese decision-
30111 making displays a strong inclination to weigh reputation, justice, norms,
1 righteousness, and other ideational factors as valuable and highly appreciated
2 in Chinese cultural beliefs and social practices.79
3 As Johnston also points out, China’s shifts in balancing behavior against
4 the two superpowers during the 1950s and the 1970s cannot be explained
5 completely by the bipolar system under structural realist theory. In the 1950s,
6 the Soviet Union was a rising power dominating the communist world.
7 Rather than balancing against the Soviet Union, China signed a friendship
8 treaty with the Soviets in 1951 and followed the “lean to one side” policy
9 mainly out of ideological concerns. In the 1960s, the relationship with
40111 the Soviets deteriorated and China was antagonistic to both the Soviet
1 Union and the US.80
2 In the 1970s, the Soviet Union was in relative decline and China established
3 formal diplomatic relations with the US. Both the US and the Soviet Union
44111 were concerned with China’s moves, and neither could ignore the impact of
28
1111 losing the China card. In the post-cold war period, the balancing behavior of
2 China ought to be a “most likely case” for realism because China is a major
3 state. However, rather than balancing against the hegemon—the US, China
4 tried to establish “partnerships” with all major powers.81
5 If China is really a power maximizer, diplomatic and consultative means
6 should be secondary concerns after dominance. China will be prepared for
7 potential threats from bordering states, Japanese offensive power, or US
8 involvement in its internal affairs, and should not choose mutually
9 cooperative means due to concerns of potential threat. China’s policy of
1011 “putting aside differences for mutual development” to settle the South China
1 Sea disputes, the active involvement in regional organizations, and its
2 confidence-building measures in settling border disputes with Russia and
3111 India should not be thinkable, not to mention the increasing trade and
4 cooperation with Japan and the US. Up to now, although China has never
5 renounced the use of force to reunify with Taiwan, it has reiterated several
6 times that it will only use force if Taiwan declares independence. For the South
7 China Sea issue, China has never given up the channel of negotiating for
8 mutual development.
9 A rising state does not equal a revisionist state. It must have motivations
20111 to challenge the old system for unrealized interests. Therefore, a revisionist
1 state’s leaders must possess a high need for power and achievement. They will
2 prefer and be more ready to use conflictual means, strategies, and tactics and
3 will not easily give up their goals (change the system) or shift their propensities
4 for aggressive strategies and tactics, and will take any opportunity possible.
5 Revisionist states are willing to provoke conflict to increase their power or
6 achieve their goals only when they have leaders with revisionist beliefs. Facing
7 the window of opportunity that a power change creates, revisionist states
8 may not display revisionist behavior if their leaders do not have the motive
9 or desire to change the system or provoke war no matter what the cost is.
30111 Conversely, a country with a revisionist leader who wants to address the
1 pains from the past, even if the state has experienced a relative power loss and
2 the opportunity is remote or non-existent, might strike, for example, Japan’s
3 attack on the US at Pearl Harbor in 1941 and Iraq in the first Gulf War. The
4 current prediction of threat from North Korea is not based on the relative
5 power change nor simply the nuclear program North Korea claimed. The
6 unpredictability of the thinking of the leaders is of more concern to both
7 academics and decision-makers. Therefore, the kind of beliefs their leaders
8 possess presents a necessary indicator in determining if a state is revisionist
9 or status quo.
40111 The “quality and quantity of revisionism in a state’s policy are not static
1 properties,”82 but change over time and issues. State identity might change as
2 in the case of Japan (1870s–1930s),83 and none of the existing realist
3 frameworks provide an analysis of the dynamic changes of state identities.
44111 “Rising powers vary in their degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo.”84
29
1111 China may be neither a status quo nor a dissatisfied power, a combination of
2 both,85 or “no more revisionist or adventurous now than it was before the end
3 of the Cold War.”86 Even Johnston admits “the People’s Republic of China
4 (PRC) is more integrated into, and more cooperative within, regional and
5 global political and economic systems than ever in its history.”87
6 Kang further points out that historically “when China has been strong and
7 stable, order has been preserved (in Asia)” and “it has been Chinese weakness
8 that has led to chaos in Asia.”88 Therefore, a strong and stable China implies
9 a stabilizing force in the regional and international order, countering the
1011 predictions of many Western scholars. Given the ambiguity in deciding what
1 China’s rise will mean to the rest of the world, there seems an increasing
2 demand for a more appropriate theoretical framework to avoid wrong and
3 even dangerous foreign policy decisions. To better understand Chinese foreign
4 policy behavior, cultural factors are important but not easy to understand.
5 Alastair Johnston argues that China’s security behavior actually originates
6 from its strategic culture. He believes that Chinese decision-makers have
7 internalized a strategic culture of realpolitik.
8 In Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese
9 History (1995), Johnston does a historical study of Chinese strategic culture
20111 and argues that, traditionally, China’s strategic culture has been offensive
1 despite its weak material capability. Johnston’s work is important in that his
2 cultural realist approach raises the issue of culture and its impact on behavior.
3 Furthermore, he rightly points out that Chinese culture and behavior are
4 unique, and that there are two strategic cultures existing in China’s case.
5 However, Johnston’s argument remains problematic because his use of classic
6 Chinese philosophical works and military works raises problems with face
7 validity. His use of the translations for some key phrases seems puzzling.89
8 The analysis that only Parabellum realism is functioning in Chinese grand
9 strategies is skewed, leaving unresolved many ambiguities regarding Confu-
30111 cianism and the Confucius strategic culture.90 Johnston’s conclusion that
1 Parabellum realism dominates Confucianism is also potentially problematic
2 as a result of his use of texts (a source selection bias), unrepresentative
3 emphasis on the Ming Dynasty following the Yuan-Mongolian Dynasty when
4 the Mongols invaded the Chinese hinterland (a case selection bias) alongside
5 language translation problems (character translation bias).91
6 As Johnston takes it for granted that there is only one strategic culture
7 affecting the Chinese leaders’ beliefs throughout history, he ignores the
8 possibility of change over time and situation as well as variance among
9 different leaders. Therefore, Johnston prescribed one identity for the Chinese
40111 as a historically and culturally produced realpolitik state, and its offensive
1 strategic culture further determines that its grand strategy is offensive. This
2 deterministic feature in Johnston’s cultural realism leads to a misperception
3 that China is a rising revisionist state that is aggressive in nature. There are
44111 many problems with his argument, as other scholars have pointed out.
30
1111 Scholars disagree over how many strategic cultures China has as well as its
2 nature.92 Some scholars agree with Johnston that a Parabellum strategic
3 culture, and not a Confucian strategic culture, guides Chinese foreign policy
4 behavior as seen from its grand strategy, and try to apply this claim to different
5 cases.93 Although acknowledging that Chinese strategic culture is offensive,
6 these scholars disagree about how many strategic cultures China has, that is,
7 if there is one or two strategic cultures. Some state that China has only one
8 strategic culture, which is realpolitik because Confucianism does not function
9 in actual policy making.94 Others stress that China has one strategic culture,
1011 but it is the Confucian strategic culture that is influencing the beliefs and
1 behavior of Chinese leaders.95 A more complex view is that there are two
2 strategic cultures, and the Chinese apply the Confucian strategic culture when
3111 burnishing their self-image while resorting to the realist Parabellum norms
4 when encountering other countries.96 Scobell calls this a “Chinese Cult of
5 Defense.”97 The divergent views expressed here support the necessity to
6 explore further the theme of strategic culture and its impact on foreign policy
7 behavior.
8 Furthermore, post-cold war Chinese foreign policy behavior further departs
9 from the offensive realpolitik argument by Johnston. Even he changed his
20111 position in a recent article when he questioned, “Is China a Revisionist
1 Power?”98 Johnston no longer appears to subscribe either to his views on
2 Chinese leaders or to a cultural interpretation of Chinese security views.99
3 While his own position has changed, others in the academic and policy
4 communities continue to subscribe to the claim that China is a rising power
5 with hostile intentions. Scholars, officials, and pundits continue to criticize
6 China for defying complete compliance with international norms in terms of
7 sovereignty, free trade, nonproliferation and arms control, national self-
8 determination, and human rights.100 However, these academics, policymakers,
9 or pundits criticize Chinese behavior regarding “the rules of the game” using
30111 the standards that the United States would prefer.
1 Johnston points out three problems with the current characterization of
2 China as either a status quo or revisionist state. First, there is the problematic
3 issue of empirical evidence supporting the claim that China is a revisionist
4 state.101 Second, Chinese diplomacy in the last couple of decades displays
5 some status quo-orientations, as the 1980s–90s was a period “sandwiched
6 between Maoist revisionism and some post-Jiang quasi fascism.”102 Third, the
7 above two problems result directly from ambiguities in the extant analytical
8 frameworks, that is, the ambiguity in realist theories’ depictions of revisionist
9 or status quo states which is mostly static. Therefore, Johnston concludes
40111 that to claim that China is a revisionist state is premature.
1 However, Johnston does not claim that there is strong evidence to prove
2 China is not a revisionist state either, because “the absence of clear evidence
3 of an active effort by the PRC to fundamentally alter the distribution of power
44111 regionally or globally does not mean that such a desire does not exist.”103
31
1111 In his view, China might be in transition from the Mao period to a post-Jiang
2 time. Therefore, China might change contingently even if it is now more status
3 quo-oriented. Domestic problems and an intensified crisis over Taiwan
4 between China and the US, or some other security dilemma dynamics, may
5 ignite Chinese revisionism. The analysis of current Chinese leaders—Jiang
6 and Hu—in this book will shed light on some of these questions.
7
8
Strategic culture: the concept and related debates
9
1011 Strategic culture is a significant concept in international security studies, but
1 it is also underspecified and under serious debate.104 Strategic culture
2 originated in ancient history but the concept was coined in the cold war by
3 Jack Snyder in his famous study of the Soviet strategic decision-making
4 process.105 Scholarly works published on the cultural impact on national/
5 international security issues include nuclear proliferation, arms control,
6 regionalism, multilateral cooperation, confidence-building, military doctrines,
7 grand strategies, and war fighting behaviors.106 These studies no longer
8 focus exclusively on the major powers. They also apply the concept more
9 comprehensively to study and understand the decision-making processes of
20111 many states and even regional behavior.107 However, different scholars tend
1 to apply their own version of strategic culture in general, and in their
2 understanding of a state’s strategic culture in particular. Scholars further differ
3 in how to detect and how to study/measure the strategic cultural impact on
4 a state’s foreign policy behavior.
5 Strategic culture is a cultural construct with operational dimensions that
6 affect the behavior of individuals through the symbols, values or beliefs that
7 it embodies, which affects the strategic thinking of leaders on war and peace,
8 perceptions and assessments of threat, the utility of force and the possible
9 outcomes. Though differing conceptually, the definitions provided by scholars
30111 usually consist of two parts in most of the conceptualizations: the political/
1 philosophical part and the strategic/operational/instrumental part.108 The
2 political/philosophical part affects the individual’s general worldview and
3 the value assigned to the use of force and military. Any war decisions
4 must rest on acquired political and philosophical views and beliefs of leaders
5 over the issues of war and peace. Therefore, a leader who is more prone to
6 believe in the lack of harmony in the world is more likely to resort to military
7 force in cases of crisis.
8 The operational/instrumental part of the strategic culture concept refers to
9 the more specific strategies, tactics, and moves to be adopted by leaders. The
40111 consideration is more instrumental than conceptual, involving more detailed
1 calculations over a diversity of dimensions: force composition, logistics,
2 geography, and the enemy’s capability and intentions, etc. The structure of the
3 concept of strategic culture is hierarchical, but that does not necessarily mean
44111 that one level determines another,109 that is, the strategic and political level
32
1111 may direct the operational level, but it does not determine the operational
2 level’s decisions. Although the decision to make war is in line with the general
3 perception of utility assigned to war, in actual war situations the operational
4 decisions are instrumentally made according to contingencies, the actual
5 situations of the historical moment as well as the particular decision-maker’s
6 capability.
7 The relationship between the two levels changes over time, situations, social
8 context, and leaderships. Different leaders might assign different significance
9 to the philosophical or operational levels depending on the leader’s personality
1011 or complexity of his belief system. The strategic cultural impact on decision-
1 making in crisis and non-crisis situations also differs. Different countries
2 follow different strategic cultural traditions resulting from their history, social
3111 traditions, value systems, and the philosophical traditions they follow.
4 Although strategic culture matters in all societies, the content of the impact
5 differs significantly. As shown in many of the case studies, scholars have been
6 trying to delineate clearly the impact of different (for example, realpolitik,
7 idealist, Confucius, Bolshevik, etc.) strategic cultures.
8 The debate between Johnston and Gray over the impact of strategic culture
9 reflects to a certain degree the idiosyncratic vs. nomethetic role assigned to
20111 strategic culture.110 Both acknowledge the impact of strategic culture on
1 behavior (policies), yet they differ as to how it impacts behavior. For Gray,
2 strategic culture provides the context, “directly challenging Johnston’s
3 methodological assumption that cultural variables can be separated from
4 non-cultural variables.”111 Strategic culture as context gives meaning to
5 strategic behavior but it is very difficult to separate from the non-cultural
6 impacts as all agents (individuals) are subject to this cultural influence. Thus,
7 strategic cultural impact is not causal but constitutive in nature, and Gray does
8 not provide a particular methodology for factoring out cultural impact.
9 For Johnston, strategic culture is a causal factor in a state’s strategic
30111 behavior. Specific cases are only for testing this assumed universal strategic
1 cultural impact. Johnston criticizes realist theories’ neglect of cultural analysis
2 and their failure of providing meanings to material variables, for example,
3 power, through a universal cultural perspective, and claims to provide a
4 “falsifiable theory of strategic culture.”112 Therefore, in his argument Chinese
5 strategic culture is not unique but, rather, in line with common Western
6 realpolitik practice.
7 These attempts at developing a theory of strategic culture have been
8 criticized on several grounds. First, as a general cultural construct, it is
9 extremely difficult to operationalize or measure scientifically. Second, it is
40111 even harder to explain when and why strategic cultures emerge and become
1 dominant,113 and if/how/why they change. Third, even more difficult is to
2 specify the causal mechanism through positivist lenses. Fourth, strategic
3 cultural studies have been criticized for focusing mainly on elites and military
44111 organizations. Fifth, a theory of strategic cultures’ impact on strategic
33
1111 behavior will remain narrow and meaningless if scholars do not investigate
2 the cultural context in which decisions are made.114 Operational code analysis
3 addresses some of these problems by linking culture and decision-making as
4 seen from the discussion in Chapter 1 and Figure 2.1 below.
5 The different preference rankings for Parabellum and Confucian strategies
6 in Figure 2.1 originate from different strategic cultures. Each type of leader
7 shows a specific strategic preference ranking that can map into a specific game
8 matrix. For example, the Confucian leader in Johnston’s cultural realist model
9 has a preference ranking of accommodation > defense > expansion,115 which
1011 translates into the operational code vocabulary for ranked outcomes of
1 settlement > deadlock > domination. The Parabellum leader’s preference
2 ranking is expansion > defense > accommodation,116 which translates into
3 ranked outcomes of domination > deadlock > settlement in operational
4 code analysis. The intersection of these two sets of preference rankings
5 generates the game below when they are mapped into the same matrix and
6 submission is added as the lowest-ranked outcome for both Confucian
7 and Parabellum leaders.
8
9
20111 Hierarchy; harmony;
Philosophical rituals; cultural similarity;
1
Settle > Deadlock > Dominate

beliefs moral strength; defensive
2 and peace-loving
Belief system
3
4 Non-use of force; virtues of
5 Instrumental leaders for public
beliefs mobilization; righteous
> Submit
6 war; crisis-opportunity
7 Confucianism
8
9
Strategic culture
30111 Belief system Grand strategy

1 preference ranking
2
Parabellum
3 realist
4
5 Belief in power; security
Dominate > Deadlock > Settle
6 Philosophical dilemma; self-help;

Belief system
beliefs offensive and expansionist

7
8
9 Instrumental
Use of force; cost and
beliefs
40111
> Submit
benefit calculation; zero-

sum game
1
2
3
44111 Figure 2.1 Strategic culture and operational code beliefs
34
1111
Other Other
2
CO CF CO CF
3
4 CO 4,2 1,4 CO Settle Submit
5 Self Self
6
CF 2,1 3,3* CF Dominate Deadlock
7
8 Preference Rankings Outcomes for Self
9
* Both the final state and the NMEs are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked.
1011
See Game 24 in Brams (1994: 217). Self = Confucian Player and Other = Parabellum Player.
1
2
3111
4 Johnston’s theory of cultural realism ranks preferences only for Self and not
5 for Other, and, therefore, does not model the strategic setting and how
6 different players react to the moves by the other player and changes in the
7 strategic environment. Operational code analysis expands Johnston’s model,
8 supplying preference rankings for Other and specifying strategies for both
9 players via TOM, under different conditions of historical control by Self and
20111 Other. To sum up, therefore, we see that strategic culture influences leaders’
1 beliefs by shaping strategic preference rankings in their decision-making
2 regarding grand strategies, that is, their view of the general situation in the
3 world and how they should respond in general.
4 Grand strategies are not military strategies per se, but include many more
5 dimensions. Leaders can possess very cooperative beliefs in general and
6 operate under this influence with orientations towards peaceful grand
7 strategic thinking for national security decisions; however, in times of war or
8 crisis, they may turn to the other extreme when making military strategies for
9 fighting and winning wars and prevailing in crisis situations. In terms of
30111 specific military or political operations, the strategies may shift and swing
1 according to changing situations on the battlefield.
2 Yet, this does not mean that there is no need to study beliefs in general,
3 because by understanding the general operational code beliefs of leaders, we
4 can better understand their ways of interaction, choice propensities in general,
5 and potential inclinations to change in terms of situations and conditions. As
6 the case studies of Chinese decision-making in the following chapters will
7 reveal, leaders’ beliefs in dynamic strategic situations also matter. By studying
8 both general beliefs and belief changes from situation to situation, we can better
9 understand China’s decision-making process and predict future policy trends.
40111
1
2
3
44111
35
1111
2
3
3
4
5 MAO ZEDONG AND
6
7 ZHOU ENLAI IN THE
8 KOREAN WAR
9
1011
1
2
3 History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and
4 unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that
5 impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust
6 wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive,
7 just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars,
8 we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I
9 is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests;
therefore the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed
20111
that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do every-
1 thing possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it
2 breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with
3 just war, whenever possible.
4 Mao Zedong “On Protracted War” (May
5 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 150
6
7 Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows
8 out of the barrel of a gun.”
9 Mao Zedong “Problems of War and Strategy”
30111 (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II,
p. 224
1
2
3 According to US General Omar Bradley, the Korean War (1950–53) was “the
4 wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong
5 enemy.”1 It was also a “limited war” that the Chinese military fought for the
6 first time in history. It remained a conventional war though the United States
7 warned the Chinese of possible use of nuclear weapons.2 Kim Il Sung wanted
8 to unify Korea especially after the success of the Chinese Communist Party
9 in the Civil War on the mainland in 1949. Stalin changed his attitude toward
40111 Kim’s decision from hesitation in 1949 to support in 1950 resulting from his
1 miscalculation about possible American involvement. Mao never wanted to
2 fight the American-led United Nations troops directly, but out of ideological
3 and security concerns was forced to get involved.3 Mao prepared for a full-
44111 scale war with the United States, and the US prepared to use nuclear weapons
36
M A O A N D Z H O U I N T H E K O R E A N WA R
1111 on China; however, both parties exercised restraint on the battlefield. The
2 developments on the battlefield prohibited either party from winning a
3 complete victory. Negotiations for a ceasefire went on until July 27, 1953. The
4 war ended with the signing of an armistice but the problem of a divided Korea
5 remains to the present day.4
6
7
8 The international situation and domestic situation
9 By 1950, the cold war between the two blocs had intensified in Central
1011 Europe, and China declared its policy of leaning to the Soviet side. However,
1 the newly founded PRC was not on very good terms with the Soviet Union
2 despite the treaty of alliance signed in 1953. When the Korean War broke out,
3111 the PRC was facing a serious international situation from the threat of
4
encirclement by the US. Domestically, the PRC needed political consolidation
5
and the reconstruction of its war-torn economy. The US threat was the major
6
external factor impacting on China’s foreign and domestic policies. Sino-US
7
confrontation intensified after 1949. Mao’s China believed that China and the
8
US were on a course toward military confrontation in Taiwan, Indochina or
9
Korea.5
20111
With a de facto alliance relationship established between China and the
1
2 Soviet Union, the US threat to China increased. China saw its unification with
3 Taiwan as the top priority on its security and foreign policy agenda6 while the
4 US continued to support the Guo Min Dang (GMD) government on Taiwan.
5 Mao wanted to finalize unification of China after the triumph of the People’s
6 Liberation Army (PLA) in major battles against the GMD. In addition,
7 the US did not intervene in the later days of the Civil War, leading to the
8 impression that there might be an opportunity to take Taiwan.
9 Historically, China had maintained friendly relations with Korea. North
30111 Korea was a socialist buffer for the Chinese while South Korea had close
1 relations with the US. Korea is essential for determining the balance of power
2 in East Asia. However, when war broke out in Korea, for the Chinese Com-
3 munist Party (CCP) it meant danger as well as opportunity because, “failure
4 to eject the Americans from Korea could mean insecurity for China; success
5 would advance China’s prestige and influence in the East.”7 Therefore, China
6 did not totally reject the idea of involving itself in a Korean crisis.8 How-
7 ever, China was in no position at that time to head into conflict with a
8 superpower.9
9 When the Korean War broke out, the new CCP government was only
40111 eight months old. Everything was in need of reconstruction and recovery.
1 Domestic disturbances by rebel groups and GMD leftover troops constantly
2 threatened; particularly worrisome were the provinces of Taiwan, Xinjiang,
3 and Tibet. CCP leaders feared that the international situation might create
44111 domestic chaos should there be a crisis close by. The Chinese economy was
37
1111 shattered after wars against Japan and the GMD. The CCP needed a peace-
2 ful environment to rebuild its economy and to ensure domestic stability and
3 consolidate power.
4 In 1945, Korea was divided along the 38th parallel with the industrial north
5 and the agricultural south, respectively, occupied by the Russians and the
6 Americans. Clashes of forces along the 38th parallel were constant. Both
7 the North and the South wanted to unify the peninsula under its own rule. The
8 North Korean leader—Kim Il Sung—was determined to win a quick victory
9 for unification.10 He approached Stalin several times in 1949 to obtain Stalin’s
1011 permission to invade the South. Stalin hesitated, giving the excuse that the
1 situation was not appropriate for the North to take military action.11 After
2 the CCP successfully drove the Nationalist government under Jiang Jieshi
3 (Chiang Kai-shek’s GMD) to Taiwan, Kim approached Stalin again for support
4 of Korean unification. Kim believed that the Americans would not interfere,
5 and the communists in the South were ready to help from inside.
6 Meanwhile, the international situation changed. After the inauguration of
7 the PRC, American troops started to withdraw from South Korea. Acheson in
8 his famous Aleutians speech on January 12, 1950 defined the American defense
9 line for the Pacific region and excluded South Korea from the US defensive
20111 perimeter in the Pacific.12 Consequently, Kim became more determined to
1 invade the South for unification. Stalin changed his attitude toward the issue
2 of Korean unification in early 1950. But he only promised the North Korean
3 leader that the Soviets could just provide military aid and the North should
4 ensure Chinese force support if necessary.13 In April 1950, Kim left Moscow
5 for a secret visit to Beijing and informed Mao of Stalin’s decision and his own
6 determination to unify his country by military invasion. But Kim provided no
7 details of his plan to Mao.14 In response to Kim’s request, Mao sent back
8 to North Korea all Korean Chinese soldiers serving then in Northeast China
9 who fought in the PLA during the Civil War (numbered 14,000). These troops
30111 were fully equipped.
1 Mao was particularly concerned about the possibility of American military
2 intervention.15 Mao did not think the Chinese were ready to confront directly
3 the United States in early 1950.16 He raised the issue with Stalin and Kim, but
4 Kim indicated to Mao again that Americans would not interfere militarily
5 and North Korea would win a quick victory before America could intervene.
6 Mao, though reluctant, promised help as Korea was the communist brother
7 who helped the CCP during the Civil War and had become the most significant
8 strategic buffer country to China in East Asia against the imperialist United
9 States.17
40111 On June 25, 1950, North Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel and
1 surprised the South. The North successfully prevailed and took Seoul in three
2 days. On June 26, Truman ordered direct American air and naval support for
3 South Korea with ground troops following on June 30. In addition, he also
44111 sent the 7th Fleet to the Taiwan Strait. On June 28, Mao denounced American
38
1111 intervention, especially the American actions in the Taiwan Strait. The United
2 States made use of the Soviet boycott of an emergency session in the United
3 Nations Security Council, allowing the UN to send troops to Korea led by the
4 US. The North Korean army pushed the South Korean and American forces
5 southward toward Pusan at the southern tip of the peninsula. The successful
6 Inchon landing of MacArthur’s troops on September 15, 1950 marked a
7 turning point by cutting off North Korean forces who were already over-
8 stretched. North Korea started to retreat, and within weeks much of Korea
9 was in the hands of US/South Korean forces.
1011 By September 25, the North Korean People’s Army was retreating toward
1 the 38th parallel. The situation turned severely disadvantageous for Kim. Kim
2 turned to China—the big comrade neighbor—for help and urged Mao to send
3111 in Chinese troops. MacArthur’s troops further closed in on the 38th parallel
4 after the triumph of the Inchon landing, and the Chinese government warned
5 the UN troops not to cross the parallel, declaring China would not “stand by
6 with their hands folded.” MacArthur did not pay attention to Mao’s warning,
7 taking for granted that the Chinese would not get involved. In October, US
8 troops crossed the 38th parallel. On October 19, 1950, the North’s capital of
9 Pyongyang fell, and by October 28, US and ROK troops had pushed closer
20111 toward the Yalu River—the borderline between North Korea and China.
1 When the war drew near the Yalu River, Communist China intervened.
2 The Chinese government entered the war on November 25, 195018 by sending
3 “Chinese People’s Volunteers (CPV)” across the Yalu River into North Korea
4 and stormed the US/UN forces by surprise.19 The Chinese official media
5 formally declared that this move was to “resist America and assist Korea,
6 and defend our home and our country (Kang Mei Yuan Chao, Bao Jia Wei
7 Guo),”20 despite the burden it caused the newly founded nation economically,
8 militarily, and politically.21 The entrance of the Chinese People’s Volunteers
9 (CPV) dramatically changed the course of the war. Stalin suggested on
30111 December 4 that the Chinese forces continue their offensive by crossing the
1 38th parallel.
2 There is no question that China was a major player during the cold war.22
3 However, the international and domestic situations were extremely un-
4 favorable for the Chinese. According to a recent Russian account, Stalin
5 changed his mind on intervening in the Korean War in 1950 because of
6 the victory of the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949 in order to keep
7 China from taking over Taiwan and directly confronting the US. He feared
8 a Taiwan crisis would draw the Soviet Union into war as well. Therefore,
9 Stalin pressured a reluctant China to enter the Korean War by promising that
40111 Moscow would arm the CPV and provide air cover.23
1 There was no immediate consensus during the high level meetings of the
2 Central Committee of the Chinese Politburo when the idea of intervening in
3 Korea was first raised. Lin Biao argued against Chinese intervention because
44111 of possible US military involvement as well as the logistical problems.
39
1111 Gao Gang and Marshall Peng Dehuai were sympathetic to the Soviet Union
2 and convinced Mao “that if all of Korea was occupied by the Americans,
3 it would create a mortal danger to the Chinese revolution.”24 Those
4 who opposed the Soviet plan pointed to the PRC’s domestic fragility and
5 the prospect that the Soviets would only provide moral support while not
6 participating in the conflict. Other evidence shows that Beijing might have
7 considered the possibility of war with the US at the beginning as even a nuclear
8 war. Some suggested that in the case of a Soviet–US war, China should stay
9 out. Further, Beijing needed not only to prepare for a limited war with the
1011 Americans in Korea, but also an all-out war, if the US invaded the Chinese
1 mainland, or if US air and naval attacks targeted major Chinese cities and
2 strategic locations. Worst of all, the US might help the Taiwan authority attack
3 mainland China.
4 Mao delayed the CPV’s entry into Korea several times, waiting for Soviet
5 air support. Zhou Enlai visited Moscow in September 1950, and during his
6 discussions with Stalin, Zhou wanted to confirm that the USSR would provide
7 crucial air protection for the Chinese troops when the CPV entered Korea. To
8 the Chinese Premier’s surprise, Stalin claimed that the air protection that he
9 once promised could not be realized soon and that China had to fight with
20111 North Korea on its own. Stalin had his concerns about getting involved in a
1 direct conflict with the US, especially after the surprising American military
2 involvement immediately after the North attacked. Hearing the news from
3 Zhou, Mao organized a meeting of the Central Military Committee and called
4 the recently appointed Commander of CPV—Marshall Peng Dehuai—to
5 Beijing while postponing the date of Chinese entry into the war.
6 The final outcome of these meetings was the decision to intervene without
7 Soviet air protection, and the date was set for October 19, 1950. Then
8 Marshall Peng left for the front and Mao sent his son with Peng.25 Mao
9 informed Stalin of his decision, who praised the Chinese for their inter-
30111 nationalism to support communist revolutionary movements and promised
1 that the USSR would provide military aid and that the Soviet air force would
2 join as soon as possible.26 The CPV successfully threw back the US/UN forces
3 to the 38th parallel but did not succeed in moving further due to severe
4 casualties and other difficulties. Logistics proved the most difficult. Chinese
5 troops were not well prepared to fight in Korea, especially in winter. Most
6 of the troops were poorly equipped and malnutrition severely damaged the
7 morale of the soldiers. Chinese domestic production was insufficient to
8 provide enough assistance to the front line.27
9 Therefore, although the entry of the CPV made a big difference for the
40111 North and dealt a heavy blow to the US/UN/ROK forces, significant problems
1 emerged. These problems may not have been foreseen by the Chinese leaders
2 or may have been simply ignored. Some scholars suggest that Mao overruled
3 opposing opinions for his personal “heroic desire.”28 “The [Korean] war also
44111 tested China’s resolve. When the Chinese entered the Korean conflict, North
40
1111 Korea’s armies had virtually collapsed and the UN troops were closing in on
2 the Sino-Korean border.”29 The Chinese entry, though successful at the
3 beginning, did not sustain itself in later offensive campaigns.
4 Allen Whiting argues that China was forced to enter the war because it
5 faced a direct security threat30 and because there was no single positive gesture
6 from Washington toward Beijing between October 1, 1949 and October 25,
7 1950. Beijing, therefore, had reason to believe that with the Pacific Fleet base
8 in Taiwan, the US would target China.31 Beijing made several efforts to
9 prevent the Korean conflict from escalating to China through political means
1011 after war broke out and only after these attempts failed, in late August 1950,
1 did Beijing begin the necessary military preparations in early September.
2 Even after the Inchon landing, Beijing tried again through both public and
3111 private channels to prevent UN forces from crossing the 38th parallel. Zhou
4 Enlai contacted the Indian ambassador in Beijing to communicate with Wash-
5 ington. After these warnings were ignored by Washington and MacArthur,
6 Beijing was convinced further that the safety of the Chinese-Korean border was
7 severely menaced. Whiting concluded, therefore, that Beijing’s management of
8 the Korean crisis was based primarily on the Chinese communists’ perception
9 of America’s threat to China’s national security.32 Christensen later argued
20111 that given the success of the US troops, the Chinese warnings were both too
1 weak and too late to reverse American decisions; therefore, the Chinese attempt
2 to deter the American crossing of 38th parallel failed.33
3
4
What kinds of leaders were Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai?
5
6 What was in the minds of Chinese leaders as they made the decision
7 to intervene in Korea? Mao Zedong was the key figure during the Korean
8 War decision-making and Zhou Enlai was the key diplomatic figure and
9 negotiator.34 What were each leader’s views of the political universe and the
30111 most useful strategies, tactics, and means of political action? Were their beliefs
1 stable or did they change with time and circumstances? Did the belief systems
2 of each leader differ in important respects? Were their belief systems consistent
3 with Confucian or Parabellum norms? Did any differences matter in making
4 decisions to intervene in the Korean War and later to sign the ceasefire
5 agreement to end the fighting? To answer these questions, it is time now to
6 examine the operational codes of Mao and Zhou.
7
8
Mao and Zhou as individual leaders
9
40111 Table 3.1 shows the mean scores for general operational code beliefs of Mao
1 and Zhou in comparison to each other and to the mean score of the average
2 world leader. The operational code beliefs of Mao differ significantly from the
3 norming group. Mao’s major beliefs about Self and Other are significantly
44111 more conflictual. Mao sees the political universe as significantly more
41
1111 conflictual than the norming group (P-1 = –.087). Regarding the strategic
2 orientation index, Mao is significantly more conflictual (I-1 = –.083) than the
3 norming group (I-1 = .334). However, Mao is close to the norming group’s
4 view regarding the control of historical development (Mao P-4 = .192, Group
5 P-4 = .212). Zhou’s operational code beliefs are less conflictual than
6 Mao’s but less cooperative than the norming group. His major beliefs are
7 more cooperative and are closer to the norming group than Mao’s. Zhou
8 sees the world as more cooperative than Mao (P-1 = .224 vs. Mao’s –.087)
9 and Zhou is much more cooperative than Mao (I-1 = .249 vs. Mao’s –.083).
1011
1
2 Table 3.1 A comparison of the general operational codes of Mao and Zhou with
3 the norming group
4 Mao Norming Zhou
5 group
6 (N = 44) (N = 255)a (N = 11)
7 Philosophical beliefs
8 P-1 Nature of political universe –.087*** .250 .224
9 (conflict/cooperation)
20111 P-2 Realization of political values –.118*** .118 .102
(optimism/pessimism)
1
P-3 Political future .172 .148 .100
2 (unpredictable/predictable)
3 P-4 Historical development .192 .212 .193
4 (low control/high control)
5 P-5 Role of chance .960 .968 .979
(small role/large role)
6
Instrumental beliefs
7
I-1 Strategic approach to goals –.083*** .334 .249
9 I-2 Intensity of tactics –.141*** .139 .075
1 I-3 Risk orientation .365 .304 .218
(averse/acceptant)
2 I-4 Timing of action
3 a. Conflict/cooperation .542 .509 .731
4 b. Words/deeds .587 .525 .589
5 I-5 Utility of means
6 Reward .099** .167 .151
Promise .033** .073 .016
7 Appeal .326** .427 .460*
8 Oppose .235** .147 .193
9 Threaten .043 .047 .023
40111 Punish .264*** .138 .162
1 Notes:
* Significant at P < .10 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
2 ** Significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
3 *** Significant at P < .001 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
44111 a For P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, the speech number for the norming group is 264. The data
are provided by Prof. Mark Schafer from Louisiana State University.
42
1111 Zhou’s view of historical control is almost equal to Mao and lower than the
2 norming group (Zhou P-4 = .193 vs. Mao’s .192). The beliefs of
3 Mao and Zhou differ significantly for some instrumental (I-2, I-4A, I-5AP)
4 and philosophical beliefs (P-2). Zhou is more oriented towards cooperative
5 tactics (I-2) and more optimistic (P-2 = .102 vs. –.118) regarding the realiza-
6 tion of political goals.
7 Are the belief systems of Mao and Zhou stable, or do they change when war
8 breaks out? We might expect that the Korean War affected the general beliefs
9 of Mao and Zhou significantly. As the two major decision-makers during the
1011 early 1950s, Mao and Zhou played key roles in China’s decision to intervene
1 in Korea. Although there were different views among core leaders in the
2 PRC government, the final decision was Mao’s with Zhou as a key figure
3111 implementing Chinese foreign policy during that time. Mao and Zhou were
4 of the same revolutionary generation of leaders and shared common strategic
5 and tactical beliefs of the time under many of the same constraints. However,
6 Zhou’s key beliefs (P-1, P-4, I-1) in Table 3.2 are more cooperative in all three
7 war periods (pre-war, war, to post-war) for the Korean War, and his beliefs
8 change less sharply compared to Mao. The situational constraints of peace and
9 war affect significantly only one belief (I-5RE) regardless of who the leaders
20111 are. Who the leaders are affects some beliefs (I-2, P-1, P-2, P-3) regardless of
1 situation.35 These results further vindicate the inferences that Zhou and Mao
2 differ in their beliefs and Zhou is a more cooperative-oriented diplomat.
3
4
Table 3.2 Mao and Zhou’s mean scores for pre-war, war, and post-war periods in
5 the Korean War
6
7 Mao Zedong Zhou Enlai
8
Pre-war War Post-war Pre-war War Post-war
9 (n = 11) (n = 8) (n = 10) (n = 6) (n = 3) (n = 2)
30111
1 P-1* Cooperation/conflict –.05 –.23 –.07 .25 .04 .43
P-2 Optimism/pessimism –.08 –.24 –.08 .12 –.03 .26
2
P-3 Predictability .09 .35 .14 .11 .09 .10
3 P-4* Historical control .16 .30 .19 .17 .18 .29
4 P-5 Chance .99 .87 .98 .98 .99 .97
5 I-1* Strategy –.23 –.04 –.26 .27 .23 .23
6 I-2 Tactics –.25 –.18 –.13 .08 .12 .00
I-3 Predictability .34 .38 .38 .22 .15 .32
7 I-4a Words .64 .54 .42 .73 .77 .67
8 I-4b Deeds .67 .61 .46 .50 .86 .45
9 I-5 Appeal .25 .34 .26 .48 .36 .56
40111 I-5 Promise .07 .02 .01 .03 .00 .00
1 I-5 Reward .07 .12 .10 .13 .26 .06
I-5 Oppose .20 .14 .43 .20 .16 .23
2 I-5 Threat .09 .03 .06 .01 .06 .00
3 I-5 Punish .32 .36 .14 .15 .17 .17
44111
* Key beliefs are in bold
43
1111 Mao and Zhou as types of leaders

2
Were the belief systems of Mao and Zhou consistent with Confucian or
3
Parabellum cultural norms? The answer to this question depends on the
4
location of each leader’s image of Self and Other in the Holsti typology of
5
political belief systems. The I-1, P-1, P-4 indices in the general operational
6
codes of the two leaders identify Mao as a defensive realist in a hostile political
7
universe while Zhou is a defensive realist in a cooperative, though mixed,
8
political universe. The results in Figure 3.1 show that Mao and Zhou generally
9
1011 shared a defensive realist strategic orientation (I-1) and attributed hostility
1 to others (P-1) in the political universe in varying degrees. They generally
2 agreed that control over historical development (P-4) rested more with
3 others than with themselves. However, their images of Self and Other shift
4 somewhat depending on whether the international situation is defined
5 as peace or war.
6 As Figure 3.2 shows, the philosophical beliefs of both leaders become more
7 hostile. It is understandable, as China fought the Korean War with a major
8 power and the US posed a severe threat to Mao and Zhou as leaders.36 The
9 Korean War was also regarded as a war concerning China’s survival. Even
20111 though Truman had no intention to invade China, the Chinese leaders
1 believed that they were threatened when the US troops crossed the 38th
2 Parallel and the buffer zone was about to disappear.37 This high level of
3 external threat pushed the Chinese leaders to the edge of “live or die.” When
4 the enemy is at your door, even a defensive realist leader will not submit to
5 the external threat despite their preference for settlement over deadlock or
6 submission.
7 In Mao’s case, however, he also shifted to an offensive realist strategic
8 orientation in Figure 3.2. Although the evidence in Mao’s public statements
9 prior to November 1950 supports the claim that China’s entry into the Korean
30111 conflict was a war of safety rather than a war of gain, the coordinates in
1 Figure 3.2 for Mao’s Self beliefs (P-4, I-1) shifted from a Type DEF defensive
2 to a Type B offensive realist. Mao was a defensive realist in peacetime and
3 became an offensive realist in wartime.
4 As a diplomat and Chinese Premier, whether the same situation affected
5 Zhou’s decision-making in the same way and in the same direction is an
6 interesting question. We can see in Figure 3.2 that during the Korean
7 War Zhou is a Type DEF defensive realist in a Type B offensive realist world.
8 Zhou’s Self beliefs change within the Type DEF quadrant during the Korean
9 War. His Other beliefs change from Type A to Type B and back to Type A
40111 from pre-war, during war, to post-war situations. These changes reflect that
1 the war had a significant impact on Zhou’s beliefs. His view of Other turns
2 more hostile during wartime although his self-image changes little, perhaps
3 as a result of his subordinate position in the government decision-making
44111 process.
44
1111
2
3
4 CONFUCIAN
5
Type A Type C
6
(P-1/I-1)
7 +2.0
|
8 |
9 |
|
1011 +1.5
1 |
|
2 |
|
3111 +1.0
4 |
|
5 |
6 |
+.50
7 |
|
8 |
9 | ZO(.34,.03)
20111 (P-4) –2.0--------- –1 .5-------- –1 .0--------- –.5 0-----------+.00---------*--+. 50------------+1.0------------+1.5---------- 2.0 (P-4)
|
1 ZS(–.34,–.18) * |
2 |
|
3 –.5 0
|
4 |
5 |
MS(–.16,–.89) * |
6 –1 .0
7 | * MO(.16, –1.05)
|
8 |
9 |
–1 .5
30111 |
|
1 |
2 |
–2.0
3
5
6 PARABELLUM
7
8 Figure 3.1 The general operational codes of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai
9 * MS = Mao Self, MO = Mao Other; ZS = Zhou Self, ZO = Zhou Other; Self Scores are in bold.
40111 The raw VICS scores for each leader’s key beliefs have been calculated into standard deviation
1 units from the mean scores for the norming group and plotted on the vertical and horizontal axes
of the Holsti typology.
2
3
44111
45
1111
2
3 Type A CONFUCIAN Type C
4 (P-1/ I-1)
+2.0
5 |
|
6 |
7 |
+1.5
8 |
9 |
|
1011 |
1 +1.0
|
2 |
3 |
|
4 |
+.50
5 |
6 |
|
7 |
| * ZP'WO(.26,.31)
8 | * ZPWO(.18,.19)
9 (P-4) –20 --------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50---------- +. 00-----------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5--------- 2.0 (P-4)
20111 *
|
ZWS(–.66,–.16) |
1 | *ZWO(.66,–.38)
2 ZPWS(–.18,–.31) * |
–.50
3 |
|
4 |
5 | *MWS(.50,–.70)
MP'WS(–.41,–.85) * |
6 * | * * MP'WO(.41,–.94)
ZP'WS(–.26, –.94) –1.0 MPWO(.30,–.95)
7 |
8 |
MPWS(–.30,–1.39) * |
9 MWO(–.50,–1.42)* |
30111 –1.5
|
1 |
|
2 |
3 –2.0
4 PARABELLUM
5 Type DEF (P-1/ I-1) Type B
6
7 Figure 3.2 The operational codes of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai for pre-war, war,
8 and post-war periods in the Korean War
9 The following abbreviations are used above: MPWS = Mao Pre-War Self; MPWO = Mao
40111 Pre-War Other; MWS = Mao War Self; MWO = Mao War Other; MPvWS = Mao Post-War Self;
MPvWO = Mao Post-War Other; ZPWS = Zhou Pre-War Self; ZPWO = Zhou Pre-War Other;
1 ZWS = Zhou War Self; ZWO = Zhou War Other; ZPvWS = Zhou Post-War Self; ZPvWO = Zhou
2 Post-War Other. ➝ Indicates the way Self moves from pre-war to war to post-war periods.
3 Self scores are in bold.
44111
46
1111 The results for Mao and Zhou question the claims that Chinese leaders are
2 either simple Confucians or Parabellum offensive realists. Unlike the popular
3 image of a dovish Zhou, his operational code beliefs are more realistic and
4 even exhibit signs of Parabellum traits like Mao’s. However, Zhou is much
5 more cooperative than Mao in general despite a lower control over historical
6 development. Because he was not in a key position for final decision-making,
7 his public speeches may reflect the consensus beliefs of the Central Committee
8 under Mao’s lead. Although his self-image (I-1) did not change quadrants
9 over time during the Korean War, the variation in the beliefs of both leaders
1011 suggests that a leader’s beliefs are not static but, rather, change across
1 situations. Tests of the operational codes of other leaders and other situations
2 confirm this implication.38 In the case of Mao, the statistical analysis shows
3111 that he became an offensive Parabellum realist when the threat level increased
4 in the strategic environment. However, the variation across situations calls
5 into question that he was simply an offensive realist. He could be simply a
6 defensive realist under high threat. A die-hard offensive realist would exhibit
7 this strategic orientation in the conditions of both high and low threat.
8 The operational code analysis of Mao Zedong basically supports Johnston’s
9 claim that Mao was a realist and not a Confucian leader. The results show
20111 that Mao, in general, was less likely to use cooperative tactics such as rewards,
1 appeals, or promises. Mao’s view regarding the nature of the political universe
2 was clearly hostile. However, the results of Mao’s operational code beliefs
3 may be partly due to a hostile external environment and threat. Under
4 war/crisis conditions, Mao displayed more hostile operational code beliefs
5 and was more ready to use force. Mao’s realpolitik beliefs were not offensive
6 in nature outside of a crisis/war period. As Mao’s peer, Zhou was not as hostile
7 as Mao in his worldview; neither was he a Confucian leader. In Zhou’s case,
8 we can see the impact of time as China was constantly under security
9 challenges and threats, but we can also detect the more lenient Zhou on the
30111 inside. Because Zhou was not in charge of decisions, the foreign policy of
1 China reflected more the influence of Maoist features during the Korean
2 War period.
3 Overall, the operational code analysis of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai
4 reveals a more complex reality than a structural analysis of Chinese strategic
5 culture would have anticipated. The results support Johnston’s claim that
6 Mao was an offensive realist, but only during war periods. Mao’s peer, Zhou
7 Enlai, does not conform to Johnston’s claim that Chinese leaders are offensive
8 Parabellum realists, and these results raise doubts about his claim that Mao’s
9 successors are also Parabellum realists. Moreover, the operational code
40111 analysis shows that strategic beliefs are not static but change for the same
1 leader in different contexts as well as for different leaders.
2 Therefore, Mao can be seen as partly the product of his time and
3 international historical setting. In Mao’s era, the world was defined as an
44111 ideological struggle between the two antagonistic blocs, communist-East
47
1111 and capitalist-West, and China was faced with military and economic
2 “containment” by the US. The first security strategy of the new China was to
3 forge a military alliance with the Soviet Union—the “big brother” of all
4 communist states—against pressures from the West led by the US in the 1950s.
5 Under the influence of military arrangements with the Soviet Union and
6 ideological antagonism toward the US, China became involved in the Korean
7 War to fight against the US despite the fact that the war was started by North
8 Korea with the consent of the Soviet Union.
9 At that time the danger of a Third World War was still the major security
1011 concern for Mao. Therefore, Mao’s view toward the nature of the political
1 universe was hostile. Under war/crisis conditions, Mao displayed more hostile
2 operational code beliefs and was more ready to use force. However, Mao’s
3 realpolitik beliefs were not offensive in nature outside of a crisis period. Mao’s
4 strong sense of independence stemmed from a deep-rooted vigilance or
5 distrust in history towards the intentions of external big powers, even if in the
6 same ideological bloc.
7 As David Shambaugh has argued: “He (Mao Zedong) quickly grew dis-
8 trustful of Soviet support (or lack thereof during the Korean War and two
9 Taiwan Straits Crises) and saw dependency on the Soviet Union as a violation
20111 of China’s century-long struggle for national independence and dignity.”39
1 Mao’s security strategy emphasized self-defense and isolation from the
2 struggle of the two superpowers later on. China increased its military budget
3 and detonated its first nuclear bomb while attempting to cultivate the Non-
4 Aligned Movement and mobilize developing countries into a broad front
5 against both superpowers.40
6
7
The subjective games of Mao and Zhou
8
9 To model more effectively the strategic preferences of the two Chinese leaders
30111 and examine how or whether they change, the subjective games of Mao and
1 Zhou are analyzed using the expanded version of the TIP based on Brams’
2 TOM.41 The following analysis first focuses on the general subjective games
3 inferred from their general beliefs and then turns to their Korean War games
4 to analyze peace and war situations. Using the VICS aggregate scores of the
5 leaders’ operational code beliefs, the standard deviations from the mean of
6 average world leaders for the major beliefs are calculated for Mao and Zhou
7 in general and then for the three war periods: pre-war, war, post-war.
8 I have chosen 12 speeches by Mao from 1940–49 to retrieve his general
9 beliefs. During this essential period in Mao’s life the CCP finally achieved
40111 control of China. The CCP was fighting with the Nationalists and then the
1 Imperialists for the sake of national survival and a revolutionary ideology in
2 a conflictual world that Mao believed was uncompromisable. Mao’s China
3 was constantly under a security threat from the Japanese (1931–45), the
44111 Nationalists (1947–49), then from the US over the Taiwan issue and Korea,
48
1111 and still later from the Soviet Union over interior borders. He led the Chinese
2 PLA and CCP to win national independence and sustain national survival
3 and development. Despite the power gap with the superpowers, particularly
4 their nuclear superiority, he uttered the famous slogan that “imperialists are
5 paper tigers” based on the belief that the masses held the key to overcome their
6 power. But he was also aware of the fact that power came from gun barrels;
7 therefore, China developed nuclear weapons even without Soviet help.
8 The Nash Equilibrium in Mao’s general game is CF,CF (2,2), in which
9 China and the West are mired in a deadlock situation. Another NME for
1011 Mao’s general game is (3,3), which more accurately reflects the situation in
1 the late 1940s. The new PRC would have liked to have a peaceful environment
2 in which to develop and unify its nation. Although Mao felt sure of a war with
3111 the US, he did not want to fight one from a position of weakness.
4
5
6 Mao’s general and pre-war subjective game (32)
7 US Other US
8 CO CF CO CF CO CF
9 CO “3,3”|@ 1,4 CO Settle Submit CO “3,3”A|1,4
20111
1 China ? B China China B ?
2 CF 4,1A 2,2* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 "@ 2,2*
3 Self’s Strategy: Stay China Outcomes Other’s Strategy: Stay
4 (I-1, P-4a) Self (– = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (– = )
5
* The initial state is in quotation marks, and the final state is underlined for each game. The
6 symbols “A” and “A"” indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the player
7 with the next move (Self) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the NMEs
8 are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked. (Dom = Dominate; D/lock = Deadlock)
9
30111
1 As seen from Figure 3.2, Mao’s pre-war subjective game is the same
2 prisoner’s dilemma game as his general game. In early 1950, Mao was
3 not prepared for a war with the US despite the fact that he wanted to
4 take Taiwan. Mao believed that there would be a war with the US, possibly
5 over Taiwan, Korea, or Vietnam, but he preferred this to happen later and
6 not right after the civil war with the Nationalists who actually had US
7 support. Therefore, the initial state of cooperation (3,3) reflects China’s
8 relationship with the US.
9 Mao’s pre-war subjective game predicts that the US will stay and believes
40111 that China should stay as well at the initial state. In the discussions before the
1 Korean War when Mao met Stalin and Kim Il Sung, Kim tried to persuade
2 Mao into believing that the US would not intervene in Korea.42 Although
3 Mao was aware of Kim’s intentions, he was not ready especially to get
44111 militarily involved with the US in Korea. Mao’s pre-war game predicts a
49
move by the US to deadlock (2,2) if China and allies do not stay at (3,3) and
move to domination (4,1). It also prescribes a move by China from (1,4)
submission to (2,2) deadlock if the US escalates to (1,4) and threatens China.
In late 1950, therefore, China intervened to surprise and overwhelm the UN
forces after MacArthur crossed the 38th Parallel.
However, the Chinese did not triumph for long. The war entered a trench
warfare phase in 1951, and the offensives from both sides were never
completely successful after that. Territory constantly changed hands between
the Chinese/NK forces and the UN forces. Mao ordered the Chinese com-
mander Marshall Peng to destroy more US forces in the hope that the
US would give in. But Mao was wrong and his order met with strong
disagreement from Peng. The front-line troops were already exhausted and
in need of food and other logistic supplies. The Chinese offensives were under
heavy US air bombing without effective air cover.
Mao’s subjective game remained unchanged during and after the Korean
War. He chose to stay at deadlock during the war (see below), and he believed
that the US would not move either. This mutual deadlock stopped both sides
from making progress on the negotiating table, as Mao did not think the US
would give in on anything. On the battleground, military deadlock continued
with neither side making much progress. In July 1953 an armistice was signed,
breaking the strategic deadlock on the Korean Peninsula. The US had
threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons unless China moved to (1,4),
creating the opening for the US to move to (3,3).43
Mao’s subjective war game (32)

US Other US
CO CF CO CF CO CF
CO 3,3 "@ 1,4 CO Settle Submit CO 3,3 A" 1,4
China ? B China China B ?
CF 4,1 A “2,2”* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 "@ “2,2”
Self’s Strategy: Stay China Outcomes Other’s Strategy: Stay
(I-1, P-4a) Self (– = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (– = )
* The initial state is in quotation marks, and the final state is underlined for each game.
The symbols “A” and “A"” indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the
player with the next move (Self) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the
NMEs are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked. (Dom = Dominate; D/lock = Deadlock)
Although the Korean armistice was signed, moving Sino-US relations

to (3,3), Mao later chose to move to (4,1) with demands on Taiwan, and the
US responded by threatening to move back to deadlock (2,2). Hostility
50
1111 between the US and China continued, peaking over Taiwan in the late 1950s.
2 The Korean War apparently had a serious impact on Mao’s beliefs. Mao was
3 feeling relatively confident of peace in 1950. He turned much more hostile
4 during the war, and his view of historical control increased significantly.
5 Although China fought a superpower without losing, Mao was less confident
6 afterwards that the imperialists were paper tigers.
7 A comparison of Mao and Zhou in the Korean War can indicate whether
8 Chinese decision-making was consensual all the time. As the key decision-
9 makers for the Korean War, Mao as the head and Zhou as a subordinate
1011 present an interesting test. Zhou’s general game was the same as his pre-war
1 game, which differed from Mao’s general and pre-war game; however, Zhou
2 agreed with Mao that both China and the US would stay at the initial state
3111 of settlement (3,4). With the outbreak of the Korean war, Zhou’s wartime
4 game converged with Mao’s game. The two leaders agreed that China’s
5 strategy should be “stay” at (2,2) deadlock and predicted the US would also
6
stay at deadlock (see Mao’s war subjective game above).
7
8
9 Zhou’s general and pre-war subjective game (27)
20111
1 US Other US
2 CO CF CO CF CO CF
3 CO “3,4”@ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO “3,4”A" 1,2
5 CF 4,1 A 2,3* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 "@ 2,3*
6
Self’s Strategy: Stay China Outcomes Other’s Strategy: Stay
7
(I-1, P-4a) Self (– = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ = )
8
9 * The initial state is in quotation marks, and the final state is underlined for each game.
30111 The symbols “A” and “A"” indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the
1 player with the next move (Self) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the
2
3
4
5 Following the Korean armistice in 1953, Zhou’s post-war subjective game
6 changed back to his pre-war game. While he agreed with Mao’s ranking for
7 Self’s preferences in the post-war period, his preference rankings for the US
8 differed from Mao’s. Therefore, he did not agree with Mao’s prediction that
9 the US would defect from settlement (3,4). If Mao chose to move from (3,4)
40111 to (4,1), Zhou’s subjective game predicted that the US would move to
1 deadlock (2,3). In a repeated play of this game with (2,3) deadlock as the
2 initial state, the US would choose “stay” while China’s strategy should be to
3 choose “move” to (1,4) toward the status quo ante, as the analysis of Zhou’s
44111 post-war subjective game shows below.
51
1111 Zhou’s post-war subjective game (27)

2
3 US Other US
4 CO CF CO CF CO CF
5 CO 3,4 @ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO 3,4 A" 1,2
7 CF 4,1 A “2,3”* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 "@ “2,3”*
8 Self’s Strategy: Move China Outcomes Other’s Strategy: Stay
9 (I-1, P-4a) Self (– = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ = )
1011
player with the next move (Self) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the
3 NMEs are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked. (Dom = Dominate; D/lock = Deadlock)
4
5
6
7 To sum up, during the Korean War the subjective games of Mao and Zhou
8 reflected closely the threat perceptions of the two key Chinese leaders. Even
9 the diplomat Zhou turned more conflictual during a war with a superpower.
20111 However, they diverged again in their image of the US and in their respective
1 strategic expectations after the Korean War. Mao had Taiwan on his mind
2 and, as a strong leader, he was more willing to resort to the use of force. Zhou,
3 as Premier of the New PRC, was more concerned with China’s domestic
4 situation as seen from his other speeches of the same time. In general, the
5 logic of the subjective game analysis indicates that the individual differences
6 in their key beliefs made a difference in their strategic preferences in dealing
7 with the US following the Korean War. In the next chapter we shall examine
8 whether these differences carried over in the road to war with India in 1962.
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
52
1111
2
3
4
4
5 CHINA AS A
6
7 REGIONAL POWER
8
9 Mao, Zhou, and Deng in India and Vietnam
1011
1
2
3111
4 We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war;
but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get
5
rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.
6 Mao Zedong “Problems of War and Strategy”
7 (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II,
8 p. 225
9
20111 If China does not have atomic and hydrogen bombs and has
1 not launched satellites since the 1960s, it is not worthy of being
2 called a big and influential country and will not have its present
3 international prestige.
4 Deng Xiaoping
5
6 When the cold war was at its height in the 1960s and 1970s, China’s leaders
7 were in a difficult situation domestically and internationally. Nevertheless,
8 they decided to fight India and Vietnam—two close friends. Why? How were
9 the decisions made? This chapter focuses on Deng Xiaoping, a key player in
30111
the second generation of Chinese leadership. As a transitional figure, his
1
leadership spans the cold war and the post-cold war period. What was his role
2
in China’s decision to fight India and Vietnam? The following narrative
3
interpretation of the two wars is accompanied by analyses of the operational
4
code beliefs of the major decision-makers, Deng, Mao, and Zhou. The fit
5
between the strategic preferences of these leaders and their decisions for war
6
are compared and contrasted with the aid of sequential game theory and the
7
8 subjective games embedded in their respective belief systems.
9
40111 Mao, Zhou, and Deng and the Sino-Indian War in 1962
1
2 The Sino-Indian border war1 was known as “China’s Forgotten War,”2 and
3 it lasted about 30 days from October 20 to November 20, 1962 along both
44111 the eastern and western borders between India and China.3 The Chinese and
53
CHINA AS A REGIONAL POWER
1111 Indian forces were of approximately equal strength.4 No air power was
2 introduced by either side. Tanks were fighting in Ladakh on the Chinese side,
3 but they played a marginal role at best. Indian troops suffered a severe loss
4 and defeat. No Chinese figures were released, but the PLA did not lose a
5 single soldier and there were no civilian losses. The war ended with China’s
6 unilateral ceasefire and restoration of the status quo plus negotiations going
7 on until the 1990s. This war had a significant impact on Sino-Indian relations,
8 as India blamed China for invading its territory and the trust between the
9 two largest Asian states never fully recovered. Though in 1994 both sides
1011 signed a treaty on confidence-building measures to solve the border issue,
1 when India tested its nuclear bomb in 1998, it justified that action as a result
2 of China’s threat to Indian defenses. Negotiations between the two countries
3 over the unresolved territorial issues are still going on; the latest round was
4 held in December 2003.
5 Despite the fact that over 40 years have passed, there is little documentation
6 from either side regarding the decision process. Scholars provide different
7 interpretations of the reasons behind the Chinese decision. The border dis-
8 pute seems a classical one with border clashes deteriorating into armed
9
conflict. At first, most scholars attributed the war to Chinese aggression and
20111
expansionism. India particularly criticized China for invasions into the
1
contested territories that India claimed. The Indian side stressed that China
2
did not want India—a democracy and, furthermore, an ally to the Soviet
3
Union—on its border to threaten China on the Southern front. But gradually,
4
more research has shown that New Delhi, and Nehru in particular, was largely
5
responsible for provoking the conflict politically, diplomatically, and mili-
6
tarily. Most observers put blame on the Indian side for starting the border
7
8 conflict, and the Indian government even destroyed a significant document
9 reported by two military generals after the war by declaring it as threaten-
30111 ing national security.5 Even a former Indian military commander in the
1 North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) conceded that his troops occupied
2 Chinese territory across the McMahon Line, which they refused to abandon
3 in the face of PLA demands.6 Nehru underestimated the Chinese resolve to
4 use force against his “forward policy.” Indian officials were under the wrong
5 impression after their success in taking back Goa from Portugal.
6 Some scholars also focus on the international structure at that time and try
7 to reason from systemic factors. They point out that positive changes in
8 Soviet-Indian relations while Sino-Soviet relations were turning chilly had a
9 direct impact on China’s decision to use force. As the Sino-Indian border
40111 dispute related to historical/colonial legacies left over from colonial Britain,
1 China had the same kind of dispute with the Soviet Union regarding a much
2 larger area of territory that included Outer Mongolia. Mao fought India to
3 avoid a two-front war with the Soviet Union and India at the same time should
44111 there be the need to discuss with the Soviets the historical border disputes
54
1111 and unequal treaties regarding Soviet/Russian seizure of Chinese territories.

2 India expected Soviet support but was disappointed, because the Soviet Union
3 changed its neutral position and leaned towards China. In October 1962, two
4 weeks before the Sino-Indian conflict, the Cuban missile crisis unfolded
5 between the Soviet Union and the US. The Soviet Union definitely needed
6 China’s support in this regard. Therefore, strategically, the USSR changed its
7 position in favor of China.7
8 Still others claim that both Mao and Nehru miscalculated the situation,
9 especially regarding Tibet.8 Mao thought the Indian government supported
1011 Tibet as the Indian government provided help to the Dalai Lama and
1 sympathized with the Lhasa rebellion in 1959. Therefore, Mao thought India
2 would help Tibet’s independence even though Nehru recognized Chinese rule
3111 over Tibet.9 When China started building the road in Aksai Chin, Nehru was
4 confronted with severe domestic pressure especially in the parliament;
5 therefore, he needed to show a strong China policy. He pushed for the forward
6 policy without any clear idea of the readiness of the Indian forces and agreed
7 to challenge the Chinese PLA without listening to his military officials.10
8 The Chinese PLA achieved a big success in their maneuvers against Indian
9
forces in the Himalayas in the month-long conflict, inflicting severe casualties
20111
on the Indian forces and damaging Indian morale. In defeating India on the
1
battlefield, China achieved its political goal of “teaching India a lesson” by
2
demonstrating that if pushed, China would use force; the geostrategic goal
3
was to avoid a two-front war (North with the Soviet, and South with India);
4
the strategic goal was to maintain regional balance, especially in South Asia;
5
and the military goal was to maintain the posts it claimed along the Line of
6
7 Actual Control as of 1959.11 However, instead of occupying what the Chinese
8 claimed as their own territory, China declared a ceasefire unilaterally. China
9 continuously offered to negotiate throughout the conflict, but the Indian
30111 government ignored the Chinese offer.
1 Therefore, the puzzles are: was the war planned long in advance or was it
2 a result from ongoing diplomatic and military interactions between the two
3 sides? Was Chinese policy reactive or proactive? The border disputes had
4 been dragging on for years without armed conflict, why did war happen at
5 that time in 1962? Is it an isolated occurrence or related to other situations,
6 foreign or domestic, confronting China?
7
8 The international situation and China’s domestic situation
9
40111 The 1960s was a hard time for China. First of all, China was experiencing
1 severe domestic economic and political crises. For Mao, the Great Leap
2 Forward movement of 1958–59 resulted in a severe loss of resources and
3 human lives. The estimated deaths differ in the Chinese sources and Western
44111 figures, but the figure is reportedly in the millions. To make the situation
55
1111 worse, Mao’s ideological struggle with the Soviet Union deteriorated from the
2 late 1950s, leading to the Soviet withdrawal of all economic assistance,
3 advisors, and technicians in 1960. Furthermore, from 1960 to 1962 China
4 experienced three years of successive natural disasters, which were the most
5 severe in its history, leaving China in desperate need of food and other
6 resources. However, the Soviet Union demanded China repay the aid that had
7 been provided to the Chinese during the Civil War and the Second World
8 War. Premier Zhou agreed to the Soviet demand to preserve China’s dignity
9 and respect. Third, Mao’s health was deteriorating, and in the late 1950s his
1011 power was also challenged by Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping who advocated
1 economic reforms and development. Fourth, domestic stability was shaky
2 with a serious rebellion in Lhasa in 1959 by Tibetan separatists supported
3 by India and the US.12 Mao was seriously concerned that external enemies
4 would exploit the PRC’s domestic vulnerability to sabotage the Chinese
5 Communist regime.
6 The international situation in the 1960s was also challenging to China. The
7 significance of the shifting strategic triangle among the US–USSR–PRC was
8 essential in understanding the Sino-Indian War (the Sino-Vietnamese War as
9
well). The cold war accentuated the colonial leftover territorial disputes. The
20111
intensity of the cold war in the 1950s led to short-lived, cordial relations
1
among non-aligned India, Communist China, and Russia as the US sought a
2
military alliance with Pakistan. The deteriorating Sino-Soviet relations after
3
1959, in turn, developed into Sino-Indian antagonism as India moved closer
4
to the USSR (the same happened in the Vietnam case when Vietnam moved
5
closer to the USSR), and China became allied with Pakistan (and with
6
Cambodia in the latter case). In addition to the deteriorating Chinese
7
8 relationship with the Soviet Union in the north, Indian Prime Minister
9 Nehru constantly carried out provocative actions along the Sino-Indian
30111 border areas in the south.
1 The major reason that the Sino-Indian war did not bring in the superpowers
2 was the Cuban missile crisis, which happened exactly one week before the
3 Sino-Indian War. Both the Soviets and the US were preoccupied with a
4 potential nuclear showdown. Thus, attention was not shifted to Asia. This
5 might also have been a factor in the calculations of the Chinese leader, as
6 pointed out by many scholars. Some scholars argue that Mao carefully
7 calculated the time to teach Nehru a lesson while the two superpowers were
8 preoccupied in Latin America; therefore, there was no possibility of involving
9 the two in Asia.13 That also contributed to China’s withdrawal after achieving
40111 the primary goal. The US promised China that it would not support a Taiwan
1 GMD (the Nationalist Party led by Jiang Jieshi) attack on the mainland.
2 Meanwhile, in order to win Chinese support in a potential showdown with
3 the US, Khrushchev offered support to the Chinese side in the Sino-Indian
44111 dispute, changing his original neutral position.14
56
1111 For the Indian side, Nehru was blamed for the faulty step of carrying out
2 forward diplomacy by setting up posts to encroach upon Chinese territory. If
3 Indian Prime Minister Nehru had not courted Soviet favor, he would not have
4 made this tactical mistake. Vertzberger blames Nehru for miscalculating the
5 situation, resulting in the humiliating failure of the war.15 Nehru had always
6 taken for granted India’s position as a big brother to the Chinese in the Non-
7 Aligned Movement and the Third World. He also regarded himself as the
8 indisputable leader of the Third World.
9 However, Mao challenged his position because of the Chinese revolution
1011 and support to Pakistan and Myanmar. Nehru was a strong figure in Indian
1 foreign policy, but he was also under severe domestic pressure to show a
2 strong stand against the Chinese when China started building a road from
3111 Xinjiang to Tibet through Aksai Chin, which India claimed was its territory.
4 Nehru was also overwhelmed by the Indian success in taking back Goa from
5 Portugal. Nehru personally hated the military, nor was his Minister of
6 Defense, Menon, on good terms with the military. The big gap between the
7 civilian leaders and the military officers hindered a fair and objective
8 calculation of the situation before Nehru advanced the forward policy or
9
decided to take on the Chinese PLA. Adding to this problem was the wrong
20111
intelligence information that China would not resort to the use of force. The
1
Chinese diplomatic protests were mistaken as signals of weakness and lack
2
of will from the Chinese side.16
3
4
5 Mao, Zhou, and Deng in the 1960s
6
7 Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai continued to play key roles in the final decision
8 to fight India. Deng Xiaoping, as a key negotiator with the Soviets during this
9 time, also contributed to the decision-making. Therefore, a comparison of
30111 the operational code beliefs of the three leaders with each other and with a
1 norming group of world leaders should present some interesting insights and
2 provide further tests of the hypothesis that China may not be a revisionist state
3 with an aggressive strategic culture.
4 In Table 4.1 are the mean scores for Mao, Zhou, and Deng during the Sino-
5 Indian War. A comparison of the three leaders during this conflict shows that
6 in general, and as expected, Mao sees the world as more hostile while Zhou
7 sees the world as more friendly than Mao but much less friendly compared
8 with Deng. Deng is also the most cooperative of the three leaders with Mao
9 as the most hostile and Zhou in the middle. Mao also sees the least control
40111 over historical development while Deng thinks he has more control compared
1 to Mao. This might be attributed to the leaders’ concerns over the Soviet
2 Union. Mao was more concerned about the Soviet role in the world revolution
3 while, as the negotiator with the Soviet Union during the early 1960s, Deng
44111 showed more confidence and strength.
57
1111 Table 4.1 Mean scores of Mao, Zhou, and Deng’s beliefs in the Sino-Indian War
2
3 Mao Norming Deng Zhou
(N = 7) group (N = 6) (N = 6)
4 (N = 255)
5
P-1 Nature of political universe –.11* .25 .39 .21
7
(conflict/cooperation)
8 P-2 Realization of political values –.15* .12 .28 .08
9 (optimism/pessimism)
1011 P-3 Political future .14 .15 .16 .10
P-4 Historical development .13 .21 .25 .17
3 P-5 Role of chance .98 .97 .95 .98
4 (small role/large role)
5 Instrumental beliefs
6 I-1 Strategic approach to goals –.001 .33 .42 .37
8 I-2 Intensity of tactics .03 .14 .12 .13
(conflict/cooperation)
9
I-3 Risk orientation .36 .30 .34 .25
20111 (averse/acceptant)
2 a. Conflict/cooperation .57 .51 .52 .63
3 b. Words/deeds .45 .53 .45 .60
I-5 Utility of means
4 Reward .12 .17 .11 .01
5 Promise .04 .07 .04 .17
6 Appeal .33 .43 .57 .51
7 Oppose .39* .15 .12 .14
8 Threaten .01 .05 .01 .01
Punish .10 .14 .15 .16
9
30111 Notes:
* Significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
1
2
3
4 Mao views the political universe as much more hostile than Deng and he is
5 very pessimistic about the realization of his political ideals while Deng is much
6 more optimistic. Mao shows very low control of historical development
7 compared to Deng or the norming group. This has much to do with the
8 international and domestic situation as well as Mao’s leadership during the
9 early 1960s.17 Facing the breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance and the Soviet
40111 challenge, serious natural disasters, deteriorating domestic economic situation,
1 and political turbulence, Mao was also experiencing serious health problems.
2 Zhou’s operational code beliefs are very complicated as well. But unlike the
3 general image of a dovish Deng, his philosophical beliefs are more realistic
44111 and even show signs of pessimism like Mao. However, Zhou is much more
58
1111 cooperative than Mao in general, despite a higher control over historical
2 development. This is probably because he was not in a key position for final
3 decision-making. His public speeches may reflect the consensus beliefs of the
4 Central Committee under Mao’s lead. Zhou’s operational code beliefs during
5 the Sino-Indian War generally conform to the fact that Zhou was a major
6 diplomatic figure during the Sino-Indian War trying to negotiate with the
7 Nehru government and settle the conflicts through diplomatic means.
8 Overall, Mao’s beliefs still mirrored the cold war concerns of China being
9 threatened by both the Soviets and the US in the early 1960s. Zhou remained
1011 a realist who saw the world in the cold war realist’s terms. However, Deng is
1 an outlier compared to the general assumption of a cold war communist state
2 leader. This might be because he was not in control of the state’s decision-
3111 making, and his role as a diplomat. Mao was in a control position for this war
4 while Deng was in a subordinate position. Deng was a major figure in Chinese
5 negotiations with the Soviets in the early 1960s. Mao had a high trust in
6 Deng’s handling of the Soviets and called him by the nickname “my little
7 man.” However, his cooperative orientation already placed him as a
8 Confucian type of leader. If these beliefs are his true beliefs as a Confucian
9 leader, then in a control position during the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979
20111 fighting a weaker state, he should not change his beliefs. If he is hiding his real
1 beliefs in the 1960s, his beliefs should change towards more hostility in the
2 later Vietnam case.
3
4
What kinds of leaders are Mao, Zhou, and Deng?
5
6 In Figure 4.1, we can see that, in general, Mao and Zhou are defensive realists
7 for the Sino-Indian War period, although Zhou was more cooperative than
8 Mao and saw the world as less hostile. Deng is a Type C Confucian leader
9 whose beliefs are much more cooperative than Mao and Zhou. The threat
30111 from India was not a serious one militarily despite the Soviet threat of
1 involvement. Therefore, when breaking down the war situations into pre-
2 war, war, and post-war in Figure 4.2, Mao’s beliefs are not as hostile as those
3 during the Korean War. In general, Mao’s realist beliefs about Self and Other
4 are still more conflict-oriented and more hostile than either the average world
5 leader or Zhou and Deng. Mao changed from a Type DEF defensive leader
6 to a Type B offensive leader during war and back to Type DEF after the war.
7 His change, however, was not as sharp as during the Korean War.
8 During the Sino-Indian War, Zhou is a Type A (-1.55,.35SD) Confucian
9 leader in a Type B (1.55,-.88SD) Parabellum world. Further, as seen from
40111 Figure 4.2, Zhou’s Self beliefs change from Type DEF to Type A to Type C
1 from pre-war to war to post-war periods for the Sino-Indian War. Zhou’s
2 view of Other shifts to Type A after the Sino-Indian War with the Chinese
3 military triumph. Zhou’s Self beliefs are relatively more peaceful in the Sino-
44111 Indian War compared with Mao.
59
1111
2
3 CONFUCIAN
4 Type A Type C
5 (P-1/I-1)
+2.0
6 |
7 |
|
8 |
+1.5
9 |
1011 |
|
1 |
2 +1.0
|
3 |
|
4 |
5 DO(–.31,.44) +.50
* |
6 |
| *DS(.31,.19)
7 |
8 (P-4) –2.0 -------- –1.5 ------- –1 .0 -------- –.5 0-----------+.00-----------+. 50------------+1.0------------+1.5---------- 2.0 (P-4)
9 * |
ZS(–.34,–.08) | *ZO(.34,–.13)
20111 |
|
1 –.50
2 |
* |
3 MS(–.63,–.71) |
|
4 –1.0 *MO(.63,–1.12)
5 |
|
6 |
7 |
–1.5
8 |
|
9 |
30111 |
–2.0
1
3
4 PARABELLUM
5
6 Figure 4.1 The operational codes of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and Deng Xiaoping
7 in the Sino-Indian War
8 MS = Mao’s Self, MO = Mao’s Other; DS = Deng’s Self, DO = Deng’s Other; ZS = Zhou’s Self,
9 ZO = Zhou’s Other. Self scores are in bold. Scores are standard deviation from the mean of the
40111 norming group calculated from Table 4.1.
1
2
3
44111
60
1111
2
3 CONFUCIAN
4
5 Type A Type C
6 (P-1/ I-1)
+2.0
7 |
8 |
|
9 |
+1.5
1011 |
1 |
2 |
|
3111 +1.0
*DP' WO(–.87,.81) |
4 *ZP' WO(–1.44,.78) |
5 |
|
6 +.50
DPWS(–.18,.46) * | *DPWO(.18,.47) *ZP'WS(1.44,.48)
7 *ZWS(–1.55,.35) | *DP'WS(.87,.40)
8 |
DWO(-.31,.03) |
9
(P-4) –.20 -------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50---*----- +. 00-----------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5----------- 2.0 (P-4)
20111 ZPWS( –.34,–.09) *|
MWO(–.47,–.19) * | *ZPWO(.34,–.22)
1 MPWS(–.42,–.31) * | * DWS(.31,–.29)
2 | *MWS(.47,–.31)
–.50
3 |
4 |
|
ZWO(1.55,–.88) *
5 |
*MP'WS(–.98,–1.03) –1.0 *MPWO(.42,–1.06)
6 |
7 |
| *MP'WO(.9 8,–1.38)
8 |
–1.5
9 |
30111 |
|
1 |
2 –2.0

4
PARABELLUM
5
6
7 Figure 4.2 The operational codes of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Zhou Enlai
from pre-war to war to post-war periods in the Sino-Indian War
8
9 The following abbreviations are used above: MPWS = Mao Pre-War Self; MPWO = Mao Pre-
War Other; MWS = Mao War Self; MWO = Mao War Other; MPvWS = Mao Post-War Self;
40111 MPvWO = Mao Post-War Other; ZPWS = Zhou Pre-War Self; ZPWO = Zhou Pre-War Other;
2 DPWS = Deng Pre-War Self; DPWO = Deng Pre-War Other; DWS = Deng War Self; DWO = Deng
War Other; DPvWS = Deng Post-War Self; DPvWO = Deng Post-War Other. Self scores are in bold.
3
44111
61
1111 Deng’s beliefs were relatively stable for the Sino-Indian War. Deng remained
2 a cooperative-oriented Confucian leader with beliefs close to the average
3 world leader. However, his Self beliefs did change from a Confucian Type A
4 to the Parabellum Type B during wartime and then back to the Confucian
5 Type C. Despite these changes, however, his view of the world remained
6 Confucian. This continuity suggests that he had to follow the decisions
7 made by Mao as his subordinate and implement his preferences during the
8 war. However, he did not perceive the world in Mao’s terms even during
9 the war.
1011
1
2 Mao, Zhou, and Deng’s subjective games in the
3 Sino-Indian War
4 Mao and Zhou shared the same pre-war subjective game, that is, a prisoner’s
5 dilemma game. Mao, Zhou, and Deng agree on the same strategy in their pre-
6 war game with India, which is to choose “stay” at the initial state of (CO,CO)
7 mutual cooperation. In Mao’s and Zhou’s subjective game of prisoner’s
8
dilemma, however, both China and India will be tempted to defect from
9
mutual cooperation (3,3) leading to a Nash equilibrium of deadlock (2,2),
20111
because both states rank domination of each other as their highest ranked
1
preference and mutual cooperation is not a myopic Nash equilibrium.18 In
2
order to maintain mutual cooperation as an NME, China would have to
3
communicate a credible threat in preplay communication to move to deadlock
4
5 (2,2) should India move from (3,3).19 Deng is more optimistic regarding
6 mutual cooperation, ranking this outcome highest for both states (4,4) in his
7 subjective no-conflict game.
8 Nehru turned out to be as stubborn as Zhou’s and Mao’s game predicted.
9 India’s “forward policy” represented a defection from mutual cooperation to
30111 domination (CO,CF) by India, which was followed by a subsequent move by
1 China to deadlock (CF,CF). According to the logic of their pre-war subjective
2 games, Mao and Zhou expected this deadlock to be an equilibrium broken
3 by force of arms while Deng anticipated that India would shift to a strategy
4 of cooperation that would be reciprocated and move the conflict back to a
5 final outcome of mutual cooperation. Differences in the respective subjective
6 games embedded in their public statements, therefore, suggest that the
7 pre-war consensus among the three leaders did not extend to a common
8 assessment of India’s strategic preferences, which affected their expectations
9 of the likelihood of war between China and India. Mao’s more pessimistic
40111 assessment turns out to be the one consistent with China’s decision for
1 war, suggesting that his influence was predominant in Beijing’s decision-
2 making during the pre-war period. Zhou as the key diplomat followed Mao’s
3 decision.
44111
62
1111 Mao’s and Zhou’s pre-war subjective game (32)

2 India India India
3 CO CF CO CF CO CF
4 CO “3,3”"@ 1,4 CO Settle Submit CO “3,3”A" 1,4
7 Mao Self’s Pre-war China Outcomes Mao Other’s Pre-war
8 Strategy: Stay Strategy: Stay
1011
1
2 player with the next move given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the NMEs
4
5
6 Deng’s pre-war subjective game
7 India India India
8 CO CF CO CF CO CF
9 CO “4,4”*@ 1,3 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*A"1,3
1 CF 3,1 A 2,2* CF Dom D/lock CF 3,1 @ 2,2*
2 Deng Self’s Pre-war China Outcomes Deng Other’s Pre-war
4 (I-1, P-4a) Self (+ = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ = )
9
30111
Mao’s subjective war game (32)
1
India India India
2
CO CF CO CF CO CF
3 CO 3,3 "@ 1,4 CO Settle Submit CO 3,3 A" 1,4
4
5
CF 4,1 A “2,2”* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 "@ “2,2”*
6
Mao Self’s War China Outcomes Mao Other’s War
9
1
player with the next move given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the NMEs
3
44111
63
1111 Once the war began, Mao’s subjective game did not change, but the
2 subjective games of Zhou and Deng did. Zhou’s belief system now attributed
3 an appeasement strategy to Self and attributed a bully strategy to Other. He
4 defined the deadlock as a situation in which neither China nor India had much
5 incentive to change strategies, as deadlock (3,3) was both a Nash (myopic)
6 equilibrium and a Brams (nonmyopic) equilibrium. In this subjective game
7 India did possess what Brams defines as “moving” power, “the ability to
8 continue moving when the other player must eventually stop.” If moving
9 power is possessed by the stronger player in a game, then it may be used
1011 to induce a preferred outcome—in this case domination (2,4) by India.20
1 However, India did not have the military capability or political will to take
2 advantage of this cycling possibility.
3
4
5
Zhou’s subjective war game (41)
6
7 India India India
8 CO CF CO CF CO CF
9 CO 4,2 "@ 2,4 CO Settle Submit CO 4,2 A 2,4
1 CF 1,1 A “3,3”* CF Dom D/lock CF 1,1"@ “3,3”*
2 Zhou Self’s War China Outcomes Zhou Other’s War
4 (I-1, P-4a) Self (+ <) (P-1, P-4b) Other (– >)
5
6
7 player with the next move given the initial state (Brams 1994). The Nash equilibria are asterisked.
8 (Dom = Dominate; D/lock = Deadlock)
9
30111
1 Deng’s belief system during the war shifted, too. With a new initial state of
2
deadlock (2,3) rather than mutual cooperation (3,4), Deng’s subjective game
3
diagnosed the wartime situation as one in which India ranked settlement as
4
its highest outcome, but was unlikely to make the first move toward settlement
5
because of the risk that China would not reciprocate. The logic of his game
6
prescribes that China should move toward settlement from deadlock even
7
though India chooses to “stay” at deadlock.
8
In the end, China chose Mao’s strategy to dominate by inflicting a military
9
40111 defeat on India and then shifted unilaterally to Zhou’s strategy of cooperation
1 by withdrawing its forces from Indian territory. This two-step strategy of
2 escalation and then de-escalation was also partly consistent with Deng’s
3 strategic preference for disengagement from the battlefield and the pursuit
44111 of a diplomatic solution by China.
64
1111 Deng’s subjective war game (27)

2
3 India India India
4 CO CF CO CF CO CF
5 CO 3,4 @ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO 3,4 A" 1,2
7 CF 4,1 A “2,3”* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 "@ “2,3”*
8 Deng Self’s War China Outcomes Deng Other’s War
9 Strategy: Move Strategy: Stay
1011 (I-1, P-4a) Self (– = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ = )
1
2
5
6
7
Although the subjective games of all three leaders prescribed a cooperative
8
strategy following the Sino-Indian War, Zhou and Deng’s post-war subjective
9
games differed from Mao’s. Zhou and Deng were more optimistic than Mao,
20111
1 predicting that India would stay at settlement (4,4), while Mao predicted
2 that India might move from settlement (3,3) to dominate (1,4), which would
3 force China to move to deadlock (2,2). Chinese troops withdrew unilaterally,
4 so there was no diplomatic settlement for the Sino-Indian border. In its
5 absence Mao remained a prisoner of the logic of his prisoner’s dilemma game,
6 heightened by a sharp decline in his belief in control over historical develop-
7 ment (see Figure 4.2).
8
9
30111 Mao’s post-war subjective game (32)
1 India India India
2 CO CF CO CF CO CF
3 CO “3,3”"@ 1,4 CO Settle Submit CO “3,3”A"1,4
4
5
7 Mao Self’s Post-war China Outcomes Mao Other’s Post-war
Strategy: Stay Strategy: Stay
8
(I-1, P-4a) Self (– = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (– = )
9
44111
65
1111 Zhou’s post-war subjective game

2
3 India India India
4 CO CF CO CF CO CF
5 CO “4,4”*@ 1,1 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*A "1,1
8 Zhou Self’s Post-war China Outcomes Zhou Other’s Post-war
1011 (I-1, P-4a) Self (+ >) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ >)
1
2
5
6
7
As a major diplomat working and negotiating for a peaceful settlement for
8
the conflict, Zhou’s post-war game perhaps reflected his state of mind in this
9
role, as he exhibited a dramatic increase in his belief in control over historical
20111
development (see Figure 4.2). Deng’s secondary role in the decision-making
1
2 process revealed him to be a Confucian in his orientation throughout the
3 conflict. His belief system consistently contained a subjective game that
4 prescribed cooperation as the best post-war strategy to reach a settlement of
5 the territorial dispute with India.
6
7
8 Deng’s post-war subjective game
9 India India India
30111 CO CF CO CF CO CF
1 CO “4,4”*@ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*A"1,2
2
3
5 Deng Self’s Post-war China Outcomes Deng Other’s Post-war
Strategy: Stay Strategy: Stay
6
(I-1, P-4a) Self (+ = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ = )
7
2
3
44111
66
1111 From this analysis we can see that differences in beliefs and different
2 patterns of belief change characterized the subjective games of the three
3 Chinese leaders. Mao’s games were conflict-oriented in general and his view
4 of the outcome was less optimistic. Although Zhou was very close to Mao
5 regarding the Korean conflict in the 1950s, he moved away from Mao’s view
6 of the opponent in the Sino-Indian conflict during the 1960s. Zhou’s subjective
7 games continued to reflect his role as a key negotiator and diplomat in the
8 Chinese government’s decision-making group during the Sino-Indian conflict,
9 displaying features of his personal role as a diplomat as well as a revolu-
1011 tionary. However, in terms of final strategic moves, Zhou’s games showed
1 that he followed closely Mao’s decisions.
2 Deng’s subjective games showed that he was loyal to Mao’s strategic prefer-
3111 ences regarding the different outcomes of domination, settlement, deadlock,
4 and submission during the Sino-Indian War, shifting from a Confucian
5 preference for settlement as the highest-ranking outcome prior to the war.
6 However, his view of Other defined India’s highest-ranking preference as
7 settlement, leading him to favor a strategy of de-escalation to end the war.
8 Both Zhou and Deng differed with Mao in the post-war period regarding
9 the prospects for diplomacy to prevent re-escalation and provide a return to
20111 mutual cooperation between the two Asian powers.
1 Overall, the results from the subjective games analysis display a high degree
2 of congruence with the course of the Sino-Indian conflict. The tensions among
3 Mao’s Parabellum belief system, the more moderate Zhou’s belief system, and
4 the Confucian orientation of Deng are consistent with the Chinese strategies
5 of escalation and unilateral withdrawal pursued during the conflict. This
6 pattern reflects a balance between Parabellum and Confucian propensities
7 within the Chinese elite represented by Mao and his two major advisors. It
8 also shows that the three Chinese leaders are not simply Parabellum realists
9 driven by a static and monolithic cultural tradition of offensive realism.
30111 Their complex belief systems and their changes across pre-war, war, and post-
1 war situations are captured through an analysis of their operational codes.
2 The results show that Mao was, indeed, a relatively dogmatic leader whose
3 beliefs did not change across the three time periods. However, both Zhou and
4 Deng demonstrated that they were relatively pragmatic leaders whose beliefs
5 changed across situations, indicating that they were capable of complex
6 learning patterns leading to changes in their strategic preferences and strat-
7 egies of conflict and cooperation. Whether this pattern continued for Deng
8 in the Sino-Vietnamese War is explored below.
9
40111
The Sino-Vietnamese War: Deng’s war
1
2 The Sino-Vietnamese War was the last major war for China.21 Chen King
3 stresses that the Sino-Vietnamese War was “Deng Xiaoping’s war.”22 “The
44111 personal styles of Deng and his Vietnamese opposite, Le Duan, led to a war
67
1111 their predecessors and colleagues would have worked harder to avoid.”23
2 Although China had backed North Vietnam in its struggle against South
3 Vietnam and the US, tensions between the two communist states increased
4 when Vietnam strengthened its ties with the Soviet Union, invaded Laos and
5 Cambodia (Kampuchea) in late 1978, and expelled the Chinese living in
6 Vietnam. China’s decision to fight with Vietnam was taken immediately after
7 Deng’s state visit to the US. Deng learned that although the US would not
8 support the Chinese effort, it would not oppose it either. During the interviews
9 with four TV anchors, Deng reiterated that the Soviet Union was hostile and
1011 China would teach Vietnam a lesson in defense.24
1 Like the Sino-Indian War, the Sino-Vietnamese War25 was another limited
2 war involving only land power. If the Sino-Indian border conflict was a
3 military triumph for the Chinese PLA, the Sino-Vietnamese War was certainly
4 nothing of the kind. It was a military fiasco but, strategically, some scholars
5 pointed out that China did achieve its goals. First, the USSR did not help its
6 new ally, proving the untrustworthiness of the Soviet Union. Second, China
7 once again demonstrated to the world that it was serious, meaning what it said
8 particularly about issues involving territory and sovereignty. Third, China
9 demonstrated its concern for the overseas Chinese people, though some
20111 declare this was motivated out of economic interests. Fourth, China showed
1 its sincere concern over the Cambodia issue, demonstrating its support by
2 trying to get the Vietnamese troops out of Cambodia. Fifth, China was able
3 to maintain peace for the border provinces for quite some time despite some
4 small clashes.
5 However, there is no denying that China did not succeed in its strategic
6 goal of protecting its ally, the Khmer Rouge, nor did China force Vietnam
7 to shift its best forces from Cambodia back to Vietnam to fight China.
8 The Chinese leaders balanced the choices they had at hand and decided to
9 fight the Vietnamese rather than intervene in Cambodia, which would
30111 certainly harm the Chinese reputation and risked drawing in the Soviets.
1 Therefore, they avoided directly helping the Khmer Rouge. But China had
2 to protect its ally out of security concerns. The Cambodian Prince Sihanouk
3 visited China in early 1979 to obtain Chinese help. To fight Vietnam and
4 indirectly release tension in Cambodia was finally chosen, but this goal was
5 not fulfilled.
6
7
International and domestic situations of China
8
in the late 1970s
9
40111 The geostrategic relations among the major powers, US–USSR, China, and
1 Vietnam in Asia, played significant roles in leading to the Sino-Vietnamese
2 War. Deteriorating Sino-Soviet and Sino-Vietnamese relations paralleled the
3 relaxation of Sino-US relations, and the Vietnamese–Soviet relationship
44111 warmed up. The late 1960s saw Sino-Soviet relations deteriorate into an
68
1111 armed clash in 1969 over Zhenbaodao. Meanwhile, the US tried to extricate
2 itself from Vietnam with honor. After the Korean War, although China proved
3 itself a regional power daring to challenge one of the superpowers, China
4 clearly did not want another war with the US. With the warming up of Sino-
5 US relations and Nixon’s 1972 visit, China saw the US as a potential
6 counterforce to Moscow. Deng was able to ensure US acquiescence not
7 to interfere if China chose to fight the Vietnamese during his 1979 visit to
8 America. The Vietnamese government was aware of the Chinese preference
9 of fighting a war with Vietnam given complete and intensifying media
1011 attention to this regard.26 The strategic interests of China and Vietnam began
1 to diverge significantly in the 1970s.27 One argument about the cause of
2 the war was that China intended to teach Vietnam a lesson for turning to the
3111 Soviet Union. Under Soviet support, Vietnam tried to exert regional power.
4 Border conflicts with China increased as reported in Chinese media. Vietnam
5 also intended to redress the territorial disputes in the Spratlys. In addition, as
6 stated above, China needed to release the strategic tensions along its border,
7 particularly the intensifying situation in Indochina between Vietnam and
8 Cambodia, by helping out its ally Cambodia.
9 In cold war Asia, even though both China and the Democratic Vietnamese
20111 Republic were socialist countries, their strategic interests seemed to conflict
1 directly.28 First, the Chinese influence on Vietnam was overwhelming—even
2 Ho Chi Minh was trained by the CCP in Southern China—and Mao’s concept
3 of People’s war was translated into a Vietnamese variant after 1941.29 China
4 provided considerable assistance to Vietnam in its wars against France and
5 America. With victories in the two Indochina wars, Vietnam was claiming to
6 be the third largest military power behind the US and the Soviet Union in
7 Asia in the late 1970s, and it was gaining more military support from the
8 Soviet Union than from China.30
9 Although it was the Chinese who refused to increase aid to the Vietnamese,
30111 the Chinese certainly did not intend to drive Vietnam to the Soviet Union. The
1 consequence of a two-front war—North with the Soviets and South with the
2 Soviet ally, Vietnam—would be too daunting a threat for the PRC. Therefore,
3 a turning point in the Sino-Vietnamese relationship was when Le Duan turned
4 to the Soviet Union after his unsuccessful visit to Beijing in 1975, and joined
5 the Soviet-dominated Council for Mutual Economic Cooperation (Comecon),
6 and signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union
7 in December 1978. The Chinese media named Vietnam the “Cuba of the
8 East.” Neither wanted war but neither was ready to compromise.
9 Second, the seeds for the Sino-Vietnamese War were sowed long before
40111 1979. Vietnamese leaders were sensitive to a possible return to the old
1 tributary relationship with Beijing. The Sino-Vietnamese relationship featured
2 deep-rooted historical distrust. Vietnam had been a Chinese tribute state, and
3 some scholars argue that the war demonstrated China’s desire to resume its
44111 historical supremacy over Vietnam.31 Vietnam, on the other hand, declared
69
1111 that China had been a long-time threat. Even Vietnam’s paramount leader
2 Ho Chi Minh once stated “it was better for his countrymen to sniff French
3 excrement for a brief period than to eat Chinese excrement for the rest of
4 their lives.”32 The differences at Geneva reflected the clash of national interests
5 based on differing geopolitical positions.33 Vietnam felt betrayed by the
6 Chinese at the Geneva conference in 1954. China’s behavior strengthened
7 Vietnam’s belief that “the Chinese were willing to sacrifice Vietnamese
8 interests to avoid a confrontation with the US. There were also clear signs at
9 Geneva of the potential for future rivalry over Laos and Cambodia.”34
1011 Historical distrust deepened after the Geneva conference when China pressed
1 the Vietnamese to accept the French position of a divided Vietnam. Zhou
2 Enlai also obtained from Ho Chi Minh the promise that in relations among
3 Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam the five principles of peaceful coexistence
4 would be observed in return for China’s continued aid to Vietnam.35
5 Mutual necessity between the Chinese and the Vietnamese continued to
6 bind the two countries. Vietnam needed Chinese assistance for its unification,
7 while China needed North Vietnam to balance against the Soviet Union in
8 Asia. However, during Le Duan’s visit to Beijing in August 1975, Beijing and
9 Hanoi seemed to seriously disagree over ideology and the issue of the Soviet
20111 Union. No communiqué was issued afterward, despite some treaties on
1 economic cooperation. Beijing also refused to increase aid to the Vietnamese
2 government.36 One speculation was that with victory over America, Vietnam
3 was becoming too powerful in Asia. Consequently, Le Duan turned to the
4 Soviet Union.
5 The turning point in Sino-Vietnamese relations, and the immediate causes
6 for the war centered on the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (Kampuchea).
7 The Vietnamese–Cambodian–Chinese relationship was another fragile
8 triangular balance in Asia. Vietnam’s alliance with the Soviet Union led it to
9 believe it would obtain support from the Soviets if Vietnam invaded
30111 Cambodia. Cambodia had been receiving support and aid from the Chinese.
1 China was particularly watchful over Vietnam’s intention of setting up
2 an Indochinese Federation including the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and
3 Cambodia37 which ran directly into conflict with Chinese interests in creating
4 a friendly buffer zone in Laos and Cambodia. This meant a change in the
5 strategic balance in Indochina in the 1970s.38 The realignment of Vietnam
6 with the Soviet Union enabled Vietnam’s military action. But China claimed
7 it could not stand idly by to see its ally invaded.39 China was in a strategic
8 dilemma in its support of Cambodian forces. China chose to support Pol
9 Pot despite the cruelty of the Khmer Rouge domestically. This was irritating
40111 for Vietnam because Pol Pot was fighting the Vietnamese-supported
1 government. Many scholars attributed the Chinese attack as a strategic
2 step to support its Cambodian ally—the Pol Pot government. The competi-
3 tion over Cambodia reflected a strategic conflict between the two regional
44111 powers.
70
1111 Therefore, diverging strategic interests contributed to the war although

2 there were other contributing factors including the maltreatment of the
3 Vietnamese Chinese40 and the deterioration of the border with armed clashes.
4 Furthermore, China and Vietnam disputed territories in the South China Sea.
5 While the immediate cause of the Sino-Vietnamese War was the border
6 clashes, in fact, the Cambodia issue was the primary reason.
7 Adding to the complex strategic picture at the international level, China’s
8 internal politics also contributed to, and influenced, its policy toward
9 its southern neighbor. The late 1970s saw the end of the Great Cultural
1011 Revolution, the death of Mao and Zhou, and the rise of Deng to power.
1 Duiker points out that in China the party leadership succession issue resulted
2 in a crisis between radicals and moderates. The power struggle between Deng
3111 and Mao’s chosen heir, Hua Guofeng, resulted in faction politics leaving Hua
4 Chairman with no actual control into the late 1970s. Deng retained firm
5 military control as well in 1978 when he retained his post as the general-chief
6 of staff of the PLA.41 Deng not only won the party and military support, he
7 also won the ideological debate against Hua.42 The politics of leadership
8 succession affected the Chinese war decision, that is, Deng used the war to
9
consolidate his power and authority over the state and the military.
20111
The leadership change also sped up military modernization to some extent.
1
Up to the 1970s, Mao’s people’s war strategy had been the dominant military
2
doctrine in the military thinking and teaching of the PLA. However, from the
3
1950s until the 1970s, military modernization made little progress, if any at
4
all. The people’s war doctrine emphasized man’s power over weapons.
5
However, realizing the new historical situation and the modernization drive
6
of other countries’ militaries, the reformist forces (Deng in the lead) cried
7
8 out for immediate effort contributed to the backward PLA.43 This demand
9 ran into strong resistance from the conservatives (Hua Guofeng with some old
30111 veterans from the revolution) who argued for strictly following Mao’s
1 theory.44 The result of the confrontation between the reform forces and
2 conservatives tilted slightly towards the modernization end and significantly
3 influenced Chinese command arrangements, strategy, and even battlefield
4 tactics. The effect was clearly observed from the battlefield in 1979, directly
5 contributing to the PLA’s difficult victory.
6 At the Third Plenum of the CCP which opened in December 1978,
7 Deng initiated the reform and opening-up policy. In January 1979, Deng’s
8 visit to America and the normalization of China–US relations further
9 strengthened Deng’s position in domestic politics. As Chen King points out,
40111 Deng’s victory in the internal Chinese politics struggle was clear in December
1 1978: “His power, prestige, and revisionist viewpoints were clearly
2 ascendant.”45 Furthermore, with a clear majority to command the Politburo
3 and the Central Committee of the CCP, Deng was able to obtain support
44111 for his war decision.46
71
1111 Deng was “sharp, daring, tough, and pragmatic”47 and “his background,
2 hardships, and ups-and-downs in power struggles had trained him to be
3 pragmatic, resourceful, confident, risk-taking, and iconoclastic.”48 Deng’s
4 leadership was determinative in making the final war decision against
5 Vietnam.49 Yet, the war outcome was not as Deng expected. It was at least as
6 much a lesson for the Chinese PLA as it was for Vietnam.
7 According to Chen King,50 China had calculated carefully the military
8 operation against Vietnam through comparing alternatives. The limited war
9 was a compromise among the leaders given the Cambodia crisis. The
1011 Politburo’s enlarged meeting in late 1978 featured diverse views of the military
1 (more hawkish) and the civilian members51 and the final decision to use
2 military force against Vietnam, not in Cambodia, was leaning more toward
3 the military preference. Deng calculated that there would not be large-scale
4 Soviet interference, nor would there be unfavorable international opinions on
5 China’s “punitive” war of self-defense. Deng argued that the war would help
6 China’s modernization, and military modernization in particular. If China
7 could achieve 70 percent success, the 30 percent would serve as a stimulus for
8 military improvement.52
9 After mid-December, the PLA started regrouping and transporting troops
20111 to the Sino-Vietnamese border. It was already clear then to many analysts and
1 media that “a Chinese-Vietnamese war was forthcoming.”53 On December
2 18–22, the Third Plenum of the Central Committee was held where the
3 endorsement for the war decision was made. On December 25, China sent
4 Vietnam a warning with the effect of signaling China’s determination to attack
5 if the border conflict did not calm down, and its willingness as well for
6 negotiation.54 Major Chinese media, Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily), and
7 Beijing Review (the English magazine) published consecutively articles issuing
8 warnings after presenting facts of Vietnam’s mistreatment of Vietnam’s
9 Chinese, border provocations and its hegemonic ambitions with Soviet
30111 support. Chinese military preparations started in late December on both the
1 north border with the Soviet and the south border with Vietnam, further
2 testing the sincerity of the Chinese. The southern troops were under the
3 command of Xu Shiyou and Yang Dezhi (who reportedly directed the war
4 in Vietnam). During Deng’s visit to the US from January 28 to February 5, he
5 discussed the possibility of war with Vietnam with Carter and requested moral
6 support, which he was assured.
7 From February 9 to February 12, the Central Military Committee held
8 a meeting to finalize the war plans despite the fact that the Soviet Union
9 had sent ships to the coast near Hainan Island. The date was decided to
40111 be February 17, three days after the expiration of the Sino-Soviet Treaty
1 of Friendship and Cooperation. Elleman made the argument that China
2 fought the Vietnamese at that time as a sign to the Soviets that it would
3 not sign the treaty again. On February 16, China sent the strongest protest
44111 against Vietnam’s incursion into Chinese territory, which served as a war
announcement, and war broke out the next day.
72
1111 The warring brothers

2
There was no clear indication as to which party started the war.55 Border
3
clashes occurred in 1979. Each side blamed the other for being provocative
4
along the border. However, before the major conflict, the Chinese government
5
issued many signals to the Vietnamese. Even after Vietnam invaded and
6
occupied Cambodia, on different occasions diplomats and media reported
7
that Beijing warned the Vietnamese governments of the danger of war.
8
However, Le Duan ignored them, as he was certain of backing from the Soviet
9
Union.56 The Chinese signals through propaganda, diplomatic exchanges,
1011
and open military demonstrations/military build-up by the PLA, though
1
illustrating the seriousness of the Chinese, evidently did not communicate
2
credibly to the Vietnamese. After these warnings without provoking57 failed,
3111
China attacked along the Sino-Vietnamese border from two wings in a short,
4
limited campaign that involved ground forces only.58
5
At 5 a.m. on February 17, 1979, China started its military campaign with
6
ground forces. Air and naval power was not employed during the war because
7
Beijing did not plan on expanding the war and Soviet ships were nearby at
8
Cam Ranh Bay. The Chinese troops attacked under the protection of heavy
9
artillery and tanks. The major targets for the attack were Lang Son, Cao Bang,
20111
and Dong Khe in the east and Lao Cai in the west.
1
The PLA was successful at the beginning, pushing hard onto the major
2
targets. February 18–19 saw more fighting. However, progress was slow. By
3
February 20–26, China had captured Cao Bang and Lao Cai, and moved on
4
to Lang Son.59 During this week, China declared that its Punitive War was
5
limited in time and space and the PLA would withdraw immediately after
6
obtaining its limited objectives.60 The statement was made by Deng first to
7
visiting foreign officials and media61 and later reiterated by other officials.
8
Until this time, the Soviets only provided arms and sent two destroyers to the
9
South China Sea as gestures of support to Vietnam. It was clear that the Soviet
30111
Union would not intervene in the conflict despite its strong warnings and
1
threats to China.
2
On February 21, the advance resumed against Cao Bang and against Lang
3
Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on February 27, but the city was not
4
secured completely until March 2. Heavy casualties were reported on both
5
sides. The PLA surrounded Lang Son on March 2, except for the strategically
6
significant Khua Ma Son Mountain. Fierce fighting ensued and Lang Son fell
7
two days later. From there the PLA moved on to within 100 miles of Hanoi.
8
Fighting still went on for some time on a minor scale. On March 5,62 the
9
40111 Chinese, declaring its punitive military operation against Vietnam a success,
1 announced that the campaign was over and the PLA withdrawal was
2 completed on March 16. After the war, both China and Vietnam strengthened
3 their border region by deploying more troops. Low-level conflicts and
44111 incidents along the border continued into the 1980s with each accusing the
other party of responsibility for them.
73
1111 The consequences of war

2
Though it lasted less than one month, the conflict was fierce with high
3
casualties on both sides. Besides difficult geographic situations, the PLA met
4
strong Vietnamese guerrilla and militia resistance and the Chinese supply
5
6 system experienced serious problems. The Vietnamese forces were familiar
7 with the terrain and the tactics for fighting this form of warfare as a result of
8 the Vietnam War with the Americans. The PLA, on the other hand, was poorly
9 equipped and had to deal with unexpected hardships. The PLA had to fight
1011 under severe conditions with a long line of poor logistics.
1 The PLA employed overwhelming manpower to prove once again Mao’s
2 theory of men over weaponry from the iron law of the people’s war,63 but this
3 time the PLA “victory” also entailed serious costs and a bitter lesson. The PLA
4 realized that the Great Cultural Revolution had left it so backward that even
5 the Vietnamese guerrillas and militia forces were able to inflict severe damage
6 on the frontline troops of the PLA. Therefore, some scholars concluded that
7 China’s 1979 war against Vietnam was a strategic failure.64
8 In addition, contrary to the Chinese warning Vietnam against close
9 relations with the Soviets, the border war strengthened Soviet–Vietnamese
20111 relations. Nevertheless, Beijing’s policy can be seen as a diplomatic success,
1 since Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the limitations of
2 the Soviet–Vietnamese military pact. China achieved a strategic victory by
3 minimizing the future possibility of a two-front war against the USSR and
4 Vietnam, thus defeating the potential encirclement by Russia. However, the
5 Soviet military role in Vietnam increased during the 1980s as the Soviets
6 provided arms to Vietnam. Soviet ships enjoyed access to the harbors at
7 Danang and Cam Ranh Bay, and Soviet reconnaissance aircraft operated out
8 of Vietnamese airfields. A lesson for the PLA was also clear. The PLA failed
9 the test in actual fighting. During both the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese
30111 Wars, Mao’s strategy of people’s war was adopted. However, the test proved
1 that the people’s war strategy does not work in modern warfare. Fighting
2 tactics and logistics management were insufficient. As Deng predicted, the
3 PLA needed to modernize.
4 China saw the punitive war against Vietnam as well as that against India
5 to be defensive in nature.65 Deng declared the war a victory for China despite
6 concerns about the financial costs expressed by some high CCP officials (Chen
7
Yun). He stressed that “the PLA could have gone all the way to Hanoi if they
8
wanted.”66 Chen King states that the war decision-making process was
9
“gradual” and “pragmatic” and “it was a step-by-step development of a
40111
causal relationship rather than a hasty decision prompted by an unexpected
1
incident.”67 Despite the external and internal contributing factors, “Deng’s
2
leadership was an indispensable element to the accomplishment of the
3
44111 decision making process.”68
74
1111 Deng Xiaoping: what kind of leader?

2
Deng’s belief system resembles the key beliefs of the average world leader.
3
Deng’s view of the political universe (P-1 = .291) in Table 4.2 is very close to
4
the mean for the norming group (P-1 = .250), and he is also close to the
5
norming group’s view regarding the control of historical development (Deng
6
P-4 = .207, Group P-4 = .212). Regarding the strategic orientation index,
7
Deng (I-1 = .408) is not significantly more cooperative than the norming group
8
(I-1 = .334). Table 4.2 also presents a comparison of Deng with Mao and
9
Zhou. Although of the same revolutionary generation of Chinese leaders,
1011
Mao and Zhou turned out to be realists in varying degrees, while Deng’s
1
statistical scores show that he is a Confucian.69
2
3111
4 Deng ’s beliefs
5
Are Deng’s beliefs stable? Is Deng inherently a Confucian, or do his beliefs
6
change over different situations? The Sino-Indian War was a case that showed
7
Deng was a Confucian during the 1960s when China was having a difficult
8
time with both the US and the Soviet Union. However, as Deng was not in
9
control of the final decisions in the 1960s, his beliefs in the Sino-Vietnamese
20111
War become a crucial test to see if Deng’s beliefs were different than during
1
the Sino-Indian War. As Figure 4.3 shows, the war situation did not have a
2
significant impact on Deng’s beliefs leading up to the Sino-Vietnamese conflict.
3
He remained a Confucian leader throughout the Sino-Vietnamese war.
4
In Figure 4.3, Deng’s Self beliefs shift from Type C to Type A to Type C,
5
remaining a Confucian from pre-war to war and to post-war time (the Sino-
6
Vietnamese War), though Deng changes toward less cooperative beliefs during
7
wartime. However, the Sino-Vietnamese War was not such a severe threat to
8
the PRC’s national survival as the Korean War. The Vietnamese were not
9
challenging a superpower rival. Although North Vietnam was a Soviet ally,
30111
the Soviets did not become involved. The Chinese fought to teach the
1
Vietnamese a lesson and not for territorial gain or survival. Therefore, the
2
relative stability of Deng’s beliefs could be due to the less severe external
3
threat, as well as his inherent personality as a Confucian leader. On the other
4
hand, the general consistency of Deng’s beliefs as a Confucian leader facing
5
the Indians and the Vietnamese indicates that Deng can be a true Confucian
6
leader with a cooperative orientation.
7
This lack of variation in Deng’s beliefs, therefore, may partly reflect the
8
fact that the Vietnam War was a regional war fought between China and a
9
regional medium power. It also occurred when China was trying to court the
40111
US to form a de facto alliance relationship against the Soviet Union.
1
Internationally, Deng (who was paying a historic visit to the US in 1979 before
2
the Sino-Vietnamese War and after Vietnam invaded Cambodia) focused on
3
presenting an appropriate image to the world and the US in the hope of
44111
75
1111 Table 4.2 A comparison of the general operational codes of Mao, Zhou, and Deng
2 with the norming group of world leaders
3
Mao Norming Deng Zhou
4 (N = 44) group (N = 72) (N = 11)
5 (N = 255)a
6
P-1 Nature of political universe –.087*** .250 .291 .224
9 P-2 Realization of political values –.118*** .118 .169* .102
P-4 Historical development .192 .212 .207 .193
4 P-5 Role of chance .960 .968 .970 .979
7 I-1 Strategic approach to goals –.083*** .334 .408 .249
9 I-2 Intensity of tactics –.141*** .139 .179 .075
I-3 Risk orientation .365 .304 .379** .218
3 a. Conflict/cooperation .542 .509 .449 .731
4 b. Words/deeds .587 .525 .531* .589
Reward .099** .167 .152 .151
6 Promise .033** .073 .043** .016
7 Appeal .326** .427 .508** .460*
8 Oppose .235** .147 .179 .193
9 Threaten .043 .047 .014** .023
30111 Punish .264*** .138 .103 .162
1 Notes:
2 * Significant at P < .10 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
** Significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
4 a For P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, the speech number for the norming group is 264. The data
5 are provided by Prof. Mark Schafer from Louisiana State University.
6
7 gaining international and US support.70 In addition, the Sino-Vietnamese War
8 was fought to teach a lesson to the Vietnamese for the invasion of Cambodia
9 and to fight against Soviet and Vietnamese hegemonism in the region. The
40111 Soviet Union was not actually involved in the war aside from some military
1 claims and ideological support to the new alliance in Asia.
2 Ultimately, who Deng was and what kind of leader he was did matter in
3 his foreign policy decisions for the Sino-Vietnamese War. Deng came into
44111 power at the end of the Cultural Revolution. The Sino-Vietnamese War was
76
1111
2
3 CONFUCIAN
4
5 Type A Type C
(P-1/ I-1)
6 +2.0
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 +1.5
1011 |
1 |
|
2 |
+1.0
3111 |
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 +.50
7 |
DP'WO(–.29,.30) * | * DP'WS(.29,.37)
8 | *
DPWO(–.02,.13) * | DPWS(.02, .19)
9
(P-4) –.20 -------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50----*------ +. 00-----*------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5----------- 2.0 (P-4)
20111 DWS(–.27,.01) | DWO(.27, .01)
1 |
|
2 |
–.50
3 |
4 |
|
5 |
–1.0
6 |
7 |
|
8 |
–1.5
9 |
30111 |
|
1 |
2 –2.0
3
5
6 PARABELLUM
7
8
Figure 4.3 The operational code of Deng Xiaoping for pre-war, war, and post-war
9 periods in the Sino-Vietnamese War
40111
The following abbreviations are used above: DPWS = Deng Pre-War Self; DPWO = Deng
1 Pre-War Other; DWS = Deng War Self; DWO = Deng War Other; DPvWS = Deng Post-War
2 Self; DPvWO = Deng Post-War Other. ➝ Indicates the way Self moves from pre-war to war to
3 post-war periods. Self scores are in bold.
44111
77
1111 fought right after he took control of the government.71 Deng modified Mao’s
2 view of “world war.” While Mao and other leaders believed that the Third
3 World War was unavoidable or (later) unavoidable but “postponable,”72
4 Deng judged that “it was possible that no large-scale war would erupt for a
5 fairly long time to come and there was hope of maintaining world peace.”73
6 Based on this assessment of the nature of the political universe, Deng focused
7 on national economic development to realize the “four modernizations.”
8 In this shift, China concentrated on “economic construction” or “modern-
9 ization” instead of “class struggle.” China showed a less confrontational
1011 posture in the international arena. China decreased its direct security threats,
1 increased its international stature and accrued substantial benefits from the
2 West-dominated international finance, trade and technological systems.74 For
3 Deng and his successors, under the new goal of “economic development” the
4 main task for the military is not to win a forthcoming war, but to prevent
5 the eruption of war or military conflict, which could hinder or destroy eco-
6 nomic development. According to the Defense White Paper issued in 1998,
7 “the work in defense must be subordinate to, and in the service of, the nation’s
8 overall economic construction.”75
9 Deng’s actual security practices demonstrated that he was still thinking on
20111 the basis of military alliance or alignment and balance of power theory.
1 Compared with Mao’s revolutionary propensities, however, Deng was
2 generally more cooperative and pragmatic in security thinking. As Whiting
3 states, China’s primary security motivations have ranged historically across
4 a variety of situations and responses: preemption of perceived attack (Korea),
5 deterrence (the US in Vietnam and the Soviet Union along the Sino-Soviet
6 border), coercion (India, Vietnam), and coercive diplomacy (Taiwan).76
7
8 Deng’s general game and the Sino-Vietnamese War
9
30111 To better understand Deng’s strategic preferences and how he interacted with
1 others, Deng’s subjective games are analyzed below, in general and during the
2 Sino-Vietnamese War. Deng’s identity as a Confucian leader is further proven
3 in his general subjective game. Deng chooses to stay at the initial state of
4 settlement and predicts that the other side will stay as well. Therefore, a
5 mutual cooperative outcome should prevail (4,4). This win-win preference
6 does not change in his subjective games during the Sino-Vietnamese War, and
7 his subjective games for pre-war, war, and post-war periods are the same. For
8 the pre-war game Deng chooses to stay and predicts that the Vietnamese will
9 stay at the initial settlement state as well. Although the Soviets promised
40111 to help the Vietnamese as an ally, Deng thinks that internationally and
1 domestically the Vietnamese will not fight the Chinese as both are Third World
2 brothers.
3 Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia changed that picture. The Soviet’s
44111 invasion of Afghanistan also alerted the Chinese to the possibility of Soviet
intervention in Chinese neighboring affairs. Although Deng’s strategy changes
78
1111 from “stay” to “move” following the Cambodian invasion, he still prefers
2 settlement. Deng chooses to move to war (3,3) from submission (1,2), and
3 the PLA overruns major strategic cities and defeats Hanoi’s forces in those
4 battles (2,1).
5
6
7 Deng’s general game and pre-war Vietnam game
8 Other Other Other
9 CO CF CO CF CO CF
CO “4,4”*@ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*A" 1,2
1011
1 Self ? B China Self B ?
3111 Deng Self Strategy: China Outcomes Deng Other Strategy:
Stay Stay
4
(I-1, P-4a) Self (+ = ) (P-1, P-4b) Other (+ = )
5
are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked. (Dom = Dominate; D/lock = Deadlock)
9
20111
1
2 Deng’s war game following Vietnam’s invasion
3 Other Vietnam Other
4 CO CF CO CF CO CF
5 CO 4,4 A" “1,2” CO Settle Submit CO 4,4 @ “1,2”
6 China B ? China Self ? B
7 CF 2,1 @ 3,3* CF Dom D/lock CF 2,1 A 3,3*
8 Deng Self’s Strategy: China Outcomes Deng Other’s Strategy:
9 Move Move
5
6
7 Deng announced a decision to withdraw from Vietnam following his
8 military victories. Deng thereby chose cooperation and predicted the same
9 for Vietnam in his post-war game. The Sino-Vietnamese War made Deng
40111 further aware of the shortcomings of the PLA and the need for Chinese
1 modernization. Although he claimed a triumph, the war dealt a heavy blow
to the state and the PLA. The scars of the Cultural Revolution on the nation
2
and the army further pushed Deng to reforms. Given also the heavy casualties
3
on the battlefield, Deng decided that the strategic objective was obtained and,
44111
therefore, signaled a willingness to reach a settlement.
79
1111 Deng’s post-war game

2
3 Other Vietnam Other
CO CF CO CF CO CF
4
CO 4,4* A"1,2 CO Settle Submit CO 4,4* @ 1,2
5
6 China B ? China China ? B
7 CF “2,1”"@ 3,3* CF Dom D/lock CF “2,1” A 3,3*
8 Deng Self’s Post-war China Outcomes Deng Other’s Post-war
9 Strategy: Move Strategy: Move
5
6
7
8 Conclusion
9 It was during the height of the cold war that China fought three wars against
20111 a major power to assist a brother buffer state and against two regional powers
1 to teach them (India and Vietnam) a lesson. Chinese leaders (Mao mainly)
2 decided to enter the Korean War when US/UN forces crossed the 38th Parallel.
3 The Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars escalated from border disputes,77
4 which had been in existence for some time. Both wars were limited, involving
5 only the army for a short duration (Sino-Indian War for 30 days and Sino-
6 Vietnamese War for 16 days) with a unilateral withdrawal from the Chinese
7 side. To the outside world, these wars still featured power politics. However,
8 an in-depth analysis of external, international, and leadership causes seems
9 to confirm that it was not simply ideology and national interest that were the
30111 driving force for Chinese decision. Allen Whiting states “China’s primary
1 motivations included preemption of perceived attack (Korea), deterrence (the
2 US in Vietnam and the Soviet Union along the Sino-Soviet border), coercion
3 (India, Vietnam), and coercive diplomacy (Taiwan).78 China’s use of force
4 shows “flexibility in theory and pragmatism in practice.”79
5 Overall, the preceding analysis of Chinese decision-making in three wars
6 during the cold war era indicates that China’s use of force was defensive in
7 nature, depending remarkably on key leaders’ beliefs and perceptions of threat
8 from the external environment and domestic situations. Their analysis was
9 based on definitions of these situations in line with their beliefs, which then
40111 determined their policy choices. The international situation provided the
1 framework and constraints while domestic and internal politics played into
2 the needs and beliefs of leaders in key positions.
3
44111
80
1111
2
3
5
4
5 POST-COLD WAR CHINA
6
7 UNDER NEW LEADERS
8
9 Jiang and Hu–Wen
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111 After over 20 years of Deng’s reforms, China is rising. There have been
1 increasing concerns worldwide over the strategic implications of growing
2 Chinese power. US scholars and policy makers debate and shift between two
3 policies towards a rising China. One is an engagement policy focusing on the
4 possible socialization of China through promoting bilateral trade and
5 involving China in international institutions, thus reining in the rising power
6 to play the rules of the game like others.1 The other is a containment policy
7 constraining China’s rise before its military and economic power becomes an
8 overwhelming challenge to the US. The latter assumes China is a revisionist
9 state, and measures should be taken to stop it from seeking hegemony in the
30111 Asia Pacific region or worldwide.2
1 Cultural realists have stressed that an offensive strategic culture was
2 internalized by Chinese leaders, leading to an offensive Chinese grand strategy
3 in history and in the Mao era.3 However, Johnston recently argued that China
4 may have entered a transitory period in the 1980s and 1990s between Maoist
5 revisionism and post-Jiang quasi-fascism.4 This period saw some status quo-
6 oriented diplomacy by China. He cautions that neither a revisionist nor a
7 status quo status is static, but changes according to contexts or contingencies.
8 In other words, today’s status quo China can turn into a revisionist one
9 tomorrow.
40111 Does a rising China have the intentions and motivations to challenge the
1 system? Are the new leaders Parabellum realists? Do they possess revisionist
2 beliefs? States’ strategic preferences are determined not only by power alone.
3 External situations and threats are perceived through state leaders. Leaders’
44111 perceptions go through their prism of beliefs, which reflects their cultural
81
P O S T- C O L D WA R C H I N A U N D E R J I A N G A N D H U - W E N
1111 spectrum. To understand completely the historical trajectory of Chinese

2 foreign policy behavior, analyzing leaders’ beliefs is essential. The tension
3 created by a rising China in the academic field has overheated ever since the
4 end of the cold war when ambiguity prevailed in the international system in
5 terms of identifying friends and enemies. China came to the spotlight mainly
6 due to its increasing comprehensive national power5 as a result of normal
7 Chinese development.6 The claim that China is revisionist by nature of its
8 increasing power is problematic for several reasons.
9 First, this proposition ignores historical occasions when China has had the
1011 opportunity to expand but did not. Second, the focus of the claim is merely
1 on military and economic development, which might be normal for any state
2 of China’s size and experiencing development. Third, the hot spots for
3 potential Chinese aggressive behavior are not innate, but a legacy from
4 Chinese historical humiliation. Fourth, and most important, current Chinese
5 leaders are not inevitably revisionist leaders. Under some international
6 and domestic conditions, for example, international crises, they might act
7 aggressively in response to the stimuli of external or internal pressures.
8 However, it may be the case that diplomatic and cooperative means are
9 actually preferred and acted upon whenever there is an opportunity. The
20111 following analysis will test whether current Chinese leaders think like
1 revisionist Parabellum or accommodationist Confucian leaders.
2 The containment school of China experts claim that China, given its size,
3 population, and rapid economic growth, is closing the power disparity gap
4 with the US and poses a very dangerous systemic threat. In addition, China
5 has many unsettled issues with neighboring states and with the US. China has
6 never given up the use of force to recover Taiwan if Taiwan should declare
7 independence. China consistently opposes US arms sales to Taiwan and
8 insists on other countries’ declaration of “one China” as a prerequisite for
9 developing peaceful relations. Further, the containment school asserts that
30111 China does not obey the old international rules and intends to set up a new
1 order with rules against US interests. Last, so Johnston argues, China has a
2 history of aggression and revolution under a Parabellum strategic cultural
3 influence.
4 Because scholars in the field of international relations have long focused on
5 the European system and have “often simply employed concepts, theories, and
6 experiences derived from the European experience to project onto and explain
7 Asia,”7 there is a need for a new analytical framework to look into China’s
8 foreign behavior. It is difficult to say if China is a revisionist or status quo
9 power, because the current analytical frameworks do not provide us with
40111 a distinctive tool of judgment; the “quality and quantity of revisionism in a
1 state’s policy are not static properties,”8 but change over time and across
2 issues. Even “rising powers vary in their degree of dissatisfaction with the
3 status quo.”9 Therefore, it seems futile to discuss how to meet the China
44111 challenge with these tools.10
82
1111 David Kang argues that, historically, “when China has been strong and
2 stable, order has been preserved [in Asia],” and “it has been Chinese weakness
3 that has led to chaos in Asia.”11 Therefore, a strong and stable China implies
4 a stabilizing force in the regional and international order, countering the
5 predictions of many Western scholars. And “China seems no more revisionist
6 or adventurous now than it was before the end of the Cold War.”12 Even
7 Johnston admits, “the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is more integrated
8 into, and more cooperative within, regional and global political and economic
9 systems than ever in its history.”13 In his speech during his recent visit to
1011 Harvard, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stressed that China is a rising power
1 dedicated to peace. He also emphasized Chinese culture and history by saying
2 that “the cultural element will have a more important role to play in the new
3111 century.” The Chinese culture emphasizes peace and harmony, and, in Tolstoy’s
4 words, “the Chinese nation is the most peace-loving nation in the world.”14
5
6
New leadership and new environment: new beliefs?
7
8 The end of the cold war also witnessed the change of Chinese leadership from
9 Deng Xiaoping to his chosen successor Jiang Zemin. The systemic changes
20111 and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union brought about significant
1 changes in China’s security environment. Furthermore, after decades of
2 reforms and opening up, the domestic situation of China also changed. Under
3 these changes, and given China’s unique political culture, it is important to
4 study whether Chinese foreign policy changes as well and if the new leadership
5 will turn more aggressive in their behavior.
6 Some Chinese scholars argue that the early years of the post-cold war was
7 the “best period of China’s security environment since the foundation of the
8 PRC in 1949.”15 With the collapse of the Soviet Union, China no longer faced
9 a direct military threat in the North. Moreover, improvement of bilateral
30111 relations with the surrounding countries provided China with a more relaxed
1 external environment. Thus, since the 1990s, Chinese leaders officially have
2 no enemies and have not even “decided which threats are greatest.”16 The
3 Chinese leadership was able to pay more attention to its internal security
4 problems, such as separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang,
5 the social turbulence resulting from institutional reforms, epidemics such as
6 AIDS, and the “soft threat” of “peaceful evolution” from the West, aimed
7 at changing the social values and ideology of China. How they handle these
8 issues seriously threatens the legitimacy of the Communist Party.
9 Primary concern over Sino-US relations continues to increase, because “the
40111 US was the only foreign power capable of directly threatening China’s
1 security.”17 The Chinese leaders predicted a multipolar world after the cold
2 war in which China would play a more appropriate role as a major power
3 like the EU, Japan, and Russia. However, several events have changed this
44111 perception, as Chinese leaders see a more unilateralist trend in US foreign
83
1111 policy decisions particularly in the current Bush administration. First, the US
2 economic decline has been less severe since 1992. Second, the US military
3 actions in the Gulf and Kosovo made the Chinese leadership realize that US
4 military power was far ahead of the PLA. Third, Chinese leaders perceived a
5 more threatening US from collisions between the two powers over the Taiwan
6 Strait in 1996, the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in 1999, and the EP-3
7 airplane incident in 2001. Fourth, the US strengthened its alliances with many
8 Pacific Asian states—Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines. In
9 1996 and 1997, the US strengthened the military alliance with Japan through
1011 revision of the “Guidelines of US-Japan Defense Cooperation.”
1 For China, this strengthening of the military alliance will certainly improve
2 Japan’s military capabilities as well as its financial and technological ability
3 to develop sophisticated power-projection capabilities on very short notice.18
4 On the other hand, Beijing is wary of the US deploying a theater missile
5 defense (TMD) in Japan and Taiwan, which would degrade China’s second-
6 strike nuclear retaliatory capability. It is especially suspicious that the
7 guideline’s ambiguity regarding the scope of the treaty obscures the US and
8 Japanese intent to cooperate on the Taiwan issue.19
9 The changes in the international situation from the early 1990s to the late
20111 1990s demanded that the new leader in China—Jiang Zemin—search for a
1 “new way of thinking” as he leads China into the early twenty-first century.20
2 Chinese leaders initially saw the world right after the cold war as one moving
3 toward “multipolarity,” with the US as the sole superpower together with
4 other major powers—China, Japan, and Europe. Shambaugh has argued:
5
6 [F]rom China’s perspective, unipolarity was a far worse state of
7 affairs than bipolarity. China would prefer to find itself in a mutipolar
8 world in which U.S. global power declines absolutely and regional
9 powers, such as China, are able to resist external interference in their
30111 respective regions.21
1
2 Under this perception China improved its bilateral “partnership” or “strategic
3 relationship” with major regional powers, including Japan, Russia, Europe,
4 and ASEAN in the 1990s.
5 In response to NATO expansion and the US military alliances and security
6 ties worldwide perceived by Chinese leaders as an effort to encircle China,
7 Jiang’s leadership formulated a “New Security Concept.”22 The fundamental
8 difference between the “new security concept” and “the military alliance
9 theory” is the divergence over the understanding of what forms the basis of
40111 international security. According to the New Security Concept, common
1 interests, not military capabilities, are the prerequisite for security; and mutual
2 confidence-building measures (CBMs), not military balance or military
3 deterrence, are the means for security.23 Shambaugh argued, “Despite its
44111 Pollyannaish prescription for peace and harmony among nations, the new
84
1111 security concept does represent the most systematic and official exposition of
2 China’s prescriptive view, to date, of how international relations should be
3 conducted and security maintained.”24
4 The New Security Concept (NSC) has contributed to shaping a new security
5 strategy for China’s new leaders.25 By the end of the Deng leadership, China
6 had begun to loosen ties with the US and advocated an independent policy of
7 peace, the central point of which is reactive and passive, that is, it aimed to
8 avoid involvement in war or conflict. Compared with this non-alignment
9 approach, the NSC emphasizes actively preventing war and conflict through
1011 CBMs, dialogue, and consultation. The NSC helps China get actively involved
1 in international affairs and, according to China’s leaders, the CBMs and
2 dialogues as advocated in the NSC will make it easy for China to gain political
3111 support, because it is based on the “virtue and morality” (ren and yi) standard
4 of Confucianism.26
5 In building and modernizing the Chinese military, Jiang continued the
6 military downsizing and modernization policy. In September 1997, China
7 announced a reduction of military personnel by 500,000 within three years
8 in addition to the one million downsizing move in the 1980s. This effort has
9 continued after Hu Jintao assumed power in early 2003. Both Jiang and Hu
20111 have continued to emphasize the quality of the military by implementing the
1 Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) to bring China’s defense into a high-
2 technology-focused information age. According to Jiang, “any future war
3 would be a war involving high-technology, a war of multiple dimensions,
4 a war of electronics and a war of missiles.”27 Thus, preparing a “high-
5 technology war” has become the new military strategy guiding the RMA
6 of the PLA since the 1990s.
7 Hu Jintao came to power facing an even more complicated international
8 situation. New threats emerged from terrorist groups, from epidemics (SARS),
9 from domestic chaos (worker lay offs, separatists, growing dissatisfaction of
30111 the general public over the party’s rule, and corruption) and, most significant
1 of all, from a new conservative Bush administration that declared China and
2 the US are strategic adversaries. Under this situation, world attention focused
3 on how the new leader would handle the situation. Most of all, would Hu
4 show any significant difference from previous leaders over issues such as
5 Taiwan? Would he continue the policies of Deng and Jiang?
6 As both Jiang and Hu are leaders with no revolutionary background, they
7 experience some similar difficulties in their leadership. First, after Deng it
8 takes a new leader some time to move out of the shadow of previous leaders
9 and put forward their own worldviews. In terms of security and foreign policy,
40111 Jiang has put forward the NSC. We have yet to see what Hu will bring to his
1 leadership. But the expectation of change is already high, as Hu is the first
2 leader highly educated domestically (Jiang was educated in the former Soviet
3 Union). Second, the new leaders will have to deal with the tremendous
44111 changes in the international situation as well as severe domestic issues, despite
85
1111 rapid economic development. Third, how well they handle Sino-US relations
2 will be the essential indicator of their foreign policy with implications for
3 domestic politics. As Robert Ross has argued, the US as the sole superpower
4 “plays a critical role in determining whether China can realize both of these
5 (international and domestic) security objectives.”28 Whether China and the US
6 can become strategic partners, strategic competitors, or strategic adversaries
7 will have implications for both governments.
8 After the cold war ended in the 1990s, the relationship between China and
9 the US became more ambiguous than ever. If the bilateral relationship between
1011 China and the US can be described as friends or enemies during the cold war,
1 there is no such discrete term to define the relationship in the post-cold war
2 era. China used to make optimistic assessments of the security environment
3 and its future relations with the US. Thus, China actively responded to the US
4 policy of “constructive engagement,” and cultivated a “constructive strategic
5 partnership” with the US during the Clinton years. This was especially
6 apparent in 1997 during the state visit of President Jiang to Washington. The
7 short honeymoon was disturbed during the Kosovo crisis, by US arms sales
8 to Taiwan, the EP-3 incident, and the new conservative administration’s
9 way of handling world affairs (wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). A strong,
20111 pessimistic, nationalist sentiment prevails both among the political elite
1 and the ordinary people in China. Even some Western scholars assess that the
2 terrorist attacks of September 11 will not provide much opportunity for the
3 two countries to cooperate, and, in the long term, Chinese and US interests
4 will still collide, especially over the Taiwan issue, with human rights, trade,
5 and international institutions as minor flashpoints.
6 Obviously, it is not in the interests of China to initiate a conflict with the
7 US. As Ross notes:
8
9 For China, the strategic imperative is to maintain an international
30111 environment in which it can focus its scarce resources on economic
1 modernization. And America’s overwhelming strategic power, its
2 economic superiority, and its strategic influence in East Asia make
3 China extremely vulnerable to conflict with the United States.29
4
Moreover:
5
6 Washington can challenge core Chinese interests, such as the status
7 of Taiwan, and pose a severe challenge to the Chinese military,
8 imposing prohibitively high costs on the Chinese economy and the
9 national budget and fundamentally transforming China’s strategic
40111 environment and derailing its modernization plans.30
1
2 Therefore, how Jiang and Hu as new Chinese leaders perceive the world and
3 the US, and what means they will prefer—cooperation or competition—will
44111 have a determining impact on the future of world peace. Jiang still exerts
86
1111 some influence over the decision-making through his protégés; he may also
2 continue to play some role, but a much lesser and diminishing one, as Hu
3 establishes himself further.
4 Roy criticizes the Jiang NSC as a strategic reaction to American
5 predominance and not a real change in belief.31 This chapter will measure the
6 operational code beliefs of the two Chinese leaders for a preliminary look at
7 the strategic preferences of the new leaders. If Western scholars such as Roy
8 are right, the revisionist Chinese leaders should display beliefs that change
9 over time toward being more conflictual. They should prefer more aggressive
1011 strategies to cooperative ones. They should become more conflict-oriented
1 than the average world leader.
2
3111 Jiang and Hu: what kinds of leaders?
4
5 A comparison of mean scores of Jiang and Hu with a norming group of world
6 leaders and Wen is shown in Table 5.1. As seen from the results, the
operational code profiles of Jiang and Hu are very close to each other and are
7
more cooperative than the average world leader. The P-1, P-4, and I-1 scores
8
for both leaders are significantly different from the norming group averages.
9
Jiang and Hu see the nature of the political universe as very friendly (P-1 =
20111
.536 for Jiang and P-1 = .517 for Hu as compared to P-1 = .250 for the
1
norming group), and they prefer cooperative strategies (I-1 = .689 for Jiang
2
and I-1 = .608 for Hu as compared to I-1 = .334 for the norming group). Both
3
show a relatively low control over historical development for self, significantly
4
lower than the norming group (P-4 = .117 for Jiang and P-4 = .153 for Hu as
5
compared to P-4 = .212 for the norming group). These results indicate that
6
Jiang and Hu are Confucian leaders with very cooperative orientations above
7
the means for the norming group of world leaders.32
8
9
30111 Are their beliefs stable?
1 Are Jiang and Hu true Confucian leaders or are they simply hiding their
2 revisionist beliefs to wait for the right opportunity? It is necessary to test and
3 see if different situational factors seriously impact on their beliefs and how
4 their beliefs change over situations. To accomplish this, two crises are
5 analyzed, the 1999 Embassy bombing and the 2001 EP-3 incident. Jiang was
6 in control of decision-making during the two crises while Hu was in a
7 subordinate position. The two crises affected several of the two leaders’
8 beliefs. Jiang turned consistently more optimistic about the realization of the
9 political future (P-2) from pre-crisis to crisis to post-crisis periods, but Hu’s
40111 view changed towards more optimistic during a crisis and then back to
1 pre-crisis level. Hu’s view of the political future (P-3) changed towards
2 more predictability from pre-crisis to crisis and then back to about pre-crisis
3 level for the post-crisis period. Jiang’s change was linear towards higher
44111 predictability from pre-crisis to crisis to post-crisis periods.33
87
1111 Table 5.1 A comparison of the operational codes of Jiang, Hu, and Wen with the
2 norming group
3
Jiang Hu Norming Wen
4 (N = 41) (N = 32) groupa (N = 8)
5 (N = 255)
6
P-1 Nature of political universe .536*** .517*** .250 .579**
9 P-2 Realization of political values .365*** .356*** .118 .410**
P-4 Historical development .117*** .153** .212 .205
4 P-5 Role of chance .980* .973 .967 .968
7 I-1 Strategic approach to goals .689*** .608** .334 .591
9 I-2 Intensity of tactics .335*** .305** .139 .271
I-3 Risk orientation .477*** .405** .304 .303
3 a. Conflict/cooperation .311*** .371** .509 .409
4 b. Words/deeds .342*** .460 .525 .464
Reward .158 .189 .167 .160
6 Promise .114* .058 .073 .070
7 Appeal .572*** .556** .427 .569
8 Oppose .092** .125 .147 .109
9 Threaten .013* .018 .047 .021
30111 Punish .051** .055** .138 .074
1 Notes:
** Significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
4 a The scores are provided by Mark Schafer, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State
5 University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. The norming group at the time this book was written
contained 255 written speeches by 35 world leaders.
6
7
8 Both Jiang and Hu tended to use fewer threats during a crisis time than
9 pre-crisis or post-crisis periods (pre-crisis/crisis/post-crisis I-5 TH scores for
40111 Jiang: .042, .001, .006; Hu: .037, .000, .010). Jiang became increasingly prone
1 to use punishment tactics from pre-crisis to crisis to post-crisis while Hu was
2 more likely to use punishment tactics for post-crisis but less likely to use
3 punishment during a crisis (pre-crisis/crisis/post-crisis I-5PU scores for Jiang:
44111 .020, .054, .067 and Hu: .015, .000, .093).34
88
1111 The audience factor also mattered, as the two leaders’ beliefs changed
2 before international and domestic audiences (P-1, P-2, P-4). Hu’s view of the
3 nature of the political universe (P-1) turned much less friendly than Jiang’s
4 when facing an international audience. Although both Jiang and Hu were
5 more optimistic facing an international audience in terms of realization
6 of political values, Jiang’s change was sharper. Jiang’s view of control of
7 historical development (P-4) dropped significantly facing an international
8 audience while Hu exhibited significantly higher control in front of an
9 international audience than a domestic audience. As a result, Jiang attributed
1011 a greater role to chance before an international audience (.978 as compared
1 to .969 for domestic audience) while Hu saw a much lesser role for chance
2 before an international audience (.953 compared to a domestic audience .976)
3111 (P-5: p = .074).35
4 These results reveal some statistically significant changes in various beliefs
5 for the same leader under different conditions and a few differences between
6 the leaders in different circumstances. Although there were no changes
7 significant enough to undermine the results for the key beliefs regarding the
8 nature of the political universe (P-1) and strategic orientation (I-1), there were
9 enough significant changes in the belief regarding locus of control (P-4) to
20111 differentiate the two leaders under certain circumstances and locate them in
1 different quadrants of the Holsti typology. The following figures show the
2 coordinates for each leader’s image of Self (P-4a, I-1) and Other (P-4b, P-1)
3 when they are plotted on the axes of the Holsti typology with the mean scores
4 for P-4 on the horizontal axis and the mean scores for P-1 and I-1 on the
5 vertical axis as coordinates above or below the mean for the norming group
6 of world leaders.
7 The general Self images of Jiang and Hu in Figure 5.1 are located in the Type
8 A quadrant with mean scores for I-1 above the mean and P-4a scores below
9 the mean for the norming group. Their Type A strategic preferences for
30111 different political outcomes are settle > deadlock > domination > submission,
1 which indicate that the two leaders have an accommodationist-defensive
2 strategic orientation. They view others generally as Type C leaders who
3 are above the norming group mean on both P-1 and P-4b. The strategic pref-
4 erences attributed to Other are settle > domination > deadlock > submission,
5 which indicates that Jiang and Hu generally view the political universe as one
6 in which settlement is possible between Self and Others, though there is a risk
7 of being dominated unless China is willing to resist.
8 The locations of the two leaders in the Holsti typology are generally stable
9 during crisis and non-crisis periods, before domestic and international
40111 audiences, and in the subordinate and head roles. They remain Type A leaders
1 in a Type C world with one exception. Jiang’s (P-4) locus of control index goes
2 down sharply in the international domain while increasing in the domestic
3 domain during crisis situations. During non-crisis periods, however, Jiang’s
44111 P-4 index remains below the mean of the norming group resulting in a
89
1111 Type A self-image and a Type C image of others. Overall, the statistically
2 significant differences in the beliefs of Jiang and Hu do not translate into
3 substantively significant differences. That is, changes in the key beliefs (P-1,
4 I-1, P-4) do not move Jiang and Hu from Confucian quadrants to Parabellum
5 quadrants in the Holsti typology.36
6
7
8
9 CONFUCIAN
1011 Type A Type C
1 (P-1/ I-1)
+2.0
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
+1.5
5 |
6 |
|
7 |
8 +1.0 *WO(.10,1. 0 0 )
| *JO(.50,.91)
9 WS(–.10,.67) * |
20111 JS(–.50,.59) * | *HO(.50,.78)
|
1 +.50
|
2 HS(–.50,.46)* |
3 |
|
4
(P-4) –2.0 -------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50 ---------- +. 00-----------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5--------- 2.0 (P-4)
5 |
6 |
|
7 |
–.50
8 |
9 |
|
30111 |
1 –1.0
|
2 |
|
3 |
4 –1.5
|
5 |
|
6 |
7 –2.0
9
40111 PARABELLUM
1
2 Figure 5.1 The operational codes of Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Wen Jiabao
3 The following abbreviations are used above: JS = Jiang’s Self; JO = Jiang’s Other; HS = Hu’s Self;
44111 HO = Hu’s Other; WS = Wen’s Self; WO = Wen’s Other. Self scores are in bold.
90
1111
CONFUCIAN
2
Type A Type C
3 (P-1/ I-1)
4 +2.0
|
5 |
6 |
|
7 +1.5
|
8 | *JP' CO(.65,1.03)
9 +1.0
JPCS(–.69,.87) * | *HCO(.54,.96)
1011 *JCS(–.92,.80) | *HPCO(.90,.89)
HCS(–.54,.76) * | *HP'CO(.19,.77) *JCO(.92,.71)
1 *JP’CS(–.65,.63) |
2 HPCS(–.90,.61)* +.50 *JPCO(.69,.69)
HP'CS(–.1 9,.51) * |
3111 |
4 DP'WO(–.29,.30) * |
| * *
* DP'WS(.29,.37)
* ZP'WO(.26,.31)
5 DPWO(–.02,.13) * | DPWS(.02, .19) ZPWO(.18,.19)
6 (P-4) –2.0 -------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50----*------ +. 00-----*------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5----------- 2.0 (P-4)
DWS(–.27,.01) | DWO(.27, .01)
7 ZWS(–.66, –.16) * |
| *ZWO(.66,–.38)
8 ZPWS(–.18,–.31) * |
9 –.50
|
20111 | *MWS(.50,–.70)
MP'WS(–.41,–.85) * | *MP'WO(.41,–.94)
1 ZP'WS(–.26,–.94) * | *MPWO(.30,–.95)
2 –1.0
|
3 |
4 MWO(–.50,–1.42) *
|
|
5 –1.5
|
6 |
7 |
|
8
–2.0
9 *
30111 MPWS(–.30,–3.92)

2
PARABELLUM
3
4
5 Figure 5.2 The operational codes of China’s leaders in different situations
6 The following abbreviations are used above: MPWS = Mao Pre-War Self; MPWO = Mao
7 Pre-War Other; MWS = Mao War Self; MWO = Mao War Other; MPvWS = Mao Post-War Self;
MPvWO = Mao Post-War Other; ZPWS = Zhou Pre-War Self; ZPWO = Zhou Pre-War Other;
9 DPWS = Deng Pre-War Self; DPWO = Deng Pre-War Other; DWS = Deng War Self; DWO = Deng
40111 War Other; DPvWS = Deng Post-War Self; DPvWO = Deng Post-War Other; JPCS = Jiang
Pre-Crisis Self; JPCO = Jiang Pre-Crisis Other; JCS = Jiang Crisis Self; JCO = Jiang Crisis Other;
1 JPvCS = Jiang Post-Crisis Self; JPvCO = Jiang Post-Crisis Other; HPCS = Hu Pre-Crisis Self; HPCO
2 = Hu Pre-Crisis Other; HCS = Hu Crisis Self; HCO = Hu Crisis Other; HPvCS = Hu Post-Crisis
3 Self; HPvCO = Hu Post-Crisis Other. Mao, Zhou and Deng’s scores are in bold.
44111
91
1111 This analysis suggests that the two current Chinese leaders are not
2 revisionist leaders with aggressive intentions. Both show a very low historical
3 control, much lower than the average world leader and their predecessors—
4 Mao, Zhou, and Deng. A comparison of the two current leaders’ operational
5 code beliefs with their two predecessors—Mao and Deng—is in Figure 5.2.
6 It is very obvious that the generational differences of beliefs of the four leaders
7 are towards more cooperation, with Mao being the only leader with a
8 consistent pattern of Parabellum beliefs across crisis and non-crisis situations.
9 The world after the cold war is one of much ambiguity. The Chinese domestic
1011 situation is complicated as well. Further, the two leaders are from a younger
1 generation with much less experience and prestige compared to the two
2 revolutionary leaders. Therefore, their operational code beliefs display less
3 confidence and control. They also remain cooperatively oriented in their
4 major beliefs. Their belief changes are not sharp enough to bring about
5 enduring shifts in strategic preferences. They remain very cooperative Type
6 A leaders despite changes in role, situation, and audience and some differences
7 in the direction and degree of changes between Jiang and Hu.37
8
9 The subjective games of Jiang and Hu
20111
To model the strategic interactions of China with other states, Jiang’s and
1
Hu’s key beliefs are mapped into subjective sequential games. The strategic
2
preferences of the two leaders are inferred from their locations in the Holsti
3
typology in Figure 5.1 to construct their general subjective game. These
4
subjective games can help better estimate the strategies that the leaders are
5
likely to follow in crisis and non-crisis situations. The subjective games
6
inferred from the general beliefs of Jiang and Hu are the same game, specifying
7 a strategy of ranking settlement as the highest outcome and indicating the
8 expectation that both Self and Other will move to settlement no matter what
9 the initial state of the game.
30111
1
2 General subjective game
3 Other Other Other
4 CO CF CO CF CO CF
5 CO “4,4”*@ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*A" 1,2
7
CF 2,1 A 3,3* CF Dom D/lock CF 2,1 @ 3,3*
8 Jiang–Hu Self China Outcomes Jiang–Hu Other
40111
1 * The initial state is in quotation marks, and the final state is underlined for each game. The
symbols “A” and “A"” indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the player
2 with the next move (Self or Other) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the
44111
92
1111 How stable are the subjective games of the two leaders? If there is volatility
2 in their Confucian operational codes, it should most likely show up under the
3 provocations presented by crises with the US or the leaders of Taiwan. To
4 answer this question, therefore, I first select a public statement by each leader
5 at the height of two recent crises between the US and China while Jiang was
6 the head and Hu was the subordinate leader in Beijing, followed by two post-
7 crisis speeches after tensions subsided between Beijing and Washington. Then
8 I address relations between Beijing and Taipei in the next chapter.
9
1011
1 The American bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
2
The speeches by Jiang and Hu, respectively, right after the 1999 bombing of
3111
the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade show that Jiang turns from a Type A leader
4
to a Type DEF leader, and his image of Other changes to a very hostile Type
5
B. Hu remains a Type A leader but his view of Other also changes to Type B.
6
The Embassy bombing was a serious threat to the Chinese leaders, as it was
7
a completely unexpected incident and ignited strong nationalist feelings
8
9 domestically against the US as the single superpower. Jiang’s subjective crisis
20111 game is a prisoner’s dilemma with an initial state of submission (1,4), in which
1 China is dominated/humiliated by the sole superpower’s attack on the Chinese
2 Embassy. Jiang believes that the US will stay at its best outcome of domination
3 (1,4), and China should move to deadlock (2,2). The Nash equilibrium for
4 a prisoner’s dilemma is (2,2), which is the next worst outcome for both
5 players. Although (3,3) settlement is a better outcome for both players, this
6 Pareto outcome is considered potentially unstable because it is not a Nash
7 equilibrium.
8
9
30111 Embassy bombing subjective game for Jiang (32)
1
2 Other Other Other
CO CF CO CF CO CF
3
CO 3,3 A “1,4” CO Settle Submit CO 3,3 "@ “1,4”
4
6 CF 4,1 "@ 2,2* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 A 2,2*
7 Jiang Self’s Strategy: China Outcomes Jiang Other’s Strategy:
8 Move Stay
9 Jiang Self (I-1 = –.01, P-4a = –.02); Other (P-1 = –.78, P-4b = .02)
40111
1
44111
93
1111 According to Brams’ sequential game theory, however, settlement (3,3) is

2 an NME in this game from an initial state of (1,4) under certain conditions.38
3 If the player with the next move is the player being dominated, and if prior
4 communication is permitted between players, then this player may choose to
5 “stay” at (1,4) after threatening to move to (2,2) unless the other player signals
6 that it will move to (3,3). China had credible threat power because the US
7 was at a moral disadvantage in the incident. The death of three Chinese
8 reporters in the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade made a move to (2,2) deadlock
9 by China a credible move in retaliation.
1011 In fact, student marches and mass protests outside US embassies in China
1 did occur. In some cases (Chengdu and Guangzhou) these crowds did surge
2 out of control, and these protests appeared to be tolerated if not supported
3 by the PRC government. They can be interpreted as communicating a threat
4 that China would move to deadlock unless compensated adequately along
5 with a US move back to cooperation in the form of an apology. Did prior
6 communication by China elicit a US apology as a move to (3,3), which was
7 finally agreed upon by both sides to avoid the Pareto-inferior outcome of
8 (2,2)?39 Or it is more plausible to interpret the protests as an unofficial Chinese
9 move to deadlock (2,2)?
20111 Hu’s subjective game during the Embassy bombing was not a prisoner’s
1 dilemma game. His Type A Self preferences are settle > deadlock > dominate
2 > submit while his Type B Other preferences are dominate > settle > deadlock
3 > submit. Brams’ TOM predicts that the US will stay at (1,4) and prescribes
4 China to move to (3,2) in the absence of prior communication of a credible
5 threat. An interesting overlap in both leaders’ different subjective games is the
6 prescription to stay at the initial state of submission (1,4), so long as prior
7 credible communication occurs, in anticipation of a Pareto-optimal solution
8 with a US move to settlement (4,3).
9
30111
1
Embassy bombing belief system for Hu (27)
2 Other Other Other
3 CO CF CO CF CO CF
4 CO 4,3 A “1,4” CO Settle Submit CO 4,3 "@ “1,4”
6 CF 2,1 "@ 3,2* CF Dom D/lock CF 2,1 A 3,2*
7 Hu Self’s Strategy: China Outcomes Hu Other’s Strategy:
8 Move Stay
9 Hu Self (I-1 = .35, P-4a = –.74); Hu Other (P-1 = –.69, P-4b = .74)
40111
44111
94
1111 The significant difference between the subjective games of Jiang and Hu is
2 the consequences of a move to deadlock (CF,CF). In Jiang’s prisoner’s dilemma
3 game, deadlock (2,2) as a new initial state is also an NME with correspond-
4 ing predictions for both players to choose “stay.” In Hu’s subjective game,
5 however, the predictions with deadlock (3,2) as a new initial state are
6 for China to choose “stay” and the US to choose “move” (see below). This
7 difference in the definition of the situation reduces the incentive for prior
8 communication by China to avoid a more costly and indefinite stalemate and
9 raises the opportunity to take a harder line in response to the bombing.
1011 Although foreign journalists criticized the CCP for allowing strong public
1 protests and hawkish statements by the military, the repeated US apologies
2 by the President and Secretary of State on different occasions permitted Jiang
3111 to overrule the military’s signals for any stronger response. The NME of
4 settlement (3,3) for Jiang’s prisoner’s dilemma game disposed Jiang to stay at
5 (1,4) until he could see whether China’s threat power was sufficient to get the
6 US to move to (3,3). The NME of settlement (4,3) from an initial state of
7 (3,2) deadlock for Hu’s subjective game made him amenable to Jiang’s strategy
8 of prior communication. Hu ranked settlement as his highest preference and
9
expected it to be the final outcome of the crisis either directly by a US move
20111
to (4,3) or indirectly through a Chinese move to deadlock (3.2) as the analysis
1
of Hu’s subjective game shows below.
2
3
4
Embassy bombing belief system for Hu (27)
5
6 Other Other Other
7 CO CF CO CF CO CF
8 CO 4,3 "@ 1,4 CO Settle Submit CO 4,3 A" 1,4
30111 CF 2,1 A “3,2”* CF Dom D/lock CF 2,1 @ “3,2”
2 Stay Move
3 Hu Self (I-1 = .35, P-4a = –.74); Hu Other (P-1 = –.69, P-4b = .74)
4
5 * The initial state is in quotation marks and the final state is underlined for each game.
8
9
40111
1 In any event, US President Clinton quickly apologized to the Chinese
2 President in a telephone call, and compensation plans were worked out after
3 negotiations. This incident also did not affect the bilateral WTO talks, which
44111 resumed in September 1999. One of the concerns for the Chinese side was
95
1111 China’s impending WTO entry. Jiang and Hu’s post-Embassy bombing
2 subjective games subsequently changed back to a general cooperative game.
3 The incident was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, despite some
4 domestic divergent views from the PLA that were more hostile. As head of the
5 state and the military, Jiang’s two post-crisis speeches include one at a
6 domestic conference in June and one at an APEC conference. His view of Self
7 and Other are cooperative in front of the two different audiences. Jiang is a
8 Type A Confucian leader again in a Type C world. Hu’s beliefs mirrored
9 Jiang’s in the two speeches he gave before an international audience in July
1011 and a domestic audience in December 1999.
1
2
3 Post-Embassy bombing subjective game for Jiang and Hu
4
Other Other Other
5
CO CF CO CF CO CF
6
CO “4,4”*@ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*A"1,2
7
20111 Jiang and Hu Self’s China Outcomes Jiang and Hu Other’s
2 Jiang Self (I-1 = .96, P-4a = –.83); (Other P-1 = .31, P-4b = .83)
3 Hu Self (I-1 = .57, P-4a = –.58); Hu (Other (P-1 = 1.94, P-4b = .58)
5 symbols “A” and “A"” indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the
6 player with the next move (Self or Other) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state
7 and the NMEs are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked. (Dom = Dominate; D/lock
8 = Deadlock)
9
30111
1 The EP-3 incident
2
Another serious crisis—the EP-3 incident—happened on April 1, 2001 when
3
an American surveillance airplane collided with a Chinese fighter jet over
4
the South China Sea, ending in the death of the Chinese pilot, and the Amer-
5
ican plane landed without permission on the Southern Chinese Hainan Island.
6
The crew of the EP-3 was detained and the aircraft disassembled. Both
7
sides blamed the other side for the incident and claimed that the bilateral
8
9 relationship may be damaged. China demanded a full apology while the US
40111 rejected any responsibility. The crisis ended short of further deteriorating
1 bilateral relations when US President Bush apologized for the loss of the life
2 of the Chinese pilot and the US plane’s illegal landing on Chinese territory.
3 The Chinese side released the 24 crew members on April 12, while diplomatic
44111 negotiations continued.
96
1111 EP-3 incident subjective game for Jiang

2
Other Other Other
3 CO CF CO CF CO CF
4 CO 4,4* A" “1,2” CO Settle Submit CO 4,4* @ “1,2”
6 CF 2,1 @ 3,3* CF Dom D/lock CF 2,1 A 3,3*
7 Jiang Self’s Strategy: China Outcomes Jiang Other’s Strategy:
8 Move Move
9 Jiang Self (I-1 = .21, P-4a = –.83); (Other P-1 = .01, P-4b = .83)
4
5
A speech by Jiang during his trip to Latin America was selected to
6
demonstrate the beliefs of Jiang during the EP-3 crisis (see above). A speech
7 by Hu during his participation at the 9th Vietnamese Communist Party
8 Congress was analyzed to reveal Hu’s beliefs under the impact of the crisis (see
9 below). Jiang and Hu played different subjective games during the crisis.
20111 Jiang’s no-conflict game predicts that both China and the US will move
1 to settlement. In Hu’s game, (3,4) settlement is also the NME. However, if
2 the US chooses “stay,” China should move to deadlock (2,3) as the final
3 outcome. This subjective game is the same one for Hu as his Embassy
4 bombing game, in which he would expect the US to choose “move” from a
5 new initial state of deadlock (2,3) in a repeated play of this game (Game 27).
6 The post EP-3 games of Jiang and Hu agree on Chinese and US preferences
7 for settlement. The EP-3 incident was settled through diplomatic negotia-
8 tions after the Chinese side recognized that Bush apologized for the loss of
9 the Chinese pilot.
30111
1
2 EP-3 incident subjective game for Hu (27)
3 Other Other Other
4 CO CF CO CF CO CF
5 CO 3,4 A" “1,2” CO Settle Submit CO 3,4 @ “1,2”
7 CF 4,1"@ 2,3* CF Dom D/lock CF 4,1 A 2,3*
Move Move
9 Hu Self (I-1 = –.01, P-4a = –.92); Hu Other (P-1 = .66, P-4b = .92)
40111
symbols “A” and “A"” indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the player
2
with the next move (Self or Other) given the initial state (Brams 1994). Both the final state and the
44111
97
1111 Post-EP-3 incident subjective games for Jiang and Hu

2
Other Other Other
3
CO CF CO CF CO CF
4
CO “4,4”*@ 1,2 CO Settle Submit CO “4,4”*"A 1,2
5
8 Jiang and Hu Self’s China Outcomes Jiang and Hu Other’s
1011 Jiang Self (I-1 = .23, P-4a = –.58); (Other PI-1 = .75, P-4b = .58)
1 Hu Self (I-1 = .36, P-4a = –.75); Hu (Other (P-1 = .84, P-4b = .75)
5
6
7
8 Conclusion
9
20111 The analysis of the belief systems and subjective games for Jiang and Hu
1 supports the interpretation that current Chinese leaders are not offensive
2 revisionists. They are leaders with Confucian belief systems that remain
3 relatively stable even during international crises. These results question claims
4 that Chinese leaders are under the influence of a realpolitik strategic culture
5 and that they display aggressive behavior as a result of these beliefs. From the
6 analysis of their subjective games during crisis situations we can confirm that
7 the two current Chinese leaders’ beliefs are subject to change under the
8 influence of external stimuli and constraints. Even during crises, however,
9 they also displayed cooperative orientations and responded to diplomatic
30111 efforts to settle the disputes. The use of diplomatic means rather than military
1 use of force remained near the top of their strategic agenda throughout
2 different situations. However, Jiang’s or Hu’s highest-ranked strategic prefer-
3 ence sometimes shifted from cooperation to conflict during crises, making
4 their cooperative strategic orientations contingent on US strategy.
5 The offensive realist and cultural realist arguments predict that China will
6 get involved in conflicts with major powers, especially the US. However, we
7 can see from these initial tests of this argument that the two current Chinese
8 leaders are generally cooperative. Their beliefs indicate little preference for
9 the realist path of revision through domination rather than negotiation.
40111 Preemptive behavior from the US suggested by some realist theories, as
1 Johnston warns in his recent article,40 might therefore be dangerous and result
2 in the unintended intensification of the security dilemma between China and
3 the US.41 The most volatile test case for this analysis is the long-standing
44111 conflict over the status of Taiwan, which is the focus of the next chapter.
98
1111
2
3
6
4
5 TAIWAN AND THE
6
7 FUTURE OF SINO-AMERICAN
8 RELATIONS
9
1011
1
2
3111 Our response combined balance of power with liberal
4 integration . . . Political evolution has failed to match economic
5 progress.
6 Joseph Nye, Jr
7
8 The issue of Taiwan haunts the future development of Sino-American
9 relations. As Joseph Nye, Jr argued at the time of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s
20111 first official visit1 to the US, China does not have the hard power in terms of
1 economic and military development, nor the soft power in terms of universities
2 and Hollywood (despite Yao Ming and Zhang Ziyi), to challenge the US
3 position on Taiwan. However, as he states clearly, “The fact that China is a
4 long way from overtaking the US does not prevent a possible war over
5 Taiwan.”2
6 The Taiwan issue is one of high political sensitivity to three major parties—
7 mainland People’s Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan, and the US. The
8 repercussions of a potential military conflict between the mainland and
9 Taiwan may draw the US in under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) signed in
30111 1979. As a close US ally with self-interested considerations, Japan may also
1 get involved in the conflict, which would draw in the three major powers in
2 the Asia-Pacific region. The crisis over Taiwan’s 2004 election has already
3 inclined the major parties toward an arms race that is darkening the whole
4 East Asian security future.
5 The Taiwan issue has brought the PRC and the US into serious crises in the
6 past. There were two major Taiwan crises when mainland forces shelled the
7 islands of Quemoy and Matsu in the 1950s, resulting in serious casualties,
8 while the US supported the Nationalist Jiang Jieshi on Taiwan. A third crisis
9 in 1995–96 ended with US warships in the Taiwan Strait. China’s peaceful
40111 rise/peaceful development strategy faces a dilemma when dealing with the
1 Taiwan issue, as China does not rule out the use of force should Taiwan
2 declare independence. Beijing seems to be getting more skillful in dealing with
3 Taiwan; however, Taiwan’s Chen seems to be getting more and more desperate
44111 and erratic.
99
TA I WA N A N D T H E F U T U R E O F S I N O - A M E R I C A N R E L AT I O N S
1111 Is war across the strait unavoidable? If yes, who will provoke it, the
2 mainland or Taiwan? If not, how can the crisis be deferred? Will China use
3 force against Taiwan? A crucial related question is what will the US do?
4
5
6 Dire strait?3
7 Taiwan’s two elected presidents, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shuibian, seem to
8 have consistently and gradually pursued “a Taiwan identity” from the middle
9 of the 1990s. Lee’s speech on a “state-to-state” relationship with the mainland
1011 initiated a period of crisis4 with China’s launching of missile tests in late
1 1995–96. Although Chen Shuibian initiated the “five nos” in his first-term
2 inauguration speech in 2000,5 ending that crisis with the mainland, his
3 defensive referendum6 and proposed constitutional revisions precipitated a
4 new crisis in 2004. More recently, although China’s charm diplomacy extends
5 olive branches to all its neighbors, including the opposition parties and even
6 the Democratic People’s Party members in Taiwan, it does not include Taiwan’s
7 Chen Shuibian or Lee Teng-hui. The Taiwanese leader Chen is ostracized by
8 the mainland, the US, and the Taiwanese public. Chen’s opinion polls approval
9
rate dropped to an all time low of 18 percent only one year into the second
20111
term.7 Neither is he selling well with US officials who mentioned his name
1
without official title to clarify their opposition to his position of ceasing the
2
National Unification Council (NUC).
3
Perceptual differences over the issue of Taiwan’s political status have
4
hindered further cross-strait talks. Beijing distrusts Taiwan’s Democratic
5
People’s Party (DPP) President Chen Shuibian deeply, believing that Chen is
6
7 playing a strategy of moving gradually toward independence under disguise.
8 Chen seems very dedicated to furthering Taiwan’s independence. In March
9 2004, Chen initiated a defensive referendum held together with the 2004
30111 election. Possible constitutional change for Taiwan in the form of a referendum
1 in 2006 and other revisions in 2008 may follow. These moves provoked a
2 strong message issued from mainland officials and the State Council’s Taiwan
3 Information Office. The constitutional revision in Beijing’s eyes is tantamount
4 to a declaration of independence. China scholars have detected a trend in the
5 Chinese media, following the reelection of Chen Shuibian, towards a harder
6 line on Chen, indicating an increasing sense of impatience.8 Despite the victory
7 of the Pan-Blue camp led by the Kuomingtang (KMT) with the First People’s
8 Party and the New Party in the December 2004 Legislative Yuan (LY) election,
9 Beijing has stressed that tensions across the strait may continue.
40111 China watchers are concerned that before the 2008 Olympics there might
1 be a confrontation.9 Former Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui even mentioned
2 that, due to the Chinese concern over the Olympic Games, it might be a good
3 opportunity for Taiwan to declare independence in 2008. Pessimists believe
44111 that it is an urgent situation because the Taiwan leader Chen is a risk taker.
100
1111 They argue that as Taiwan independence is his and his party’s life-long pursuit,
2 he will definitely give it a try before his second term is over. Also, the PRC
3 military posture is pushing many Taiwanese further away from the mainland
4 rather than drawing them closer as expected from closer economic and
5 cultural exchanges. It is generally believed that Chinese polices, such as the
6 military exercises across the strait, have turned out to be counterproductive,
7 as seen from the victory of the pro-independent DPP’s Chen in Taiwan’s
8 2000 election.
9 Recent developments show that the new Chinese President Hu Jintao is
1011 becoming more sophisticated in his policy towards Taiwan. On the one hand,
1 he has changed the past ways of coercive diplomacy and played charm
2 diplomacy by inviting opposition party leaders with significant political
3111 influence on Taiwan to visit the mainland in 2005 and again in 2006. The
4 mainland officials even extended warm welcomes to DPP party members to
5 visit the mainland. These actions were taken after US suggestions that the
6 mainland contact not only the GMD—the Nationalist Party—but also the
7 DPP party. Further, Beijing planned to send two pandas as gifts to Taiwan,
8 but Chen turned them down. Beijing seems to be planning post-Chen,
9
mainland–Taiwan relations by focusing on the GMD and its new Chairman
20111
Ma Ying-jeou.
1
As China never gives up the right to use force over Taiwan, and the US is
2
bound under the TRA to provide defense for Taiwan, the situation demands
3
that the US maintain an ambiguous position and hope the status quo
4
continues. So far, American allies in Asia (Australia, Japan, South Korea,
5
Singapore) have refrained from promising support in case of Taiwan
6
7 contingencies. Japan remains a strong ally of the US, and the China–Japan
8 relationship is deteriorating. US arms sales to Taiwan have met with strong
9 opposition from the Taiwan public. The Chen administration officials have
30111 tried to sell the idea of buying offensive weapons given the perceived Chinese
1 missile threat. The Chinese government has strongly opposed US arms sales
2 to Taiwan and the upgrading of Taiwan defense systems or including Taiwan
3 in the TMD system.
4 Although the US army may be over-stretched worldwide after the wars in
5 Afghanistan and Iraq, some analysts stress that it is a wrong perception that
6 Washington will not intervene should Beijing invade Taiwan.10 But will the
7 US fight for Taiwan? US resolve to protect or not to protect Taiwan affects
8 policies and policy changes in both the mainland and Taiwan. As a major
9 third party with military forces deployed in the area and strategic interests in
40111 the region, the US role is vital.
1 None of the parties want war. However, the deepening distrust in the
2 triangular relationship—between Beijing and Taipei, the US and China in
3 particular—might lead to consequences unwanted and unintended by all
44111 parties. Lampton points out, “[T]he recent elections and broader development
101
1111 in Taiwan, when combined with counterproductive policy in Beijing and some
2 missteps in the Bush Administration, have made conflict more likely.”11 Both
3 Beijing and the US will continue to adjust their Taiwan policies in light of the
4 ongoing developments on the island.
5 The Taiwan situation is entering a new phase now with the US pushing the
6 Taiwan issue aside a little to focus on more urgent issues of concern: trade,
7 currency, and NPT with Beijing. The Taiwan issue, however, remains a heavy
8 bargaining chip for the US in dealing with the PRC. During Hu’s recent visit,
9 Beijing wanted a clearer position statement from Bush about any provocative
1011 actions from Taiwan, expecting maybe harsher words toward the Chen
1 authority. They have only received formal declarations of the traditional US
2 official positions—a restatement of the old official positions. After Hu’s visit,
3 Chen was not given the opportunity to transit in New York or San Francisco.
4 The US was definitely sending a message to Chen, contrasting particularly
5 his visit with the Taipei Mayor’s visit to the US sometime ago. Some US
6 Congressmen complained that Chen was not given the appropriate diplomatic
7 protocol and was shamed by the State Department’s treatment. The implica-
8 tion is that the US was either under Beijing’s pressure or trying to show Beijing
9 something after Hu’s visit.
20111 The PRC needs American support for its policy on Taiwan to win over
1 US leverage with Taiwan. Beijing is aware of its importance in settling
2 the nuclear proliferation issue on the Korean Peninsula and Iran, but Beijing
3 does not want to see too much US influence. Hu has serious domestic
4 concerns, and there is no question that for some time, Hu prefers to focus on
5 domestic issues. Nationalism can turn into a strong instrument for power
6 consolidation and, therefore, the Taiwan issue is dangerous. If Chen takes
7 risky steps, it may push the PRC into a corner while presenting the US with
8 a dilemma.
9 Will there be war? When? Views differ over the level of danger posed by
30111 Taiwan’s independence steps. When Chen was reelected in 2004, some
1 thought that despite “all the rhetoric, there is little immediate risk of
2 conflict.”12 David Lampton stressed, “[C]ross-Strait relations are entering a
3 new and more dangerous phase.”13 “The issue is shifting, therefore, from one
4 of deterrence and balance to one of confidence-building and tension reduction
5 . . . The question is whether the Taiwan government, after the elections, will
6 be inclined to move in this direction,” Shambaugh told BBC news.14 Many
7 do agree that the danger for military conflict is real, possible, and foreseeable;
8 however, some also believe it is avoidable.15
9
40111 Beijing’s concerns
1
2 Taiwan was part of the Chinese territory back in the Qing Dynasty when the
3 Qing was defeated in the war with Japan in 1894–95 and Taiwan was taken
44111 by Japan for 50 years. After the anti-Japanese War the Nationalist government
102
1111 then took back the island, which became their refuge after being defeated
2 in the Civil War with the CCP. The CCP ever since has stressed the course of
3 reunification with Taiwan. The military effort of reunification was interrupted
4 by the Korean War in the early 1950s and the extension of US military
5 assistance to Taiwan.
6 The Taiwan issue was constantly in the mind of the Chinese leaders
7 during the cold war. For Mao, it was the unfinished business of the Civil War.
8 Mao advocated unification of the motherland by the use of force. Deng
9 proclaimed that China can wait one hundred years but it will never give
1011 up Taiwan. “It is true that under Deng, China’s policy altered dramatically
1 from liberation by force to peaceful unification.”16 According to Scobell, this
2 policy change was more tactical than strategic. The Chinese leaders did not
3111 forget the strategic significance of Taiwan. Deng proposed Hong Kong’s
4 “one country, two systems” framework to Taiwan, which was followed by
5 Jiang during his administration. In addition, Jiang put forward his “Eight-
6 Point Proposal” in 1995 as the guiding principles concerning cross-strait
7 political relations.
8 The basic line for Beijing over reunification has stressed the policy of
9
“peaceful reunification and one country, two systems.”17 The “One China
20111
Principle”18 was the most fundamental. There is only one China and Taiwan
1
is an inalienable part of China. The PRC government is the sole representative
2
of China and opposes any separatist moves. Although the Mainland proposes
3
“peaceful” reunification, it has never given up the use of force should Taiwan
4
declare independence.
5
Since Hu Jintao came to power in 2003, the mainland’s Taiwan rhetoric has
6
7 become even tougher and more aggressive in response to Taiwan leaders’
8 provocative pro-independence policies. Beijing emphasized through official
9 media and academic sources that reunification, sovereignty, and territorial
30111 integrity are more important than economic achievements and the Olympics,
1 that is, China is ready to sacrifice all of these for reunification. At the Fourth
2 Plenum of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist party held in
3 September 2004, Hu took over the military’s high command from Jiang. As
4 the Chairman of the Central Military Committee, Hu’s first speech stressed
5 the determination and will to use force should Taiwan declare independence.
6 The Anti-secession Law was passed by the National People’s Congress in
7 March 2005.
8 In the recent 2004 Defense White Paper, the Chinese government points out
9 that “Taiwan independence forces have increasingly become the biggest
40111 immediate threat to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as
1 peace and stability on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the Asia-Pacific
2 region as a whole.” Hu’s leadership stressed “[S]hould the Taiwan authorities
3 go so far as to make a reckless attempt that constitutes a major incident of
44111 ‘Taiwan independence,’ the Chinese people and armed forces will resolutely
103
1111 and thoroughly crush it at any cost.” Some scholars point out that, although
2 the 2004 Defense White Paper was not as tough as the 2000 one, it shows
3 the extent of Chinese leaders’ resolve over Taiwan. Mainland officials had
4 been tough regarding the Taiwan elections by trying to sway voters to vote
5 for their preferred candidates. However, their two efforts in 1996 and 2000
6 only met with increased opposition from Taiwan. In 2004, the Chinese
7 government has conducted less saber rattling, yet the Taiwan leader Chen’s
8 defensive referendum stirred up another round of criticism of Chen and the
9 DPP’s independence orientation.19
1011 On the other hand, scholars and politicians have noticed that, tactically
1 and politically, the Hu administration’s charm diplomacy and panda diplo-
2 macy are winning credits for Hu, along with the fast increasing economic
3 relations with Taiwan. Despite the high-profile visits from Taiwan to
4 the mainland and increasing economic ties, the number of missiles posi-
5 tioned across Taiwan Strait, as well as the PLA’s defense budget and military
6 R&D efforts has not decreased. These indicate that despite the positive
7 developments, Hu is also preparing for the worst-case situation given the
8 unpredictability of Chen further into his second term and with the diminishing
9 hope of the DPP winning the upcoming election over the Taipei Major Ma
20111 Ying-jeou.
1 As some scholars point out, the Taiwan issue has turned into one of
2 political legitimacy for the current Chinese leadership. Therefore, even though
3 there might be changes and reforms in foreign policies in general, there
4 will not be any change in the Taiwan policy.20 The urgency over the Taiwan
5 issue has only increased with the second term of Chen coming to an end.
6 Despite dissension within and between the leadership, Jiang, Hu, and their
7 successors cannot afford to lose Taiwan. In addition, the Taiwan issue is
8 directly linked to other regions (Tibet and Xinjiang) with separatist activities.
9 The Chinese government defines the Taiwan issue as one of internal affairs;
30111 therefore, international interference means encroaching on the sovereignty
1 and territorial integrity of China. This calls to mind the historical Chinese
2 humiliation of foreign exploitation in the early twentieth century. While the
3 Taiwan authorities stress that there is a unique Taiwan identity, the Chinese
4 government stresses that people on both sides of the strait share a greater
5 Chinese identity. A common culture, shared history, and the Confucian
6 tradition are the determining factors for this identity. The strategic importance
7 of Taiwan to the mainland is also undeniable as a further extension of its
8 coastlines.
9
40111
Leaders’ beliefs and Taiwan crises
1
2 Up to now, both parties have let rhetoric be the main sword. Both have
3 displayed restraint while the US moderates and mediates.21 The US tries to
44111 deter Beijing from exerting its military posture to threaten the island and
104
1111 keeps on providing highly advanced defensive weapon systems to Taiwan

2 under the TRA signed in 1979. At the same time, as it seems more and more
3 difficult to rein in Taiwan president Chen Shuibian, President Bush is also
4 trying to warn Taiwan to refrain from actions that might change the status
5 quo, thus provoking Beijing and dragging the US into a confrontation with
6 Beijing. The US is also asking the PRC to be more transparent in its military
7 planning and explain more about its defense budget in an effort to calm down
8 the arms race across the strait.
9 On the one hand, time is running against the mainland as the new
1011 generations in Taiwan and the mainland may not be as concerned with the
1 reunification of the motherland. On the other hand, the military balance is
2 leaning toward the mainland with its increasing defense budget, growing
3111 number of short-range missiles (estimated 750–800), and kilo-submarines.
4 The arms sales from the US to Taiwan are constantly drawing criticism
5 from the mainland while domestic pressure is also increasing on the Taiwan
6 leadership about their procurement of arms systems from the US, even for
7 defensive purposes. To show somehow their resolve to attack and to defend,
8 respectively, both the mainland and Taiwan have followed their threats with
9
military exercises (or joint exercises with allies) in which the other party is the
20111
potential target.
1
The previous two elections Taiwan held in 1996 and 2000 resulted in crisis
2
situations short of a military confrontation between the two sides, although
3
US warships ended up in the Taiwan Strait in 1996. The 2004 election
4
witnessed fewer military moves by both parties; however, tension again
5
intensified when Chen initiated the defensive referendum. During these crises,
6
how political leaders made decisions have affected the final outcomes of the
7
8 events. If Jiang had not conducted military exercises across the strait, the pro-
9 independence leaders, such as Lee in 1996 and Chen in 2000, might not have
30111 been elected. By the same token, if Chen were not reelected in 2004 and had
1 not pushed for the referendum, the tension across Taiwan Strait might not
2 have heated up. With the current Chinese leaders Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao
3 in power, if a new Taiwanese leader (say, Ma Ying-jeou) gets elected in 2008
4 along with a new US president, how will they interact? Will there be a crisis
5 again or will there be peace?
6 We cannot neglect the role of key political leaders in explaining and
7 predicting the evolution of the Taiwan conflict. The following analysis
8 compares the operational codes of Chinese and Taiwanese leaders during
9 crises associated with the 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections to test whether it
40111 is a Confucian or a Parabellum strategic culture that is functioning in Chinese
1 decision-making toward Taiwan. This task is complex, as seen from the
2 analysis of other crises in previous chapters, made doubly so in this chapter
3 by a focus on the leaders in both Beijing and Taipei. Chinese leaders may be
44111 Confucian or Parabellum in general, but either side may change to the
105
1111 opposite type under different situations and before different audiences. In
2 particular, any leader may turn more aggressive under a high security threat
3 posed by crisis or war.
4
5
6 Jiang and Lee: what kinds of leaders and how stable are
7 their beliefs?
8
Although both Beijing and Taipei try to show their strength, determination,
9
and will in what they say, whether their leaders’ beliefs show the same
1011
intended effects is worth studying. Comparing the operational code beliefs
1
of Jiang Zemin and Lee Teng-hui in Table 6.1, we can see that, in general,
2
they differ significantly from the average world leader in all their key beliefs.
3
They are more cooperative in their view of the nature of the political universe
4
(P-1), and regarding their strategic orientations (I-1). They are also more
5
optimistic towards the realization of political values (P-2) compared with the
6
average world leader. Jiang shows lower control over historical development
7
compared with the Taiwan leader whose view of control over historical
8
development is close to the average world leader (P-4). The instrumental
9
beliefs of the two leaders are similar with the exception of their risk
20111
orientation; Lee is less predictable (I-3 = .16 vs. .48) with a higher propensity
1
to shift between words and deeds than Jiang (I-4b = .59 vs. .34).
2
Figure 6.1 shows that, in general, both Jiang and Lee are cooperative Type
3
A leaders whose view of Other is Type C. They are generally Confucian
4
leaders preferring cooperation and peace. Figure 6.1 also illustrates what
5
types of leaders Jiang and Lee were during the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis and
6
their belief changes across non-crisis and crisis periods. During the 1996
7
Taiwan crisis, the mainland launched missile tests close to major Taiwan
8
ports. Beijing wanted to demonstrate its military strength as well as its
9
political resolve. Taiwan’s Lee Teng-hui, as one of the candidates for the 1996
30111
election, had given a speech in the US in 1995, specifically referring to the
1
mainland–Taiwan relationship as one of “state to state.” The mainland’s
2
missile tests were actions against such provocations.
3
Jiang Zemin was the President of China and Chairman of the Military
4
Central Committee during the pre-crisis period. In a famous speech on Taiwan
5
given in 1995, he laid out China’s major policy views on Taiwan, hailed later
6
by the current leaders on the mainland. In this famous “8 Point” speech, Jiang
7
thought that the mainland could achieve settlement with Taiwan even if
8
Taiwan resorted to military means. He further believed that settlement is in the
9
interest of Taiwan as well. The raw scores for Jiang’s 1995 speech are I-1 = .25,
40111
P-1 = .34, P-4 = .19. Comparing these scores to the norming group’s means of
1
I-1 = .33, P-1 = .25, P-4 = .21, SD = .12, indicates that Jiang’s operational code
2
in this speech was a realist Type DEF leader in a Confucian Type C world, as
3
his I-1 score dropped below the I-1 score for the average world leader.
44111
106
1111 Table 6.1 A comparison of the general operational codes of Jiang, Hu, Lee, and
2 Chen with the norming group
3
Hu Jiang Norming Chen Lee
4
(N = 50) (N = 41) group (N = 32) (N = 27)
5 (N = 255)a
6
8 P-1 Nature of political universe 0.55*** 0.54*** 0.25 0.46*** 0.53***
1011 P-2 Realization of political values 0.38*** 0.37*** 0.12 0.28*** 0.33***
2
P-3 Political future 0.19** 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.11
3111
(unpredictable/predictable)
4
5 P-4 Historical development 0.15** 0.12*** 0.21 0.21 0.19
7 P-5 Role of chance 0.97 0.98* 0.97 0.97 0.98*
9
1 I-1 Strategic approach to goals 0.62*** 0.69*** 0.33 0.57** 0.62***
3 I-2 Intensity of tactics 0.32*** 0.34*** 0.14 0.27** 0.38***
5 I-3 Risk orientation 0.37* 0.48*** 0.30 0.33 0.16***
7
I-4 Timing of action
8
9 a. Conflict/cooperation 0.37** 0.31*** 0.51 0.41* 0.38**
30111 b. Words/deeds 0.47 0.34*** 0.53 0.29*** 0.59
2 Reward 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.11* 0.25
3
Promise 0.07 0.11* 0.07 0.15** 0.11*
4
Appeal 0.55** 0.57*** 0.43 0.53** 0.45
5
6 Oppose 0.12 0.09** 0.15 0.13 0.13
7 Threaten 0.02* 0.01* 0.05 0.05 0.02*
8 Punish 0.05** 0.05** 0.14 0.04** 0.04**
9
Notes:
1 ** Significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed) from the norming group
a For P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, the speech number for the norming group is 264. The data
3 are provided by Prof. Mark Schafer from Louisiana State University.
44111
107
1111
2
3
4 CONFUCIAN
5 Type A Type C
6 (P-1/ I-1)
+2.0
7 |
|
8 |
9 |
+1.5
1011 |
1 |
2 |
|LNCO(.17,.97)
3 JGS(–.75,.76) +1.0 * * JNCO(.67,1.03)
* | *LGO(.17,.88) *JCO(.75,.75)
4 | *JGO(.75,.76)
5 |
LGS(–.17,.61) * |
6 LNCS(–.17,.57)* +.50
7 * |
JNCS(–.67,.45) |
8 |
* JCS(–.75,.10) | *LCO(.00,.06)
9
(P-4) –2.0 -------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50---------- +. 00-----------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5--------- 2.0 (P-4)
20111 |
1 |
LCS(.00,–.17)* |
2 |
–.50
3 |
4 |
|
5 |
6 –1.0
|
7 |
|
8 |
9 –1.5
|
30111 |
1 |
|
2 –2.0
4
5 PARABELLUM
6
7 Figure 6.1 The operational codes of Jiang Zemin and Lee Teng-hui
8
The following abbreviations are used above: JGS = Jiang General Self; JGO = Jiang General
9 Other; LGS = Lee General Self; LGO = Lee General Other; JCS = Jiang Crisis Self; JCO = Jiang
40111 Crisis Other; JNCS = Jiang Non-Crisis Self; JNCO = Jiang Non-Crisis Other; LCS = Lee Crisis
1 Self; LCO = Lee Crisis Other; LNCS = Lee Non-Crisis Self; LNCO = Lee Non-Crisis Other. Self
scores are in bold.
2
3
44111
108
1111 Jiang’s operational code during the 1996 crisis was more cooperative, and
2 he displayed relatively low historical control, perhaps because of US support
3 for Taiwan. Generally, he remained a Type A leader in a Type C world during
4 both non-crisis and crisis periods. However, Taiwan’s leader Lee changed his
5 strategic orientation (I-1) to become less cooperative, turning from a Confucian
6 Type A leader in a Type C world during non-crisis periods, to a realist Type
7 DEF leader in a Type C world during the 1996 crisis (see Figure 6.1). Lee’s
8 belief in historical control (P-4) also increased somewhat during this serious
9 crisis, perhaps because of his belief in US support.
1011
1
Jiang’s and Lee’s subjective games and the 1996 Taiwan crisis
2
3111 The general subjective games of Jiang and Lee were the same no-conflict
4 game. Both leaders ranked mutual cooperation (CO,CO) as their highest
5 outcome, and TOM’s predictions shown below are that they will stay at this
6 initial state as an NME. Jiang’s subjective game did not change during the
7 crisis occasioned by the 1996 elections in Taiwan, as he continued to rank
8 settlement as the highest-ranked outcome for both Beijing and Taipei.
9 However, the mainland did send a strong signal during the election that
20111 they would not tolerate a departure from the status quo by launching missile
1 tests near major Taiwan ports. What accounts for this kind of threatening
2 behavior?
3
4
Jiang’s and Lee’s general and non-crisis subjective games
5
6 Other Other
7 CO CF CO CF
8 CO 4,4* @ 1,2 CO 4,4* A" 1,2
9 Self ? B Self B ?
30111 CF 2,1 A “3,3”* CF 2,1 @ “3,3”*
1 Self’s Strategy: Move Other’s Strategy: Move
2 (I-1, P-4a) Self (+, = ) (I-1, P-4b) Other (+, = )
6 are underlined and the Nash equilibria are asterisked.
7
8
9 The answer may lie in the logic of Lee’s subjective crisis game. His crisis
40111 game below also has mutual cooperation as an NME. However, it is a conflict
1 game in which domination rather than settlement is Lee’s highest-ranked
2 outcome. It is also a game in which Self (Taiwan) has moving power, that is,
3 the ability in repeated plays of the game to cycle from (3,4) counterclockwise
44111 to (4,1), forcing Other (the mainland) to move to (2,3) deadlock perhaps in
109
1111 the hope that Self will extract concessions from Other in the process of
2 returning to (4,3) through (1,2).22 Moving power in this game is ineffective,
3 however, unless Self has the capabilities to exercise moving power, that is,
4 is the stronger player in the conflict, which is not the case unless Taiwan
5 can depend on US military support for a move away from the status quo,
6 and unless the mainland does not have the capability to exercise deterrent
7 threat power.
8
9
1011 Lee’s subjective game during crisis period (27)
1
Other Other
2
CO CF CO CF
3
CO “3,4” @ 1,2 CO “3,4”A" 1,2
4
Self ? B Self B ?
5
6 CF 4,1 A 2,3* CF 4,1 "@ 2,3*
7 Self’s Strategy: Stay Other’s Strategy: Stay
8 (I-1, P-4a) Self (–, = ) (I-1, P-4b) Other (+, = )
9 * Initial states are in quotations and final states are underlined. The symbols “A” and “A"”
20111 indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the player with the next move
1 given the initial state. Both the final state and the NMEs are underlined and the Nash equilibria
2 are asterisked.
3
4
5 The mainland’s missile tests during the 1996 elections are widely interpreted
6 as an attempt to deter Lee from moving away from the status quo during
7 the campaign. This interpretation is theoretically consistent with the logic of
8 Lee’s subjective game, which requires Other (the mainland) to exercise a
9 credible deterrent threat via prior communication in order to maintain
30111 settlement (3,4) as an NME. It is also consistent with Jiang’s personal distrust
1 of Lee stemming from his 1995 “state to state” speech in the US while at the
2 same time expressing a belief in his own subjective game that Other (Taiwan’s
3 citizens) preferred the status quo to the risks associated with any unilateral
4 change by Lee.
5 Finally, there is a real question as to whether the 1996 crisis was really
6 a serious military confrontation between Beijing and Taipei. During the
7 missile exercises of the PLA in 1995–96, the Taiwan authority already knew
8 that the missiles were not loaded with warheads. This information seriously
9 affected the effectiveness of the deterrent threat presented and expected
40111 from the exercises. It might be speculated further that the US decided to send
1 its warships to the strait based on such intelligence as well. A PLA Major-
2 General Liu Liankun, a former department director with the General Logistics
3 Department, and a Senior Colonel Shao Zhengzhong were executed later
44111 for spying and providing this information to the Taiwan authority.
110
1111 Hu and Chen: what kinds of leaders and

2 how stable are their beliefs?
3
Hu Jintao and Chen Shuibian are the successors of Jiang and Lee on the
4
mainland and Taiwan. Their general operational code beliefs in Table 6.1
5
show that they are as cooperative as their predecessors in all their major beliefs
6
and are more cooperative than the average world leader. Like Jiang, Hu also
7
exhibits lower control compared to the average world leader. However, the
8
9 mainland leaders are more cooperation-oriented than the Taiwanese leaders
1011 and are more optimistic in general. A closer look at the two current leaders
1 from the mainland and Taiwan in Figure 6.2 shows that Hu is slightly more
2 cooperative than Chen. Hu also shows somewhat lower control of historical
3111 development than Chen. However, both leaders are cooperative Type A
4 leaders whose view of Other is Type C. They are generally Confucian leaders
5 preferring cooperation and peace. This general strategic orientation was not
6 affected by crisis situations, as during crisis periods the two leaders remain
7 cooperative Confucian leaders (see Figure 6.2). Hu remains a Type A leader
8 in a Type C world during both non-crisis and crisis periods. Chen turns from
9 a Type C leader in a Type A world during non-crisis periods to a Type A leader
20111 in a Type C world during a crisis period.
1 Chen has been a stronger leader on his policy stands towards the mainland
2 in his second term, as seen from his attitudes towards even the US in carrying
3 out the defensive referendum and constitutional revisions in 2004. Hu is
4 consolidating his power over the state, party, and the PLA. The importance
5 of the Taiwan issue and the accompanying strategic interests leave Hu with
6 little room for maneuver. Besides adhering to the Basic Line and preparing for
7 the worst case, Hu has had to coordinate his moves with the US and take into
8 consideration other states’ concerns in the region. These factors may explain
9 his low belief in historical control over the future of Taiwan.
30111 As a major power and a rising state, the Chinese leader is more confident
1 in international affairs compared with the domestic difficulties regarding
2 economic development, political stability, and leadership legitimacy. Hu’s
3 appearance and dealings with the US, Japan, and other states’ counterparts
4 further demonstrate his personal style of foreign policy: pragmatic and
5 confident. The Taiwan leader shows less confidence internationally because
6 Taiwan’s international image depends heavily on the support of the US.
7 However, as a democratically elected official, he appears more confident
8 domestically.
9 The PRC leader needs international support for power consolidation and
40111 domestic stability. On the one hand, Hu has to show that China is recognized
1 internationally as a responsible, highly respected, peacefully rising power. On
2 the other hand, he has to show a strong hand on the issue of Taiwan given
3 particularly the consistent separatist efforts by the Taiwan President Chen.
44111 Hu cannot afford to lose Taiwan in his term of office. The CCP’s domestic
111
1111
2
3
4 CONFUCIAN
5 Type A Type C
6 (P-1/ I-1)
+2.0
7 |
|
8 |
9 |
+1.5
1011 |
1 |
2 |
|
3 +1.0 HGO(.5,.94)* *HCO(.73,.94)
| *HNCO(.26,. 88)
4 HCS(–.73,.70) * |
5 CNCO(–.20,.64) * | **CCO(.03,.66)
HGS(–.50,.61)* |CGO(.02,.66)
6 HNCS(–.26,.55) * ** +.50
7 CCS(–.03,.55) |
CGS(–.02,.50) | *CNCS(.20,. 38)
8 |
|
9
(P-4) –2.0 -------- –1.5 -------- –1.0 ---------- –.50---------- +. 00-----------+. 50-----------+1.0----------+1.5--------- 2.0 (P-4)
20111 |
1 |
|
2 |
–.50
3 |
4 |
|
5 |
6 –1.0
|
7 |
|
8 |
9 –1.5
|
30111 |
1 |
|
2 –2.0
4
5 PARABELLUM
6
7
Figure 6.2 The operational codes of Hu Jintao and Chen Shuibian
8
The following abbreviations are used above: HGS = Hu General Self; HGO = Hu General Other;
9 CGS = Chen General Self; CGO = Chen General Other; HCS = Hu Crisis Self; HCO = Hu Crisis
40111 Other; HNCS = Hu Non-Crisis Self; HNCO = Hu Non-Crisis Other; CCS = Chen Crisis Self;
1 CCO = Chen Crisis Other; CNCS = Chen Non-Crisis Self; CNCO = Chen Non-Crisis Other..
Self scores are in bold.
2
3
44111
112
1111 legitimacy is already under threat, as its domestic political rule is shaky due
2 to corruption of party members. Furthermore, his policies towards Taiwan
3 also depend heavily on US positions, as the US and PRC are cooperating more
4 on the Taiwan issue to avoid unexpected confrontations resulting from
5 misperceptions and missed signals.
6
7
Hu and Chen: 2000, 2004, and beyond
8
9 The Taiwan elections in 2000 and 2004 both led to diplomatic crises.
1011 An analysis of the election crisis games of Hu and Chen reveals that both
1 Hu and Chen preferred to stay at settlement (CO,CO) and believed that the
2 other side shared this preference. Unlike the 1996 election, the subjective
3111 games of both leaders remained unchanged during the 2000 and 2004
4 elections, predicting that neither one will move from the initial state of
5 settlement (CO,CO). This shared definition of the situation as a no-conflict
6 game made it unlikely that a dispute during an election year would escalate
7 into a real military crisis. However, Taiwan’s defensive referendum and
8 proposals for constitutional change that Chen initiated following the 2004
9 elections has raised tensions with the mainland. In order to see the trend
20111 of future strategic interactions between the mainland and Taiwan, therefore,
1 I have also chosen Hu’s and Chen’s New Year speeches in 2005 and 2006 for
2 further analysis and comparison of their subjective games.
3
4
5 Hu’s and Chen’s subjective games, 2000–04
6
7 Other Other
CO CF CO CF
8
CO “4,4” @ 1,2 CO “4,4”A" 1,2
9
30111 Self ? B Self B ?
1 CF 2,1 A 3,3 CF 2,1 @ 3,3
2 Self’s Strategy: Stay Other’s Strategy: Stay
7 are asterisked.
8
9
40111 Talks between the mainland and Taiwan had not yet resumed in January
1 2005. Therefore, a deadlock state is chosen as the initial state to analyze the
2 subjective games below in the two leaders’ statements. Deadlock is a Nash
3 equilibrium in the subjective games of both leaders, which means that each
44111 leader will have to risk that Other will choose “stay” in response to Self’s
113
1111 choice of “move” from deadlock. In his 2005 New Year speech, however,
2 Hu’s subjective game remains a no-conflict game that predicts mainland China
3 and Taiwan will both move toward (4,4) settlement, deferring a crisis. The
4 raw scores for Hu’s New Year speech to the Chinese Political Consultative
5 Conference are: I-1 = 0.56, P-1 = 0.48, P-4 = 0.20; mean scores for the
6 norming group are I-1 = .33, P-1 = .25, P-4 = .21 with SD = .12. Hu’s
7 operational code in this statement locates him in the Holsti typology as a
8 Type A Confucian leader in a Type C Confucian world.
9 In the following paragraph from Hu’s New Year speech, he offers
1011 accommodative words as well as warnings.
1
2 In the coming year, we will continue to implement the basic prin-
3 ciple of “peaceful reunification and one country, two systems” and
4 the eight-point proposal on developing cross-strait relations and
5 advancing the process of the motherland’s reunification in the current
6 stage; promote cross-strait personnel, economic and cultural spheres;
7 and maintain stability in the Taiwan Strait region. Here, I would like
8 to reiterate once again that we are ready to display the greatest
9 sincerity and make the greatest effort in striving for the prospect
20111 of peaceful reunification; and we are ready to resume cross-strait
1 dialogue and negotiations on the basis of the one China principle.
2 However, we will absolutely not permit anyone to separate Taiwan
3 from China in any form. The Chinese government and the Chinese
4 people will unswervingly defend national sovereignty and territorial
5 integrity.
6 (New Year CPPCC speech)
7
8
9 Hu’s subjective game from New Year 2005 speech
30111 Taiwan Taiwan
1 CO CF CO CF
2 CO 4,4 @ 1,2 CO 4,4 A" 1,2
3 China ? B China B ?
4 CF 2,1 A “3,3” CF 2,1 @ “3,3”
5 Taiwan’s Strategy: Move China’s Strategy: Move
7
indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the player with the next move
40111 are asterisked.
1
2
3 The subjective game in Chen’s 2005 New Year speech has an NME
44111 of (3,4) settlement with predictions that Taiwan will choose to move to
114
1111 settlement while mainland China will stay at the initial state of deadlock. The
2 raw scores for Chen Shuibian’s New Year speech are I-1 = 0.33, P-1 = 0.42,
3 P-4 = 0.21; mean scores for the norming group are I-1 = .33, P-1 = .25,
4 P-4 = .21 with SD = .12. Chen’s operational code in this statement locates him
5 in the Holsti typology on the border between a Confucian Type A and a realist
6 Type DEF leader in a Confucian Type C world. The analysis below of his
7 subjective game specifies him as a realist Type DEF leader.
8
9
1011 Chen’s subjective game from 2005 New Year speech (27)
1 China China
2 CO CF CO CF
3111 CO 3,4 @ 1,2 CO 3,4 A" 1,2
4 Taiwan ? B Taiwan B ?
5 CF 4,1 A “2,3” CF 4,1 "@ “2,3”
6 Taiwan’s Strategy: Move China’s Strategy: Stay
7 (I-1, P-4a) Self (–, = ) (I-1, P-4b) Other (+, = )
8
indicate the respective strategic choices of “move” or “stay” by the player with the next move
1 are asterisked.
2
3
4 Hu’s and Chen’s New Year speeches in 2006 show that, given the
5 development of the strategic situation in the strait and the changing attitude
6 of the US towards Taiwan’s Chen Shuibian, both Chen and Hu are playing a
7 no-conflict game in 2006. They both prefer settlement as their highest-ranked
8 outcome. Hu is well aware of the difficulties Chen is having with the US after
9 his action of ceasing the NUC. Despite Chen’s provocative actions, Beijing did
30111 not send coercive gestures through military exercises. Rather, Beijing has
1 become more cautious, cooperating more with the US, and turning to focus
2 on the post-Chen era in Taiwan. Hu has invited more Pan-Blue camp leaders
3 to visit the mainland and offered pandas as friendly signals.
4 Although harsh rhetoric has continued from Beijing, it is targeted more on
5 Chen Shuibian personally. For the US and the PRC, there are more urgent
6 business issues besides Taiwan—energy, North Korea, Iran, trade, currency,
7 IPR, and human rights. Taiwan now is a bargaining chip that provides strong
8 leverage for the US in dealing with the rising PRC. While the PRC still regards
9 Taiwan as a top political issue with security implications for US–China
40111 relations, it seems assured that neither the US nor the Taiwanese people want
1 to see war despite the DPP efforts. If the status quo continues, it will give
2 more leverage to the mainland over Taiwan due to the increasing economic
3 exchanges, personnel exchanges, and military balances tilting further in favor
44111 of the mainland.
115
1111 Subjective no-conflict game for Hu and Chen in 2006

2 New Year speeches
3
4 China China
CO CF CO CF
5
CO 4,4 @ 1,2 CO 4,4 A" 1,2
6
7 Taiwan ? B Taiwan B ?
8 CF 2,1 A “3,3” CF 2,1 @ “3,3”
9 Taiwan’s Strategy: Move China’s Strategy: Move
4 are asterisked.
5
6 Hu’s game shows that the mainland wants peace and settlement. He is
7 much more cooperative in his general political beliefs in 2006 than in 2005
8 (P-1 = .82 vs. .48; I-1 = .89 vs. .56). Although Hu is consolidating his power
9
over the state, the party, and the military by exerting more influence,
20111
internationally and domestically, he needs to attend to serious domestic
1
disturbances and problems of uneven development. These problems are,
2
perhaps, reflected in the relatively modest increase in his belief in historical
3
control (P-4 = .18 vs. .20) from 2005 to 2006. Any missed point on the Taiwan
4
issue would be a serious political loss for any CCP leader under these
5
circumstances. Hu needs strong reassurance of support from the US regarding
6
7 Taiwan, and his visit in April 2006 did not achieve this goal.
8 Chen’s subjective game shows that he also prefers settlement. His general
9 view of historical control has lowered compared to the previous year
30111 (P-4 = .14 vs. .21). Compared with his New Year 2005 speech, Chen’s view
1 of the political universe is also less friendly (P-1 = .32 vs. .42) while his
2 strategic orientation has become more cooperative (I-1 = .43 vs. .33). The
3 changing US attitude towards Taiwan’s Chen has likely affected Chen’s beliefs.
4 With his second term in a mess, Chen is trying desperately to get more support
5 from voters for the DPP. Although Chen’s personal loss for taking any risk is
6 less because he will not serve a third term in office, as a party chair he needs
7 to win political points for his party in the next election. He cannot afford to
8 raise tensions with the mainland or to irritate the US any further.
9 From this analysis we can see that although the future of cross-strait
40111 relations remains ambiguous and difficult to manipulate for all parties
1 concerned, settlement is not unachievable. The analysis of the subjective
2 games of the mainland and Taiwan leaders demonstrates that a change of
3 leadership on the mainland results in a change in subjective games. Jiang and
44111 Hu agreed on what they thought was Taiwan’s preference order, but they have
116
1111 differed somewhat in their strategic preferences for the mainland. Jiang
2 sometimes preferred domination over settlement while Hu has so far preferred
3 settlement over domination. Both of Taiwan’s leaders have displayed strategic
4 ambivalence. Lee ranked domination over settlement during the 1996 election
5 crisis while reversing their rankings in non-crisis periods. Chen has imitated
6 Lee by ranking domination over settlement following the 2004 election before
7 changing back to a no-conflict game in 2006.
8 The Nash equilibrium in all these games is deadlock. The NME in those
9 games that rank domination higher than settlement for Self requires Other to
1011 exercise deterrence power in order to be stable in repeated plays of these
1 games. Although Chen proposed ceasing the NUC’s functions in his Spring
2 Festival speech, the operational code scores (I-1 = .59, P-1 = .33, P-4 = .15)
3111 in his speech locate Self (Type A) and Other (Type C) within the Confucian
4 quadrants of the Holsti typology. However, his statements might be a test of
5 the mainland’s resolve and the US support for his possible follow-up actions.
6 His speech was met with severe criticism from both the mainland and the
7 White House. As former US Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick made clear in
8 his hearing to the Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, Taiwan’s
9
declaration of independence means war and the loss of US lives.23
20111
Retaining the current status quo, in which Taiwan remains a political entity
1
that China claims is a province, it is a Pareto-superior (better) outcome for
2
both sides. Beijing will not have any excuse to take action despite the Anti-
3
secession Law’s legitimating action under provocation, and Taiwan will not
4
have to face the fate of conflict with the mainland or problems with
5
Washington. However, it seems that neither party is satisfied with the status
6
quo over the long term. The most preferred outcome by each side, “widely
7
8 recognized de jure independence” for Taiwan or “reunification of China
9 on the same ‘one country, two systems’ basis as Hong Kong” for Beijing, is
30111 not acceptable as well to the other side.24 Although both sides continue
1 to undertake precautions, there is still the danger of potential conflict if
2 either side’s intentions are misperceived or misunderstood incidentally
3 or purposefully.
4 As misperception is highly possible with the current level of communications
5 across the strait, it is essential to analyze what decision-makers have in their
6 minds, whether their views are stable, and what may cause them to take
7 actions. As Hu has just assumed the highest command of the PRC while Chen
8 is phasing out, how Hu thinks about the cross-strait relationship is of long-
9 term interest for all relevant parties. With visits to foreign capitals Hu is
40111 moving out of the realm of mystery, and his strategic insights are becoming
1 known to the world. Whether his grand strategy of presenting a peaceful
2 China focusing on development and harmonious society can be realized
3 depends significantly on what decisions he will make on important issues
44111 such as Taiwan and US–China relations.
117
1111 Given the current strategic relations and interactions between the mainland
2 and the US, the dynamics of the cross-strait conflict depend importantly on
3 how the US and PRC define their bilateral relationship. Even if Beijing sees
4 Taiwan’s actions as provocative and a change to the status quo seriously
5 leading to independence for Taiwan, it will still take into consideration the
6 US reaction or mediation before taking any military punitive decisions. The
7 US–China strategic relationship will continue to exercise leverage over the
8 future of Taiwan. If Chen should initiate constitutional revisions as his legacy
9 on the way out of office, the future of Taiwan may rest on Sino-American
1011 relations and the American response to Beijing’s attempt to neutralize such a
1 move toward independence.
2
3
Will there be war over Taiwan between the
4
US and China?
5
6 In 1997, Munro and Bernstein wrote a famous book, The Coming Conflict
7 with China,25 and almost ten years later Ted Carpenter published another
8 book, America’s Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan.26
9 After the crises over Taiwan in the 1950s, the 1990s, 2000, and 2004, are the
20111 US and China closer to an armed clash over Taiwan? Or with increasing
1 economic exchanges and stronger contacts between the mainland and the
2 nationalist party elites, as Taiwan’s DPP and Chen have moved further from
3 the US in 2005, is Taiwan becoming “increasingly irrelevant”27 in US–China
4 relations? In the middle of the second term for both Bush and Chen Shuibian
5 and during the fledging stage of consolidating power for Hu Jintao, is the
6 Taiwan issue going to diminish in significance after Hu’s April 2006 visit to
7 the US? How much weight will the Taiwan issue carry in future US–China
8 relations? What will the leaders do?
9 Beijing sees the US as having heavy leverage in its relationship with Taiwan
30111 and, therefore, is really upset over continuous US arms sales to Taiwan. In the
1 case of a military conflict over Taiwan, some draw the conclusion that the PLA
2 cannot prevail over Taiwan should they choose to attack given US military
3 superiority.28 US policy towards the Taiwan issue had followed strategic
4 ambiguity until George W. Bush stated that the US would use all means to
5 defend Taiwan in an interview in 2001. Now with the focus of the US on anti-
6 terrorism and nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia, the US and China are
7 cooperating broadly over these issues. Yet there is no denying that America
8 and China continue to disagree over a list of other issues: trade surpluses,
9 the value of Chinese currency, human rights, energy, and Iran. It is difficult
40111 to evalute the position of the Taiwan issue on this list.
1 Despite the problems, the US–China relationship is apparently moving into
2 a new stage after Chinese President Hu’s visit in April 2006. Analysts and
3 policy makers differ over the specific achievements that Hu made from his
44111 visit. However, through the formal summit meeting with President Bush it is
118
1111 generally recognized that the PRC’s new power position in the international
2 system is now consolidated worldwide. Hu may have achieved more
3 domestically than internationally. The rising China is showing a new image
4 through its formerly mysterious leader. People no longer ask, “Who is Hu”
5 but, rather, “How strong will Hu be?”
6 Over the issue of Taiwan, Hu has shown both a strong side and a
7 conciliatory side. Because Hu needs to focus on domestic issues, we will not
8 see policy changes over Taiwan for some time unless the PRC is provoked.
9 Hu wants to wait and see how the US will react first. Given Chen’s family
1011 scandals and his losing Washington’s affection, Beijing will probably wait for
1 Chen’s term to be over. Beijing is trying to differentiate Chen Shuibian from
2 his party and the Taiwanese people. Beijing is also placing a very high bet on
3111 the current Chairman of the GMD, Major Ma Ying-jeou of Taipei. In catering
4 to the voters of the DPP as well as the Medium voters, Ma is changing his
5 position a little from simply pro-reunification to a stated position that does
6 not exclude independence on the voter’s choice list. As Carpenter has said,
7 China should not hope for a change of position even after Chen’s term and
8 with a potential GMD candidate winning the presidency in 2008. Because
9 Taiwan is a democracy, the people matter if a candidate wants to win the
20111 support of voters. Therefore, even if Ma wins, he will consider the general
1 opinion polls of the public, which show that the public does not favor
2 reunification with the mainland.29 In the meantime, Beijing, particularly the
3 military, also tries to strengthen its military deterrence capabilities against
4 the unpredictable Chen, and meet a possible need for a military showdown
5 over reunification.
6 The US is disengaging itself from the strait30 and the disengagement is not
7 of its own choice. Recent US actions towards Taiwan show diminishing
8 patience over the Taiwan president’s provocative actions. In both the 2004
9 presidential election and the 2005 NUC incidents, the US cooperated more
30111 closely with the mainland to make it clear that it is against any changes of the
1 status quo. Washington does not want to see any more troublemakers over
2 the Taiwan issue. However, the US has always praised Taiwan as an example
3 of democracy for Asian countries along with Japan, especially comparing
4 them with the authoritarian PRC.
5 Many scholars claim that China has become a major challenger of
6 US power31 in the Asia Pacific region, and they see China as a threat to either
7 the US or the region’s future. They are mainly concerned with China’s
8 increasing defense budget, changing PLA military doctrine and PLA
9 modernization. They posit that these transitions are not indicating a peaceful
40111 rise but, rather, disturbances for the region (like Germany in the early
1 twentieth century or Japan before the Pacific War) especially over Taiwan.
2 Thus, the Chinese government needs to reassure the US and its East Asia
3 neighbors32 by clarifying the level of defense spending for the past several
44111 years and by freezing the missiles across Taiwan Strait.
119
1111 However, these suggestions definitely will not be accepted, nor will they
2 work. They do not take into consideration the accompanying costs for the
3 CCP and the PRC government, which would suffer losses domestically and
4 internationally in reputation and influence. The steps would also seriously
5 damage the credibility of the PLA in terms of its deterrence and coercion
6 capabilities. It would play as well into the hands of the DPP party’s polit-
7 ical needs and its independence wish. With further changes on the grand
8 chessboard in Asia and the US strategic focus reoriented from Europe to East
9 Asia, the Taiwan issue will constantly be on top of any security agenda
1011 between the US and China. However, China’s rise in Asia is not necessarily in
1 conflict with America’s influence and leadership in Asia, because the Taiwan
2 issue is probably one on which the two countries can cooperate to avoid
3 serious conflict.33
4 In assessing the overall situation and predicting the future of US–China
5 relations, some other key players cannot be neglected. US military allies in
6
Asia are important—Japan and Australia, followed by South Korea and
7
Southeast Asian friends of the US. While US Secretary of State Rice’s visit to
8
Australia and her meetings with the Australian government did not bring
9
about the expected support from Australia, Japan’s eager support of the US
20111
over China and the deteriorating Japan–China relations are affecting the
1
future of US–China relations. In Japan’s East Asia Strategic Review for 200634
2
3 “the military balance between China and Taiwan is shifting in China’s favor.”
4 For Japan, “the murky relations between China and Taiwan and an increase
5 in China’s military muscle can be seen as major destabilizing factors in East
6 Asia.”35 Other US allies are refraining from cooperating with the US in the
7 event of a showdown between the US and China over Taiwan (Australia and
8 Republic of Korea, Southeast Asian countries—Singapore), and Sutter
9 attributes it to increasing positive relations with China under China’s charm
30111 diplomacy.36 The recent strategic moves by the US into South Asia are another
1 example of how the US is making use of the strategic environment and
2 opportunities in Asia.
3 Wars cannot be fought in Asia’s strategic environment without serious
4 damage to the parties involved. Therefore, the calculations of all state leaders
5 are changing to become much more complicated. The beliefs of these leaders
6 matter more than ever in today’s world, making it important to study and
7 analyze these beliefs for understanding and predicting what the future will
8 be. If a Parabellum realpolitik leader appears in either the mainland or
9 Taiwan, what does it imply for US foreign policy makers? If both the main-
40111 land and Taiwan have Confucian leaders, what should the US position be?
1 These are important questions for foreign policy makers to consider in
2 addition to looking at the increasing numbers of missiles and soldiers in a
3 rising China.
44111
120
1111 Conclusion
2
Will China become a benign great power or a malign one? Many realist
3
theories predict that a rising China will clash with the hegemon—the US—
4
when its material power capability catches up. Some pessimists even prescribe
5
that the two major powers are doomed to fight each other in the coming
6
decades. Cultural realists start from a cultural perspective, arguing that China
7
has an offensive strategic culture resulting in a history of aggressive behavior
8
under an expansive grand strategy generated from its strategic culture. They
9
reach the same conclusion as other realists, that China is a dangerous
1011
challenger in the international system. The Chinese are inherently revisionist
1
and will take on other states in the system when the opportunity presents
2
itself. What was once called “huang huo”—the yellow disaster—by Napoleon
3111
seems still rooted in the minds of the modern West. However, is Chinese
4
strategic culture aggressive? Are Chinese leaders Parabellum realists? Is
5 traditional Confucian thinking non-functional in Chinese decision-making?
6 What kind of cultural underpinning—Confucian or Parabellum—is influenc-
7 ing Chinese leaders’ strategic beliefs? These are some of the questions that this
8 book has tried to answer in order to provide a better understanding of Chinese
9 foreign policy decision-making.
20111 This book has focused on leaders and leaders’ beliefs in making decisions,
1 as states do not make decisions themselves. It is a state’s leaders who make
2 the decisions in different situations. Leaders’ beliefs in different situations can
3 make a difference in understanding the motivations behind a rising China. An
4 operational code analysis of six key Chinese leaders’ belief systems and their
5 changes across contexts and over time reveals that these Chinese leaders are
6 not simple Parabellum realists. A comparison of these leaders with the average
7 world leader further indicates that (except for Mao) they are either close to
8 the average world leader in their major beliefs about cooperation and conflict
9 (Deng and Zhou) or more cooperative and friendly than the average world
30111 leader (Jiang, Hu–Wen). Even Mao’s beliefs are neither simple nor static, but
1 are complex and change over time and across situations.
2 The analysis of strategic choices in war and crisis situations indicates that
3 Mao is a defensive realist who was very ready and willing to use force if
4 provoked. Zhou was simply a defensive realist, and Deng Xiaoping turns out
5 to be more of a Confucian leader although he shared many revolutionary
6 experiences with Mao and Zhou. The choice propensities of the first and
7 second generations of leaders indicate that they preferred general defensive
8 strategies to offensive ones. Contemporary Chinese leaders show a stronger
9 cooperative orientation. They are Confucian leaders who remain generally
40111 cooperative in crisis periods by preferring negotiations and diplomatic
1 strategies. These results disconfirm the Parabellum realist argument that
2 Chinese leaders are under the influence of an offensive strategic culture, and
3 the prediction that they will be aggressive in their behavior.
44111
121
1111 Overall, these findings confirm that there are two strands of strategic
2 culture, Confucian and Parabellum, in Chinese strategic thinking. Within
3 each strand there are two versions: offensive and defensive. It is too simple to
4 conclude that only one strand or one version is influencing Chinese strategic
5 behavior. This book has focused on China’s grand strategic decision-making
6 and the leaders’ beliefs about the nature of the political universe and effective
7 strategies. The strategic implications are important for understanding Chinese
8 military doctrines; however, the scope of this analysis is not confined to
9 military operations but has addressed as well the general political domain of
1011 Chinese decision-making. The implications of this analysis are that leaders
1 matter, as leaders’ beliefs play a significant role in understanding the decisions
2 and policies of states. The claim that Chinese foreign policy making and grand
3 strategy is offensive under the influence of a Parabellum strategic culture is
4 too simple for several reasons.
5 First, leaders differ from each other in their personal experiences and beliefs.
6 Simply focusing on external situations and constraints skews the picture and
7 leads to misunderstandings and misperceptions. Mao, Zhou, and Deng share
8 revolutionary experiences; however, their beliefs differ significantly with Mao
9
at one extreme as almost a Parabellum realist, Zhou in the middle as a peace-
20111
oriented diplomat, and Deng on the other end as a Confucian leader once he
1
escaped from Mao’s shadow. Mao is definitely an outlier in the group, which
2
has much to do with his strong personality as a revolutionary ideologue.
3
Second, leaders’ beliefs are not static but change over time and situations.
4
Discounting the impact of external factors does not mean one should discard
5
them completely. Although beliefs do have cultural roots, my findings do not
6
support the argument that Chinese leaders operate under the influence of a
7
8 simple, offensive strategic culture. Beliefs are situational and not a consistent
9 cultural factor. As the research findings show, Chinese leaders are generally
30111 defensive in nature, and, except for Mao, they are cooperation-oriented.
1 However, situational and conditional constraints as well as the actions of
2 other states also play significant roles in changing leaders’ beliefs, thus
3 affecting their decisions. Mao’s case is also complicated when taking into
4 account time and situation factors.
5 Third, both looking back and to the future, Chinese leaders do not behave
6 like warmongers. They are rational actors, taking seriously into consideration
7 time, context, and situations. Their decisions reflect a preference for defensive
8 rather than offensive strategies. These findings have significant implications
9 for policy makers and analysts in terms of policy choices towards the PRC.
40111 Preemption and preponderance strategies may not work in the way expected
1 but, rather, be provocative, that is, the Chinese leaders will respond in kind
2 rather than being coerced to surrender should challenges emerge. On the other
3 hand, a tit-for-tat strategy will work if accommodation or engagement
44111 strategies are adopted towards China.
122
1111 As for the Taiwan issue, speculations about the potential conflict over
2 Taiwan between China and the US run high among politicians and policy
3 makers, particularly after the reelection of Taiwan’s Chen Shuibian. Managing
4 US–China relations without misperceptions and misunderstandings calls for
5 a cautious look by both sides at the root of their policy options: rivalry or
6 friendship. As this study shows, current Chinese leaders, Jiang or Hu–Wen,
7 are generally Type A leaders with strong cooperative operational code beliefs
8 who prefer peaceful strategies over conflictual strategies. Up to now, their
9 beliefs do not show change over time and context; however, as the two crisis
1011 cases examined between the US and China suggest, the possible scenario of
1 situations around Taiwan might be problematic for both Chinese and US
2 leaders. Even Confucian leaders can turn more aggressive under strong
3111 external pressures or threats.
4 In addition, there is also the possibility that the military might exert a
5 stronger influence under the new leadership, as Hu and Wen do not have a
6 revolutionary or military background. Even as head of the military, how much
7 actual control Hu has is still in question. On the other hand, the Taiwan
8 leaders, particularly Chen, are also provocative. Even the US leaders have
9
warned him to refrain from being so unpredictable in his decisions. Despite
20111
the many crises between China and the US over Taiwan in the past, twice
1
during the cold war (1953, 1958), twice after the cold war (1996 and 2000),
2
and once again in the present (2004), all fell short of military conflicts. With
3
Chen Shuibian and G. W. Bush reelected and Chinese President Hu Jintao
4
formally taking over the state, the CCP, and the army, what kind of future
5
scenario might occur regarding the Taiwan Strait continues to be an open
6
question with the answer depending on the beliefs and strategies of these
7
8 leaders.
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
123
1111
2
3
4
5 METHODOLOGICAL
6
7 APPENDIX
8
9 Content analysis and sequential game analysis
1011
1
2
3 Sampling for automated content analysis
4
Public statements are the major sources for the content analysis in this book.
5
6 Content analyses of Chinese leaders’ operational codes are conducted through
7 the automated computer system Profiler Plus and VICS.1 The VICS scores
8 for Chinese leaders are compared to the average scores for a norming group
9 of world leaders sampled from a variety of historical eras and regions. In
20111 Mao’s and Deng’s cases, some recently revealed telegrams and interviews
1 are used for balancing the number of speeches in different time periods.
2 Deng’s interviews during his visit to the US in early 1979 are essential in
3 understanding his war decision, made in February, to attack Vietnam. A trial
4 test was conducted to compare the operational code beliefs in these different
5 sources for consistency.2
6 Due to constraints on available sources, random sampling was not a
7 practical strategy, so purposeful sampling was conducted. Both general
8 foreign policy speeches and targeted speeches of different leaders were
9 included. The targeted speeches were chosen for the three war cases with a
30111 particular “Other” as the focal point for the speaker. Mao’s target was the
1 US for the Korean War, the Soviet Union and India for the Sino-Indian
2 War; Deng’s targets are the Soviet Union and Vietnam. The public statements
3 for Jiang, Hu, and Wen were extracted from the list of public sources in
4 Chapter 1, including both general speeches and targeted speeches toward the
5 US and Taiwan. Specific sampling steps were followed, which are summarized
6 below.
7 First, efforts were made to exhaust available sources in order to obtain all
8 relevant speeches. Given the limitations in terms of English translation, digital
9 forms, and censorship, the speeches are not exhaustive in terms of sources and
40111 sampled speeches. Some recent publications, which might provide really
1 crucial texts for content analysis, are not yet translated into English. One
2 example is the much discussed and debated recent release of Jianguo Yilai
3 Mao Zedong Wengao, which contains 13 volumes of Mao’s works not
44111 included in the selected works; another is the biography of Marshall Peng
124
METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX
1111 Dehuai who was the commander of the Chinese voluntary people’s troops in
2 the Korean War. Further research is desirable after translations of these works
3 are done.
4 In the process of selecting sources, I tended to use the original sources,
5 mainly the selected works of leaders, as they are the most popular sources,
6 though they have been edited to reflect the government’s preference in terms
7 of content and translation. Other sources include Beijing Review, from which
8 speeches were scanned. People’s Daily online web provides the three volumes
9 of Deng’s selected works. Lexis-Nexis Academics Index is another major
1011 source. Web pages of the Chinese Foreign Ministry and embassies overseas
1 (mainly in the US and Britain) are another source. These sources are reliable
2 because they are mainly officially maintained or academically trustworthy
3111 sources. The selected works are scanned from the publications of the major
4 Chinese foreign language press. Speeches are then selected from the above
5 sources based on two sampling criteria: first, they occurred during the time
6 period from before war/crisis to after war/crisis for these cases: the Korean
7 War 1946–53, Sino-Indian War 1958–65, and Sino-Vietnamese War 1975–84.
8 Second, these are targeted foreign policy speeches with an appropriate length,
9
preferably over 1,000 words.3
20111
Following this procedure, I chose 128 foreign policy speeches from
1
Mao’s nine volumes of Selected Works purposefully during the time span
2
1946–53, and 1958–65. These were put into the computer Profiler Plus
3
program and yielded results for 68, with 59 valid cases, and nine with too
4
many empty cells (0s). Different errors occurred during the parsing of
5
speeches, mainly from the Chinese translations of some words or phrases in
6
7 Pinyin, which the computer dictionary cannot recognize. The loss of about
8 half of the speeches was random from the computer processor; therefore, it
9 should not significantly affect the results. The same process was conducted
30111 in selecting speeches for Deng, Zhou, Jiang, and Hu. Eventually, a total of
1 44 speeches were selected for Mao during the Korean War (27) and the
2 Sino-Indian War (17); 72 speeches for Deng during the Sino-Indian War (9)
3 and Sino-Vietnamese War (63). For Zhou, (11) speeches were scanned into
4 digital forms for analysis for the Korean War (6) and the Sino-Indian War (5).
5 Forty-one speeches for Jiang, 32 speeches for Hu, and eight speeches for
6 Wen Jiabao constituted their respective samples for the crises during their
7 tenures in office.
8 To analyze the impact of immediate threat of military conflict on the leaders
9 to see whether their beliefs change from pre-war to war and to post-war, a
40111 clear cut-off line is necessary for sampling. For pre-war/post-war time periods
1 for the three wars, one year was chosen as the cut-off line, since clashes had
2 been occurring before the three wars, and the danger for a final showdown
3 of arms was constantly presented. Therefore, a year rather than some lesser
44111 number of months was chosen as the cut-off line.4 Using this selection process
125
1111 for Mao in the Korean War, nine speeches were chosen for pre-war, seven for
2 war, and six for post-war periods. For Deng in the Sino-Vietnamese War, 11
3 speeches were chosen for the pre-war period, seven for the war period, and
4 six for the post-war period. For the Sino-Indian War, Mao had two speeches
5 for the pre-war period, one for the war period, and four for the post-war
6 period, and Deng had two speeches for the pre-war period, two for the war
7 period, and two for the post-war period. Zhou had two speeches for the pre-
8 war period, three for the war period, and one for the post-war period for
9 the Korean War, and three speeches for the pre-war period and two for the
1011 post-war period for the Sino-Indian War.
1 These methods of operational code analysis used to test the impact of
2 strategic culture5 on the belief systems of leaders under varying social and
3 historical contexts carry with them the following assumptions and issues,
4 which I want to acknowledge here.
5
6 Assumption 1 Sources for data collection are limited.6 It is also difficult to
7 evaluate available data, especially data from authoritarian states where
8 public media are under strict control by the central government. The
9 question always raised is how one can tell that public statements are not
20111
merely propaganda; thus, how can we be sure that we are measuring true
1
beliefs? To help solve this problem, I look at broad public statements
2
related to foreign policy. The speeches are then classified by different
3
situations (crisis vs. non-crisis); different domains (domestic vs. foreign);
4
and leaders’ roles (subordinate vs. head).
5
Assumption 2 The study of beliefs should involve a detailed analysis of
6
situations, domestic politics and individual leadership personalities as
7
8 well as cognitive capabilities, cultural and historical influences. Therefore,
9 the resulting model cannot be parsimonious. In my model, actors’
30111 (leaders’) decisions relate to strategic interactions under different strategic
1 conditions of war and peace. “When actors are uncertain, beliefs are
2 critical to the choice of strategy and the outcome of the interaction and
3 must be included in a complete description of a strategic interaction.”7
4 “Describing how these beliefs evolve once the interaction has begun is
5 part of analyzing the interaction.”8 To catch these changes, subjective
6 game theory is applied to map out the belief variance. Subjective games
7 can best catch the route of strategic steps taken sequentially by one player
8 after each step taken by the other player. The changes in the direction of
9 moves, tactics, or strategies taken represent the variation of beliefs within
40111 a situation.
1 Assumption 3 Beliefs change. To measure belief changes is difficult and has
2 been criticized for being too simple to be of use, theoretically unsound,
3 and untestable. To address these problems, I am using public statements
44111 of political leaders to measure their beliefs. General as well as targeted
126
1111 public statements of leaders are coded to see if there is consistency

2 between them. If not, then the conditions under which beliefs differ are
3 further specified. The results are largely replicable through the use of
4 automated computerized content analysis, which yields high reliability
5 compared to human coders.
6 Assumption 4 Single case studies can provide insights generalizable to other
7 countries. Case studies have been questioned regarding their generaliz-
8 ability. As this research employs research methodology used by other
9 scholars on different world leaders, their work can provide insights into
1011 generalizability to other regions and countries. Operational code analysis
1 research with the VICS method has been performed for over 50 world
2 leaders. My theoretical argument about the strategic cultural impact on
3111 beliefs contributes to this research on state motivation and identity by
4 addressing how to identify a revisionist and a status quo state and where
5 the beliefs of their leaders come from, thereby tackling a broader question
6 in the field of international relations as well as a debate within the realist
7 paradigm between offensive and defensive realists.
8 Assumption 5 Culture is an elusive variable. Although many scholars acknow-
9
ledge that Chinese cultural and historical legacies influence the way
20111
Chinese leaders define national security interests and worldviews as
1
reflected in their beliefs,9 how to study scientifically and delineate this
2
cultural impact from the non-cultural (structural and material) effects
3
remains contested.10 To sort out a particular cultural impact, I borrow
4
from the cognitive research program of operational code analysis and
5
apply its methods to study scientifically the impact of strategic culture.
6
7
8 Backward induction for game theory analysis
9
30111 The logic for identifying the final outcomes in the sequential games in this
1 book is based on the rules of play specified by Brams (1994) in his TOM,
2 which assume that the players will “think ahead” in making a choice of
3 whether to “stay” or “move” from an initial state in the game matrix. These
4 rules are listed in Chapter 1 and set limits on what a player may choose to do
5 and still act “rationally,” that is, attain his or her best available outcome
6 given: (a) the preference rankings assigned to the different outcomes of
7 settlement, domination, deadlock, and submission for Self and Other in the
8 leader’s subjective game; and (b) the assumption that each player will make
9 choices that take into account the other player’s choices.
40111 The rule of play that sets boundaries on the number of moves in a particular
1 game ending in a final state is Rule 5: “A player will not move from an initial
2 state . . . if this move leads to a less preferred final state or . . . returns play to
3 the initial state,”11 that is, thinking ahead involves asking the basic question
44111 whether the logic of the game’s preference rankings for Self and Other will
127
1111 lead to a sequence of moves ending up back in the cell of the matrix where
2 the sequence has started. If the answer to this question is “yes” for both
3 players, then neither player will move from the initial state. If the answer to
4 this question is “no” for at least one player, then the initial state of the game
5 will not be the final state. Calculating the answer to this question may take
6 several forms in which leaders use cognitive short cuts or make more precise
7 calculations. They may look only one move ahead or up to four moves ahead
8 to reach a myopic or a nonmyopic answer to this question.12
9 While the particular reasoning rules or cognitive heuristics may vary by
1011 decision-maker, the “correct” method for answering this question is “thinking
1 ahead” according to the logic of “backward induction,” in which a leader
2 looks ahead to the sequence of possible moves by reasoning backward from
3 the final move in this series.13 A couple of examples from the mixed motive
4 game (27) in Chapter 1, in which a Confucian leader (Self) plays a defensive
5 realist leader (Other), reveal the logic of backward induction. According to
6 the logic of backward induction, this game has only one nonmyopic solution
7 (4,3) for both players, which is settlement (CO,CO). That is: (a) if the initial
8 state is (4,3), both players will choose “stay”; (b) if the initial state is in
9
another cell, then the players will move to (4,3) as the final state.
20111
1
2 a If the initial state for this game is (4,3), neither player will choose to
3 move from this state, making it the final state (outcome) for this game.
4 In this case the logic of thinking ahead by backward induction is
5 illustrated in the matrix below for Self and Other. Reasoning backward
6 (clockwise), Self calculates that Other will not move from (1,4) to (4,3)
7 because it would mean moving from a state with Other’s highest-ranked
8 outcome. In turn, Self will not move from (3,2) to a worse outcome at
9 (1,4); however, Other will move from (2,1) to a better outcome (3,2). Self
30111 will not move from (4,3) to a worse outcome (2,1). So Self will choose
1 “stay” at (4,3).
2
3
4 Other Other
5 CO CF CO CF
6 CO “4,3”"@ 1,4 CO “4,3”A" 1,4
7 Self ? B Self B ?
8 CF 2,1 A 3,2* CF 2,1 @ 3,2*
9 Self’s Strategy: “Stay” Other’s Strategy: “Stay”
40111
1 The initial state is in quotation marks. The Nash equilibrium is asterisked and the NME is
underlined. The logic of backward induction is indicated by an arrow (A) for “move” and a
2 blocked arrow (A") for “stay.” Both the final state and the NMEs are underlined and the Nash
3 equilibria are asterisked.
44111
128
1111 Other will also choose “stay” at (4,3) according to the following logic
2 of backward induction. Reasoning backward (counterclockwise), Self
3 will choose to move from (2,1) to a better outcome (4,3); Other will
4 choose to move from (3,2) to (2,1) with the expectation that Self will
5 then move to (4,3); Self will move to (3,2) from (1,4) with the expectation
6 that Other will move to (2,1) permitting Self to move to (4,3). Thinking
7 ahead four moves, Other calculates that the game will cycle back to the
8 initial state of (4,3). So Other also chooses “stay” at (4,3), which is
9 the final state that is the NME for this game.
1011 b If the initial state is some other cell in the game matrix, it will be logical
1 for one of the players to move from that cell, leading to a final outcome
2 of (4,3) unless the players employ a myopic calculation rather than a
3111 nonmyopic calculation in thinking ahead. In this case both players may
4 choose “stay” when the initial state is specified as (3,2) in the game matrix
5 below. If they do, it is a myopic solution to this game instead of a
6 nonmyopic solution. This solution is called a Nash equilibrium solution,
7 defined as, “a state—or more properly, the strategies associated with a
8 state—from which no player would have an incentive to depart
9 unilaterally because its departure would immediately lead to a worse, or
20111 at least not a better, state.”14 In this example, if Self chooses “move,” the
1 immediate outcome is (1,4) or a lower ranked preference for Self. The
2 same is true for Other if this player chooses “move” from (3,2) to (2,1).
3
4 Other Other
5 CO CF CO CF
6 CO 4,3 "@ 1,4 CO 4,3 A" 1,4
7 Self ? B Self B ?
8
CF 2,1 A “3,2”* CF 2,1 @ “3,2”*
9
Self’s Strategy: “Stay” Other’s Strategy: “Move”
30111
1 The initial state is in quotation marks. The Nash equilibrium is asterisked and the NME is
2 underlined. The logic of backward induction is indicated by an arrow (A) for “move” and a
3 blocked arrow (A") for “stay.” Both the final state and the NMEs are underlined and the Nash
equilibria are asterisked.
4
5
6 However, if both players think ahead more than one move, the game’s
7 nonmyopic solution is (4,3). While Self will choose “stay,” Other will
8 choose “move,” setting in motion a calculus that will lead each player to
9 move to a final outcome of (4,3). In reasoning backward clockwise, Self
40111 calculates that Other will move from (2,1) to a better outcome of (3,2);
1 however, Self will not move from (4,3) to a worse outcome of (2,1) and
2 Other will not move from its best outcome of (1,4) to (4,3). Self will not
3 move from (3,2) to (1,4) if Other will not move to (4,3). So Self will
44111 choose “stay” at (3,2) as its strategy.
129
1111 In reasoning backward counterclockwise, Other calculates that Self

2 will move from its worst outcome of (1,4) to (3,2). However, Other will
3 not move from (4,3) to (1,4), because it calculates that Self will then move
4 to (3,2). Self will move from (2,1) to (4,3) because it calculates that Other
5 will not move from (4,3). Other will move from (3,2) to a worse outcome
6 of (2,1) because it calculates that Self will move on to (4,3). So Other will
7 choose “move” as its strategy, which makes (4,3) the final state and the
8 NME for this game when (3,2) is specified as the initial state.
9 By extension (4,3) will also be the final state when either (2,1) or (1,4)
1011 is specified as the initial state. One of the players has ranked it as the
1 worst outcome in both cases, giving this player an incentive to choose
2 “move” either directly to (4,3) or to (3,2), depending on who has the
3 next move. If the player with the next move can only move to (3,2), it can
4 also threaten to do so unless the other player moves to (4,3). An effective
5 exercise of such “threat” power makes (4,3) the final solution in this
6 case when Other responds by moving from (1,4) to (4,3) in order to avoid
7 (3,2) as a final outcome.
8 Self’s threat to move to (3,2) if Other moves from (4,3) to (1,4) is also
9 why (4,3) is a nonmyopic solution. Threat effectiveness is demonstrated
20111 in each contingency either by allowing communication between the
1 players or by repeated plays of the game in which Self or Other actually
2 moves to (3,2), which is a worse outcome than (4,3) for both players. For
3 threat power to explain why (4,3) is a nonmyopic solution, an additional
4 rule of play is required in the form of prior communication between
5 players and at least the possibility of repeated plays of the game in order
6 for threats to be credible.15
7 In the application of Brams’ TOM with its rules of play to Chinese
8 decision-making, I assume a single play of the game unless the particu-
9 lar subjective game of a given Chinese leader implies the possibility of
30111 repeated play. I also report both the myopic and nonmyopic solutions
1 for a subjective game to assess the fit between TOM’s nonmyopic pre-
2 dictions about each player’s strategy and the alternative prediction (if
3 there is a Nash solution). In neither case do I assume that China’s leaders
4 necessarily “think ahead” by means of backward induction; however, I
5 am sympathetic to Brams’ argument that:
6 [R]eal players do not painstakingly work backward from the
7 endpoints of a game tree, with many levels and a multitude of
8 branches, to try to determine what they should do at the start of play.
9 Rather, players develop heuristics and use rules of thumb that
40111 simplify this process, not because they are short-term thinkers and
1 have abandoned their intelligence but because they have found good
2 approximations to backward induction. But whence these rules, if
3 not from robust and time-tested simplifications that approximate the
44111 calculus of backward induction?16
130
1111 To sum up, my research examines Chinese decision-making processes in

2 important historical cases. Culture-based misperceptions and misunder-
3 standings between China and the US about the nature of international
4 relations and conflict can be devastating for mutual cooperation and for world
5 peace. Therefore, understanding the process of making decisions can be
6 directly beneficial for peace. It is my hope that content analysis and sequential
7 game analysis provide new angles for building peace by reducing mis-
8 perception and, therefore, eliminating obstacles to confidence-building and
9 cooperation. Moreover, the results may have implications for other regions
1011 with tensions and controversies. By looking at the strategic cultures of
1 particular countries, new paths may be blazed for confidence-building and
2 conflict resolution in the strategic interactions between states.
3111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
131
1111
2
3
4
5 NOTES
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3 1 CHINA AS A RISING POWER
4 1 Alastair I. Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in
5 Chinese History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995); “Cultural
6 Realism and Strategy in Maoist China,” in Peter Katzenstein ed., The Culture of
7 National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1996); “International Structures and Chinese Foreign Policy,”
8 in Samuel S. Kim ed., China and the World: Chinese Foreign Policy Faces the
9 New Millennium (Boulder, C and Oxford: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 55–56;
20111 “Realism(s) and Chinese Security Policy in the Post Cold War Period,” in Ethan
1 B. Kapstein and Michael Mastanduno eds, Unipolar Politics: Realism and State
2 Strategies after the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). While
Johnston himself no longer appears to hold these views, others in the academic and
3 policy community continue to do so. See Alastair I. Johnston, “Is China a Status
4 Quo Power?” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 4 (March 1, 2003), pp. 5–56.
5 2 Zeev Maoz, Paradoxes of War: On the Art of National Self-Entrapment (Boston,
6 MA: Unwin Hyman, 1990). Stephen G. Walker, “The Interface between Beliefs
and Behavior: Henry Kissinger’s Operational Code and the Vietnam War,” Journal
7
of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1977), pp. 129–168; “The Evolution of
8 Operational Code Analysis,” Political Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1990), pp.
9 403–418. Zeev Maoz and Ben Mor, Bound by Struggle: The Strategic Evolution
30111 of Enduring International Rivalries (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,
1 2002). See also Steven J. Brams, Theory of Moves (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994). Subjective games are applied here because they can best
2 model a decision-making process featuring incomplete information and the
3 strategic interactions of different parties.
4 3 A Confucian strategic culture for Johnston is one that embodied “the Confucian-
5 Mencian denigration of the role of violence in state security, or Sun Zi’s alleged
6 emphasis on non- or minimally violent routes to strategic victory” and a preference
for accommodationist grand strategies (Johnston, Cultural Realism, xi, 117).
7 Johnston thinks it to be “inaccurate, misleading, or plainly wrong” (xi).
8 4 Johnston, “Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China”.
9 5 Face validity is the first criterion for selecting items for an index. If you want to
40111 measure political conservatism, for example, each of your items should appear on
1 its face to indicate conservatism or its opposite, liberalism. See Earl Babbie, The
Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth/Thomas Learning Inc., 1995), p. 170.
2 Face validity does not depend on established theories for support. See Arlene Fink,
3 How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
44111 Publications, 1995). My attention was first drawn to some of the translations
132
NOTES
1111 Johnston used in the book. For example, in discussing the core notions in Sun Zi,
2 Johnston translates the phrase “Buzhan Ersheng” as “not fighting and subduing
the enemy” (Johnston, Cultural Realism, pp. 102–103). He interprets the phrase
3 as meaning “fighting is still required, violence must still be applied, but is done
4 so minimally (in relative, not absolute terms) since the objective conditions for the
5 enemy’s defeat already exist.” However, Johnston ignores the presence and
6 significance of “Zong Heng Jia” (diplomatic negotiators) during the Spring
7 and Autumn Periods and the Warring States Period. When Sun Zi wrote his book,
the Zong Heng Jia’s major job was to negotiate for their kings before crisis to
8 avoid fighting. Thus, the preferable translation is “to win without fight”, that
9 is, the virtues of the kings will win them wars and wars should be avoided
1011 whenever possible.
1 6 Zhang Tiejun, “Chinese Strategic Culture: Traditional and Present Features,”
2 Comparative Strategy, Vol. 21, No. 2 (April 1, 2002), pp. 73–90.
7 In the Korean War, China sent its volunteer forces to support the buffer North
3111 Korea not only for ideological reasons but also out of security concerns as the US
4 was approaching the border area close to Northeastern China. In the Sino-Indian
5 War, the Chinese troops withdrew after victory. In the Sino-Vietnamese War, the
6 Chinese leaders sent its troops to “teach the Vietnamese a lesson” and withdrew
after victory as well.
7 8 Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1987). In his theory,
8 Walt argues that a state will not balance against power but against the most
9 immediate threat calculated from the variables of proximity and intentions as well
20111 as power.
9 Offensive and defensive realists differ in their perception of states’ motivations and
1 the views of the security dilemma. Defensive realists recognize that there are
2 basically only status quo or positional states, preferring the absolute gains of
3 survival and security; offensive realists emphasize all states are revisionist, looking
4 for relative gains. Defensive realists believe the security dilemma is intractable
while offensive realists do not think the security dilemma is a dilemma, as security
5 competition is necessary to become the hegemon, which is also the best defense.
6 Overviews of the defensive and offensive realism debate include Sean M. Lynn-
7 Jones and Steven E. Miller, “Preface,” in Michael E. Brown, Owen M. Cote,
8 Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, eds, The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary
9 Realism and International Security (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), pp. ix–xii;
Benjamin Frankel, “Restating the Realist Case: An Introduction,” Security
30111 Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Spring 1996): xiv–xx; Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Realism and
1 America’s Rise: A Review Essay,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Fall
2 1998), pp. 157–182; Robert Jervis, “Realism, Neorealism, and Cooperation,”
3 International Security, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Fall 1998); Jack L. Snyder, Myths of Empire:
Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
4 Press, 1991); Fareed Zakaria, “Realism and Domestic Politics,” International
5 Security, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer 1992).
6 10 Dan Reiter, Crucible of Beliefs: Learning, Alliances, and World Wars (Ithaca, NY
7 and London: Cornell University Press, 1996), p. 11.
11 Reiter, Crucible of Beliefs, p. 11. See also critiques by Robert O. Keohane, John
8 G. Ruggie, Robert Gilpin, Robert W. Cox, and Richard K. Ashley in Robert O.
9 Keohane ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press,
40111 1986).
1 12 Richard Rosecrance and Arthur A. Stein, The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy
(Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1993). Thomas J. Christensen,
2 Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American
3 Conflict, 1947–1958 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). Jack J.
44111 Snyder, Myths of Empire.
133
NOTES
1111 13 Davis B. Bobrow, Steven Chan, and John A. Kringen, Understanding Foreign
2 Policy Decisions: The Chinese Case (New York: The Free Press, 1979).
14 Rosecrance and Stein, The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy, p. 10.
3 15 Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-
4 Wesley Pub. Co., 1979).
5 16 Herbert A. Simon, “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology
6 with Political Science,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 79 (1985),
7 pp. 293–304.
17 Ibid., “Human Nature in Politics,” p. 294.
8 18 Ibid.
9 19 Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton,
1011 NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).
1 20 Stephen Walt, Origins of Alliances; Randall Schweller, Deadly Imbalances (New
2 York: Columbia, 1998).
21 Reiter, Crucible of Beliefs, p. 8.
3 22 Nathan C. Leites, The Operational Code of the Politburo (New York, Toronto,
4 London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951); A Study of Bolshevism
5 (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1953).
6 23 Alexander L. George, “The Operational Code,” International Studies Quarterly,
7 Vol. 13 (1969), pp. 190–222.
24 Ole R. Holsti, “The ‘Operational Code’ as an Approach to the Analysis of Belief
8 Systems.” Final Report to the National Science Foundation, (1977) Grant No.
9 SCO 75–14368. See also, Walker, “The Interface Between Beliefs and Behavior,”
20111 pp. 129–168; “The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems,”
1 International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2 (June 1983), pp. 179–202; “The
2 Evolution of Operational Code Analysis,” Political Psychology, Vol. 11 (1990),
pp. 403–418.
3 25 Stephen G. Walker, Mark Schafer, and Michael Young, “Profiling the Operational
4 Codes of Political Leaders,” in Jerald M. Post ed., The Psychological Assessment
5 of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (Ann Arbor,
6 MI: University of Michigan Press, 2003).
26 Jack Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear
7
Operations,” RAND Report R-2154-AF (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation,
8 September 1977).
9 27 Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction
30111 of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 391–425.
1 28 Another reason to use operational code analysis is that the definition of strategic
culture provided by Johnston is very close to the definition of operational code
2 beliefs by George, as I demonstrate in Chapter 2.
3 29 I chose the Warring States Period first, because major works of the Seven Military
4 Classics Johnston analyzed were written in the Warring States Period; second, by
5 tracing back, I hope to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
6 variations of strategic culture under different social and historical contexts.
Discussions of the qualitative methodology of process-tracing, congruence testing,
7 and case study are in Chapter 2.
8 30 Brams, Theory of Moves. I am adopting the Theory of Moves (TOM) mainly due
9 to the applicability of TOM to ordinal games of strategic preferences with
40111 alternating moves by each player. I also think TOM is a good model for
1 understanding and imitating the strategic choices of states under threat/crisis/
conflict situations. For a contrary view, see Randall Stone who challenges Steven
2 Brams’ TOM by claiming that Brams abuses game theory in international
3 relations, and says it is “backsliding, not progress, in the effort to understand
44111 strategic interaction.” Randall W. Stone, “The Use and Abuse of Game Theory in
134
NOTES
1111 International Relations: The Theory of Moves,” Journal of Conflict Resolution,

2 Vol. 45, No. 2 (2001): 216–244, p. 243. See also Steven Brams, “Response
to Randall Stone,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 2 (2001),
3 pp. 245–254.
4 31 See Leites, The Operational Code of the Politburo; A Study of Bolshevism.
5 32 Stephen G. Walker, Forecasting the Political Behavior of Leaders with the Verbs
6 in Context System of Operational Code Analysis, (Hilliard, OH: Social Science
7 Automation, 2000) p. 2.
33 George, “The Operational Code,” pp. 201–216.
8 34 George, “The Operational Code”; “The Causal Nexus Between Cognitive Beliefs
9 and Decision-Making Behavior,” in Lawrence Falkowski ed., Psychological
1011 Models in International Politics, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979) Chapter 5.
1 Walker, “The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems”; “The
Evolution of Operational Code Analysis.”
2 35 See Leites, The Operational Code of the Politburo, and A Study of Bolshevism.
3111 Walker, “The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems” and “The
4 Evolution of Operational Code Analysis.”
5 36 Walker, “The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems.”
37 Walker, “The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems,” and “The
6 Evolution of Operational Code Analysis.”
7 38 Stephen G. Walker, Mark Schafer, and Michael Young, “Systemic Procedures for
8 Operational Code Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1
9 (March 1998), p. 177.
20111 39 Walker, Schafer, and Young, “Profiling the Operational Codes of Political
Leaders,” p. 224.
1 40 Ibid.
2 41 VICS is a computer software program for content analysis based on verbs in a
3 leader’s speeches. The verbs are coded with a dictionary to construct indices of a
4 leader’s view of the political universe and preferences for the outcomes of
domination, accommodation, submission, or deadlock. See Walker, Forecasting
5 the Political Behavior of Leaders with the Verbs in Context System of Operational
6 Code Analysis. Walker, Schafer, and Young, “Profiling the Operational Codes of
7 Political Leaders.” Michael Young, “Building Worldviews with Profiler+,”
8 in G. Barnett ed., Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. 17: Applications
of Computer Content Analysis (2001), pp. 17–32.
9 42 Walker, Forecasting the Political Behavior of Leaders with the Verbs in Context
30111 System of Operational Code. Walker, Schafer, and Young, “Profiling the
1 Operational Codes of Political Leaders.”
2 43 Brams, Theory of Moves.
3 44 Stephen G. Walker and Mark Schafer (2003) “Operational Code Analysis and
Foreign Policy Decision-making,” prepared as a chapter for the Advances in
4 Foreign Policy Analysis Yearbook, edited by Alex Mintz (Palgrave Press,
5 forthcoming); see also Anatol Rapoport and Melvin Guyer, “A Taxonomy of
6 2 = 2 Games,” General Systems: Yearbook for the Society of General Systems
7 Research, 11 (1966), pp. 203–215.
45 James D. Morrow, Game Theory for Political Scientists (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
8 University Press, 1994).
9 46 Brams, Theory of Moves, p. 26.
40111 47 Brams specifies the rules for sequential games in Theory of Moves Chapter 1 and
1 Chapter 4.
48 A Nash equilibrium is “a state—or, more properly, the strategies associated with
2 a state—from which no player would have an incentive to depart unilaterally
3 because its departure would immediately lead to a worse, or at least not a better,
44111 state” (Brams, Theory of Moves, p. 224).
135
NOTES
1111 49 Nonmyopic equilibrium (NME) refers to: “in a two-person game, a nonmyopic
2 equilibrium is a state from which neither player, anticipating all possible rational
moves and countermoves from the initial state, would have an incentive to depart
3 unilaterally because the departure would eventually lead to a worse, or at least not
4 a better, outcome” (Brams, Theory of Moves, p. 224).
5 50 Brams, Theory of Moves, pp. 23–24, p. 88.
6 51 Game 27’s NME is based on the assumptions of repeated play and the exercise of
7 deterrent power by Ego to keep Alter from defecting to (1,4). See Brams Theory
of Moves, p. 217.
8 52 See Brams, Theory of Moves, Appendix. There are 78 possible 2 = 2 ordinal games.
9 The games with (4,4) outcomes are no-conflict games with (4,4) as the sole NME.
1011 53 Walker and Schafer, “Operational Code Analysis and Foreign Policy Decision-
1 making.” A subjective game does not make the two-sided rationality assumption
2 and, therefore, explains only one actor’s choices and not the outcome constructed
by the choices of both actors.
3 54 Walker and Schafer, “Operational Code Analysis and Foreign Policy Decision-
4 making”.
5
6 2 C H I N A’ S S T R AT E G I C C U LT U R E A N D WA R
7
1 Larry Summers, Professor of Economics at Harvard, former Chief Economist for
8 the World Bank, and immediate past Secretary of the Treasury in President
9 Clinton’s Administration.
20111 2 In this chapter, standard mandarin Pinyin will be used for most of the names of
1 persons, places and dynasties. However, some names are spelled as they appear
2 in the journals using a different spelling system (as practiced in Hong Kong
or Taiwan). For some quotations, original spellings by the authors are used, as in
3 the articles of Tsu Chuo-yun cited later.
4 3 Many of the studies on the influence of Confucianism take the Qing Dynasty as a
5 cutting point. However, after the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China under Sun
6 Zhongshan continued to follow many of the Confucian practices. Many of the
intellectuals of the PRC obtained their education under the Confucian “Sishu”
7
practice where a teacher would lecture students in a private setting on the major
8 works by Confucius. Students learned to recite and copy (for calligraphy as well)
9 those works from a very early age.
30111 4 Hsu Chuo-yun, “War and Peace in Ancient China: The History of Chinese
1 Interstate/International Relations,” Oct. 3, 1997, Occasional Paper No. 75, Asia
Program, The Woodrow Wilson Center, Woodrow Wilson International Center
2 for Scholars, Washington, DC 20560. This conclusion is also shared by other
3 scholars.
4 5 Luoyang is today’s capital city of Henan Province. It is near the Yellow and Luo
5 Rivers. Luoyang was the ancient capital for several dynasties and remains a city
6 of historical interest today.
6 Hsu, “War and Peace in Ancient China,” p. 2. See also Richard L. Walker, The
7 Multi-State System of Ancient China (Hamden: The Shoe String, 1953), pp. 20–40.
8 7 Lynn, J. Battle: A History of Combat and Culture (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
9 2003), p. 34.
40111 8 The civilians had to provide the lords with sacrifices—food, meat, livestock, and
1 even personal services.
9 David Shepherd Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” in Michael
2 Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy eds, The Cambridge History of Ancient China:
3 From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
44111 Press, 1999), p. 746.
136
NOTES
1111 10 The persuaders’ (Zang Heng Jia) name has the meaning of those vertical and
2 horizontal coalitions as seen from geography (with or against the state of Qin
in the west).
3 11 Mostly in the state of Qin, Guan Zhong, Lord Shang Yang, Han Fei are the famous
4 leading figures. The Legalist (fajia) school’s most famous figure is Han Feizi. Some
5 of Han Feizi’s writings influenced the Qin King. Legalist philosophers argued for
6 intelligent rulers to conduct administration without interference from selfish
advisors. Han Feizi stressed that “a state will come to ruin unless ultimate control
7
of everything is always in the rulers’ hands” who delegate authority to officials but
8 should not trust them and use the system of law to control the people (Nivison,
9 “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” pp. 800–801). Rulers should keep an eye
1011 on the officials and punish them if they do not perform well. The idea was for the
1 rulers to rule through fear and absolute control of the state.
12 A famous school exemplified by Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, the impact of which is still
2 largely seen today (Daodejing). The Daoist School emphasizes the significance
3111 of the Dao and the De. Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi are the two major figures and Dao
4 de jing (also called Laozi) is the major work of Daoists. Daoism speaks of the
5 relativity of concepts, of ideal government as “emptying men’s minds and filling
their bellies” and “acting without acting” (wu wei er zhi), and of the usefulness of
6 what isn’t (Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” p. 803). Daoism was
7 dialectical. Daoists deplored the harsh government advocated by Legalists. The
8 Dao was the Way of Nature. The ruler would be effective if he adopted the Dao
9 by “being nonassertive, noncontriving, not even noticed by the people.” There is
an element of “pacifist resentment against the devastation of war, but also the
20111
idea that ‘weakness’ paradoxically has military value” (Nivison, “The Classical
1 Philosophical Writings,” pp. 803–804). The relativity lies in the argument of how
2 the Dao moves by repressing elements that become too prominent. Things would
3 reverse when pushed to the extreme. Daoists argued that “interference with nature
4 is the bane of human life responsible for the deterioration of the human condition”
(Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” p. 804). Therefore, “one should
5 do nothing, avoid scheming intentional action, and nothing will remain undone”
6 (wu wei er zhi). The emphasis on De literally means relying on a kind of power
7 without using physical force. It stressed that weakness can be stronger than
8 strength. This idea is close to the Confucian insistence on the superiority of virtue
and benevolence over harshness and power emphasized by Legalists.
9 13 Mojia was founded by Mo Zi (Master Mo), and his work is mainly in the book
30111 Mozi. Mojia emphasized moral values that differed from Confucian values. “The
1 basic goods in Mo Zi’s consequentialist thinking are three: order (absence of
2 conflict between persons, families, cities, and states), material wealth for the
community, and population growth” (Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical
3
Writings”). His view was more material based, focusing on the ability of the good
4 man/official to provide social benefits for the society. Mo Zi saw Confucian rituals
5 as wasteful. Mo Zi was against conflict because violence will inhibit the
6 accumulation of wealth and population growth. He was particularly against
7 attacking (Fei gong)—he condemned offensive warfare, but considered one of the
functions to be defense (Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” p. 763).
8 Mo Zi also argued for “universal love” (Jian Ai) as the solution to all socially
9 destructive conflict, from quarrels between individuals to wars between states.
40111 These two ideas later influenced Mencius. Mo Zi was famous for his utilitarianism
1 but Mojia’s influence died out completely by the Han Dynasty (Nivison, “The
Classical Philosophical Writings,” p. 760).
2 14 Major figures include Sunzi, Sunbin, Wuzi, Wei Liaozi, and their works The Art
3 of War, Sima fa and Liutao. The Stratagems for the Warring States (Zhanguoce)
44111 or Intrigues was another important military work.
137
NOTES
1111 15 Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” p. 746. See also Hsu, “Applying
2 Confucian Ethics to International Relations,” Journal of Ethics and International
Affairs, 5 (March/April, 1991), pp. 15–31. Benjamin I. Schwartz, The World of
3 Thought in Ancient China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985).
4 16 Nivison, “The Classical Philosophical Writings,” p. 770.
5 17 Major works of Confucius include Analects, Shang shu, Shi jing (classic of poetry),
6 Yi (Changes), Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals), etc. Secondary works on
7 Chinese philosophy see Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy. Vol. 2:
The Period of Classical Learning, trans. Derk Bodde (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
8 University Press, 1953). Arthur Waley, The Analects of Confucius (London: Allen
9 & Unwin, 1938).
1011 18 Zhang Xiangming, “On Two Chinese Administrative Ideas: Rule of Virtue and
1 Rule by Law,” The Culture Mandala: Bulletin of the Center for East-West Cultural
2 and Economic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2002). From the Zhou Dynasty, Chinese
rulers saw China as the center of the world with vast borders and unique
3 geographical conditions for the “Mandate from Heaven.” To reflect this mandate,
4 rulers have to rule according to the people’s will based on virtue and benevolence—
5 ren and li. The emphasis on li (ritual) is a genuine moral philosophy not in form
6 but in essence. To follow li is to display the true virtues of ren in oneself. Loewe
7 and Shaughnessy, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins
of Civilization to 221 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), state:
8
9 rites and sacrifices were a prominent feature of the background civilization.
Since social and even political position both qualified one for and required of
20111 one such ritual performances, “rite” or “ritual” (li), becomes a concept that
1 extended far beyond religious performance, to include the forms that must be
2 observed in all sorts of interpersonal and interrole relationships; these in turn
3 included all of traditional rule-governed political behavior. Therefore, one
4 type of subsequent philosophy—the Confucian—sees a cherishing of ritual as
central to the cultivation of character and the maintenance of social order.
5 (p. 749)
6
The emphasis on li helps explain why the Chinese emperors paid so much
7
attention to the rites of koutou, or the face factor in understanding the Chinese
8 nationalism. Following ren and li, you will have de (true virtue) and exerting de
9 around, you will be able to realize dao (the way—the right/just course).
30111 19 Hsu Chuo-yun, “Applying Confucius Ethics to International Relations,” Journal
1 of Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 5 (March/April, 1991), pp. 15–31.
20 Ibid., p. 22.
2 21 “To Mencius, the worst policy adopted by a state would be to interrupt its people
3 from their normal life for the sake of invading other states. Expansion of territory
4 and accumulation of wealth were both tasks that would do just that” (Hsu, ibid.,
5 p. 24).
6 22 Legalism contrasts with Confucianism in its emphasis on authority, law,
punishment, and reward. Confucianism emphasizes self-cultivation rather than
7 constraining forces from the government. For Confucius, “If you govern the people
8 legalistically and control them by punishment, they will avoid crime, but have no
9 personal sense of shame. If you govern them by means of virtue and control them
40111 with propriety, they will gain their own sense of shame, and thus correct
1 themselves” (Lynn, Battle, p. 42).
23 Meaning the son of Heaven. This title was adopted later on by all the emperors.
2 24 Hui, Victoria Tin-bor, “Why Did Balancing Fail in the Ancient Chinese System,
3 665–221 BC?” Paper read at the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Political
44111 Science Association, Boston, August 29–September 1, 2002, p. 85.
138
NOTES
1111 25 There is a large literature on why Confucianism became the ruling philosophy in
2 China. Here, I will focus more on the inter-state aspect as well as the strategic
implications.
3 26 Hsu, “Applying Confucius Ethics to International Relations,” p. 27.
4 27 Hsu uses this strategic preference to explain the Northern Sung (Song) Dynasty’s
5 relationship with the Khitan dynasties in the 1100s because he thinks the Sung
6 Dynasty was weak. However, I think this preference ranking can be generalized
to Chinese historical treatment towards its bordering minorities as seen from the
7
Tang Dynasty of the tenth century when China was very strong.
8 28 Loewe and Shaughnessy, History of Ancient China, p. 772.
9 29 The most famous mission was Zhang Qian’s who visited Xi Yu several times. The
1011 Tang Emperor—Emperor Taizong married off his daughter—Princess Wencheng
1 to the Tibetan King Songzan Ganbu for friendly relations despite the fact that
Tang was probably one of the strongest dynasties in Chinese history. During the
2 Northern Song Dynasty when China was under severe threat from the bordering
3111 minorities, wars were fought combined with trade and marriages with the
4 barbarians. Yet Confucianism experienced ups and downs. The Southern Song
5 Dynasty witnessed another high peak in the form of “Neo-Confucianism” with
major Confucian scholars holding many major positions in the court. The
6 Southern Song Dynasty was weak, although the Song court aimed to strengthen
7 the central control. Furthermore, even minorities who overwhelmed the Han
8 court in the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty resorted to Confucianism. They
9 learned the practices of the Han court and hired Han intellectuals to teach the
minority officials the classic works of Confucianism. The continuous influence of
20111
Confucianism throughout history shows that the impact of Confucianism cannot
1 be ignored or neglected in understanding Chinese history.
2 30 I am using the version of The Art of War translated by Samuel B. Griffith with a
3 foreword by B. H. Liddell Hart, Sun Tzu: The Art of War (London, Oxford, New
4 York: Oxford University Press, 1963). I am using Sun Zi (Standard Mandarin) and
Sun Tzu interchangeably because both are popularly in use in today’s Chinese
5 Pinyin and in Western language. There were debates from history and at present
6 over whether The Art of War was written by Sun Zi, or his disciples or some
7 others. Scholars also dispute when The Art of War was written. For those debates
8 see Griffith, Sun Tzu: The Art of War.
31 Edward O’Dowd and Arthur Waldron, “Sun Tzu for Strategists,” Comparative
9 Strategy, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1991), pp. 25–36. Laure Paquette, “Strategy and Time
30111 in Clausewitz’s On War and in Sun Tzu’s The Art of War,” Comparative Strategy,
1 Vol. 10, No. 1 (1991), pp. 37–51. Mark Burles and Abram N. Shulsky, “Patterns
2 in China’s Use of Force: Evidence from History and Doctrinal Writings,” (Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000).
3
32 Lynn, Battle, p. 30.
4 33 The Seven Military Classics are a compilation of military writings mainly from the
5 Warring States Period. These include T’ai Kung’s Six Secret Teachings; The
6 Methods of the Ssu-ma; The Art of War; Wu-tzu; Wei Liao-tzu; Three Strategies
7 of Huang Shih-kung, and Questions and Replies Between Tang Tai-tsung and Li
Wei-kung. See The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, translation and
8 commentary by Ralph D. Sawyer with Mei-chun Sawyer (Boulder, CO and
9 Oxford: Westview Press, 1993). This is also the work that was analyzed by
40111 Johnston in his book Cultural Realism.
1 34 Lynn, Battle, p. 43.
35 Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
2 36 O’Dowd and Waldron, “Sun Tzu for Strategists,” p. 27.
3 37 Ibid.
44111 38 Ibid., p. 28.
139
NOTES
1111 39 A nice classic work to see the confluence of Confucianism and Sun Zi’s art of war
2 is Luo Guanzhong’s The Romance of the Three Kingdoms written in the Ming
Dynasty. The impact of different strategies and tactics from the art of war is vividly
3 shown in the wisdom of strategists such as Zhuge Liang, Zhou Yu, and others. One
4 interesting episode is “Zhuge Liang Qi Qin Meng Huo” (Seven Catches of Meng
5 Huo). Meng Huo was a minority general who fought against Liu Bei’s troops led
6 by Zhuge Liang in Southern China. Zhuge Liang managed to catch Meng seven
times using different strategies and tactics, but Meng would not admit failure. So
7
Zhuge Liang let Meng go seven times until Meng was totally persuaded of the
8 superiority of Zhuge Liang in both strategic thinking and morality. Therefore,
9 Meng surrendered his troops without further fighting. This example not only
1011 shows the superiority of fighting stratagems but also emphasizes the significance
1 of morality in fighting wars.
40 O’Dowd and Waldron, “Sun Tzu for Strategists,” pp. 30–31.
2 41 Burles and Shulsky, “Patterns in China’s Use of Force,” pp. 86–92. Burles and
3 Shulsky compared Sun Zi and Clausewitz’s views on the role of intelligence (for
4 Sun Zi to know yourself and your enemy before war; for Clausewitz to direct the
5 generals to act forcefully and purposefully even in absence of the information
according to their ability), the limits of rationality (for Sun Zi, war can be kept
6 under rational control while not for Clausewitz), and stratagems to use force to
7 win wars (for Sun Zi good generalship depends on the use of stratagem, while for
8 Clausewitz it is the center of gravity of power and movement), and general view
9 on bloodless war (which Sun Zi emphasized while Clasusewitz took as dangerous).
42 Cited in Colin Robert Green, “The Spirit of the Military (Junren Hun): The
20111
Tradition and Its Revival in the Republican Period,” dissertation for Doctor of
1 Philosophy, Department of History, University of British Columbia, 2003, p. 26.
2 Richard Holmes, Acts of War: The Behavior of Men in Battle (New York: The Free
3 Press, 1985), p. 24.
4 43 Green, “The Spirit of the Military,” p. 27.
44 O’Dowd and Waldron, “Sun Tzu for Strategists,” p. 34.
5 45 Griffith, Sun Tzu: The Art of War, p. v.
6 46 Though in his chapter on “The Spring and Autumn Period,” in Michael Loewe
7 and Edward L. Shaughnessy eds, The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Hsu
8 Chuo-yun gives the duration for the Spring and Autumn Period from 770–481 BC
and the following chapter in the same book by Mark Edward Lewis on “Warring
9 States Political History” defines the Warring States Period as from 481–221 BC.
30111 47 Hsu, “War and Peace in Ancient China,” p. 7.
1 48 Hui, “Why Did Balancing Fail?,” p. 2.
2 49 Ibid., p. 3.
50 Lynn, Battle, p. 30. Lynn argues for a comparative perspective across continents
3
for a better understanding of warfare in the Western tradition and in Ancient Asia.
4 Therefore, his work studies ancient Greece, Ancient China, India, and Egypt.
5 51 Hsu noted that in Ancient Chinese war fighting, the winning side would not
6 destroy the enemy totally but instead preferred a temporary truce until another
7 showdown of force under the Ba system. The Ba system was initiated by Qi until
the southern Wu and Yue states were formed. “The Ba system was a process of
8 realigning states, both Zhou and non-Zhou, for the sake of establishing a new
9 multistate order.” It set the stage for further interaction and integration in the
40111 Warring States Period until the final establishment of the Qin Dynasty (Michael
1 Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy eds, The Cambridge History of Ancient China,
pp. 565–566. The major powers are not completely involved in the division of
2 balance (Qi; Ch’in). The Warring States Period saw multilateral struggles between/
3 among seven major powers and a handful of minor ones fighting for unification
44111 of China. There was no constant alliance or stable center of balance of power.
140
NOTES
1111 Though during the Warring States Period, “the pattern of inter-state relations was
2 a sheer zero-sum battle,” the rulers of each of the seven major states claimed they
legitimately inherited the royal title; therefore, they had the Mandate of Heaven
3 with supreme ruling power since “royal authority conferred sole sovereignty”.
4 They emphasized the significance of this supreme power through rituals and
5 sacrifices. Hsu, “War and Peace in Ancient China,” p. 3. The threat from the
6 northern border where the nomadic empire of Hsiung-nu (Xiongnu) controlled a
vast area of grassland was mostly dealt with through multiple means including
7
marriage, and “trade interests in the guise of exchange of gifts and granting of
8 trade privileges along its borders” (ibid., p. 6).Although different ruling families
9 (weak or strong) encountered the same threat from the barbarians, war was always
1011 the last policy preference. In short, the Han court hoped to exert their superiority
1 through exemplary cultural behavior. Therefore, the tribute system that was
practiced with these minorities only represented a symbolic ruling relationship
2 between the Chinese Dynasties and the other states which depended much on
3111 their cultural distances from the Chinese court. Although familial relationships
4 prevailed with an emphasis on the Zhou people, and the non-Zhou peoples
5 are referred to as “barbarians,” this depiction of the barbarian “other”—and the
derivative “we vs. they” distinction were not simply cultural, and the world of
6 the Chou leaders is open and inclusive rather than rigid (ibid., p. 2).
7 52 Hsu, “Applying Confucian Ethics to International Relations,” pp. 15–31.
8 53 David Graff and Robin Higham, eds, A Military History of China (Boulder, CO:
9 Westview, 2002), p. 1. Cited in Green, “The Spirit of the Military” (p. 6). Green
also questions if the possibility of the dearth of information on military topics by
20111
the original historical recorders in China reflects the anti-military bias of the
1 Chinese scholar-official writers and attributes the same neglect in Western works
2 on Chinese military topics to the modern sinologists’ bias (ibid., p. 6). Green also
3 points out that the Chinese soldier was held “in contempt” by the Chinese people
4 and ignored by historians as in the case of studies of Nationalist China and
militarism in the Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) era.
5 54 Graff and Higham, A Military History of China, p. 1.
6 55 Green, “The Spirit of the Military,” p. 33.
7 56 Ibid.
8 57 Lynn, Battle, p. 33.
58 As Green also points out, the famous classic literary work The Romance of the
9 Three Kingdoms (San Guo Yanyi) opens with “The Empire, long divided, must
30111 unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.” Cited in Green, “The Spirit
1 of the Military,” p. 34.
2 59 There have been changes in the understanding of Chinese strategic behavior from
earlier times. Formerly sinologists have been criticized for emphasizing too much
3
the pacific nature of Chinese culture; therefore, since the early 1990s there has been
4 an increase in the West emphasizing that China is no different from others in
5 international relations and strategic studies. Furthermore, some argue that the
6 Chinese are more realpolitik in history and in the present with its power growth,
7 and predict that China will be more aggressive in the future. The policy implica-
tions by these scholars are mixed, involving containment, engagement, or both
8 based on a hard-line stand. Earlier works on China’s pacific culture include
9 John King Fairbank, China Perceived: Images and Policies in Chinese-American
40111 Relations (New York: Random House, 1974); The Chinese World Order:
1 Traditional China’s Foreign Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1968); The United States and China, 4th edn (Cambridge, MA and London:
2 Harvard University Press, 1983). See also Jonathan R. Adelman and Shih Chih-yu,
3 Symbolic War: The Chinese Use of Force, 1840–1980 (Taiwan: National Chengchi
44111 University, 1993) and Wang Guangwu, “The Chinese Way: China’s Position in
141
NOTES
1111 International Relations” (Scandinavian University Press: Norwegian Nobel

2 Institute Lecture Series, 1995), p. 89. For works questioning this position, see
Johnston’s works cited earlier, mainly “China’s New ‘Old Thinking’: The Concept
3 of Limited Deterrence,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 3 (1995/1996),
4 pp. 5–42; “Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China,” in P. Katzenstein ed.,
5 The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New
6 York: Columbia University Press, 1996); Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and
Grand Strategy in Chinese History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
7
1995); “Is China a Status Quo Power?” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 4
8 (2003), pp. 5–56; “Prospects for Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization: Limited
9 Deterrence Versus Multilateral Arms Control,” The China Quarterly, No. 146
1011 (1996): 548–576. See also Thomas J. Christensen, “Causing Problems without
1 Catching Up,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (2001), pp. 5–40; “Chinese
Realpolitik: Reading Beijing’s World-View,” Foreign Affairs, 75 (1996), pp. 37–52.
2 For China policy debates, see Samuel S. Kim ed., China and the World: Chinese
3 Foreign Policy Faces the New Millennium (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998);
4 Aaron L. Friedberg, “11 September and the Future of Sino-American Relations,”
5 Survival, Vol. 44, No. 1 (2002), pp. 33–50; John W. Garver, “The [Former]
Coming War with America,” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 12, No. 36
6 (2003), pp. 575–585; John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
7 (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001); Gerald Segal, “Does
8 China Matter?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 5 (1999); David L. Shambaugh,
9 “China or America: Which Is the Revisionist Power?” Survival, Vol. 43, No. 3
(2001), pp. 25–30, and “Sino-American Strategic Relations: From Partners
20111
to Competitors,” Survival, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2000), pp. 97–115. For works on
1 China’s history, see Wang Yuan-kang, “Culture and Foreign Policy: What Imperial
2 China Tells Us?” paper presented at the 2002 APSA Annual Conference (with
3 author permission to cite), Boston 2002; Michael D. Swaine and Ashley J. Tellis,
4 Interpreting China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and Future (Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation, 2000); Zhang Tiejun, “Chinese Strategic Culture:
5 Traditional and Present Features,” Comparative Strategy, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2002),
6 pp. 73–90; Xiang Lanxin, “Washington’s Misguided China Policy,” Survival,
7 Vol. 43, No. 3 (2001), pp. 7–23.
8 60 As Deng Xiaoping said during his visit to the United States in 1979, “The Chinese
People suffered amply from the miseries of war. We do not wish to fight a war
9 unless it is forced upon us. We are firmly against a new world war . . . we want
30111 peace—a genuine peace in which the people of each country may develop and
1 progress as they wish, free from aggression, interference, and bullying” (Beijing
2 Review, February 9, 1979).
61 I am putting down the three features as a progressive process with a ranking
3
preference, that is, righteous war will only happen if the first two cannot work.
4 Thus, the righteous war argument is not instrumental, as structural realists will
5 argue. War means two things here: first, all other resorts are exhausted; second,
6 as the old Chinese saying goes, “We will not attack unless we are attacked; if we
7 are attacked, we will certainly counterattack” (ren bu fan wo, wo bu fan ren, ren
ruo fan wo, wo bi fan ren). This is the traditional maxim reflecting the spirit in
8 Chinese martial art as a defensive practice, that is, only for self-defense. But if
9 attacked, you will not be bullied. I like to call this a “leave me alone mentality.”
40111 China never seeks to expand to take over other countries’ territory or resources,
1 but it will resist other states’ efforts to exploit its own as seen from the 150 years
of humiliation. Thus, it is necessary to understand this national mentality (though
2 there might be some overseas Chinese scholars who want to ignore this).
3 62 Jin Dexiang, a famous Chinese scholar, provided an explanation from the
44111 perspective of Chinese philosophical thinking for the notion of China as a
142
NOTES
1111 peace-loving nation. He pointed out that the Chinese culture is static and
2 agricultural, based on a self-sufficient economy. From this organization emerged
a defensive and peaceful national psychology, which had fundamental differences
3 from the nomadic nations such as Genghis Khan’s Mongols and some other
4 maritime powers such as the ancient Roman Empire, the British Empire, and
5 Japan.The agriculturally based Confucian culture has traditionally been defensive
6 in nature (Jin Dexiang, “Zhongguo de Heping Waijiao Chuantong yu Xifang
de Huanghuolun (China’s Peaceful Diplomacy Tradition and Western ‘Yellow
7
Peril’),” Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (World Economy and Politics), No. 11 (1997),
8 p. 13). There have been recent works questioning whether the Han Dynasty under
9 Emperor Wu was not expansionist and also China’s relations particularly with
1011 Vietnam and with the Xiongnu minority people from the north. China’s
1 relationship with Vietnam from the second century until the tenth century is an
exception, but I do not count it as an important anomaly for my claim. First, the
2 Danang kingdom in Vietnam existed through raids in the region. I argue that in
3111 order to maintain a stable border, the Han Dynasty rulers took Vietnam under its
4 supervision, just as in the wars with the Northern Tartar tribes. Second, Vietnam
5 became part of the tribute system, which represented a close cultural relationship
between the two countries when the system was institutionalized. For Vietnam
6 history, see internet source: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/south_
7 east_asia/vietnam/history.htm. See also Nicola Di Cosmo, Ancient China and
8 its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History (Cambridge:
9 Cambridge University Press, 2002).
63 Fairbank, The Chinese World Order; China Perceived; Li Jijun, “Traditional
20111
Military Thinking and the Defensive Strategy of China,” (Strategic Studies
1 Institute, 1997); Wang Guangwu, “The Chinese Way;” Zhang Tiejun, “Chinese
2 Strategic Culture;” Adelman and Shih, Symbolic War.
3 64 Johnston, Cultural Realism, p. 62.
4 65 Fairbank, The United States and China, pp. 68–69.
66 Johnston, Cultural Realism, p. 64.
5 67 Ibid.
6 68 Ibid. p. 66.
7 69 On the Western views of China’s pacific culture, see Green, also see Robin Yates
8 and Krzysztof Gawlikowski, Science and Civilization in China Volume 5 Part VI:
Military technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 97–100;
9 Morton Fried, “Military Status in Chinese Society,” American Journal of
30111 Sociology, Vol. 57 (1951), pp. 347–357. On the place of war in Chinese history,
1 see John Magruder, “The Chinese as a Fighting Man,” Foreign Affairs, No. 3
2 (April 1931), pp. 469–476. Johnston provides a detailed literature review in both
his book on Cultural Realism and an article published in 1998 in The China
3
Quarterly (Johnston, Cultural Realism, pp. 63–65, 117–123; “China’s Military
4 Interstate Dispute Behavior 1949–1992: A First Cut at the Data,” The China
5 Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1998), pp. 6–7).
6 70 Fairbank, China Perceived; The Chinese World Order; The United States and
7 China. Frank A. Kierman, Jr and John K. Fairbank eds, Chinese Ways in Warfare
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974).
8 71 Christensen, “Causing Problems without Catching Up.” After the terrorist attack
9 on the US, some scholars argue that the cooperation between China and the US
40111 in their fight against terror will not fundamentally change Sino-US relations as all
1 the old problems, Taiwan, trade, and human rights, etc. remain unchanged after
September 11. See Friedberg, “11 September and the Future of Sino-American
2 Relations.” For these scholars, China does not yet possess the capability to
3 challenge or threaten the US, but China can pose major problems to US security
44111 by adopting asymmetric strategies. Moreover, in the long run China will become
143
NOTES
1111 a competitor if its relative power closes the gap with the US. As a revisionist and
2 rising state, “China matters most for the West because it can make mischief,
either by threatening its neighbors or assisting anti-Western forces further
3 afield.” Segal, “Does China Matter?” pp. 35–36. Some scholars argue further
4 that China has been, and remains, a threat to the international system, especially
5 given the increasing tensions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea
6 disputes. See Paul Dibb, David Hale, and Peter Prince, “Asia’s Insecurity,”
Survival, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn 1999), pp. 5–20. Denny Roy, “China’s
7 Reaction to American Predominance,” Survival, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn 2003),
8 pp. 57–78. Richard Weitz, “Meeting the China Challenge: Some Insights
9 from Scenario-Based Planning,” The Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 24,
1011 No. 3 (September 2001), pp. 19–48. Shambaugh, “Sino-American Strategic
Relations.” They predict that China is a dissatisfied state with many territorial/
1 border disputes with other states/entities (Taiwan, Japan, Russia, India,
2 Vietnam) and when China has the power, it will seek to change the status quo.
3 72 Shambaugh, “Sino-American Strategic Relations.”
4 73 Shambaugh, “China or America: Which is the Revisionist Power?” p. 28.
74 Ibid.
5 75 Ibid., p. 4.
6 76 Segal, “Does China Matter?” pp. 35–36.
7 77 Aaron Friedberg, “Warring States: Theoretical Models of Asia Pacific Security,”
8 Harvard International Review 18 (Spring 1996).
78 Peter Hays Gries, “Power and Resolve in U.S. China Policy,” International
9 Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall 2001), pp. 155–165.
20111 79 See Shih Chih-yu, China’s Just World: the Morality of Chinese Foreign Policy
1 (Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 1993), pp. 40–42; and Fairbank, The
2 United States and China.
80 Alastair I. Johnston, “International Structures and Chinese Foreign Policy,” in
3 Samuel S. Kim ed., China and the World: Chinese Foreign Policy Faces the New
4 Millennium (Boulder, CO and Oxford: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 55–56.
5 81 Alastair I. Johnston, “Realism(s) and Chinese Security Policy in the Post Cold
6 War Period,” in Ethan B. Kapstein and Michael Mastanduno eds, Unipolar
Politics: Realism and State Strategies after the Cold War (New York: Columbia
7 University Press, 1999), pp. 261–263.
8 82 Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?” p. 50.
9 83 Kaori Nakajima Lindeman, “What Makes a Revisionist State Revisionist? –
30111 The Role of International Norms in State Identity Formation,” paper prepared
for presentation at the 43rd Annual International Studies Association
1 Convention, New Orleans, 23–27, March 2002 (obtained from Internet source).
2 84 Denny Roy, “China’s Reaction to American Predominance.”
3 85 Ibid.
86 David C. Kang, “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical
4
Frameworks,” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Spring 2003), p. 63.
5 87 Alastair Iain Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?” p. 5.
6 88 Kang, “Getting Asia Wrong,” p. 66. Kang further states, “East Asian regional
7 relations have historically been hierarchic, more peaceful, and more stable
than those in the West.” “East Asian international relations emphasized
8 formal hierarchy among nations while allowing considerable informal equality”
9 (pp. 66–67).
40111 89 See Chapter 1, note 5.
1 90 One example is how Johnston uses the word, Parabellum, which comes from
the realpolitician’s axiom “si pacem, parabellum” (if you want peace, then
2 prepare for war) as parallel to the Chinese idiom, “ju an si wei, wu bei
3 you huan” (while residing in peace, think about dangers; without military
44111 preparations there will be calamity). The phrases are translated into similar
144
NOTES
1111 meanings. But in the original Chinese phrase, ju an si wei, wu bei you huan has
2 two meanings: it might mean, as Johnston argues, to prepare for war and initiate
war for peace as offensive means. However, prepare for war does not necessarily
3
mean to initiate war, which Johnston ignores. As in martial arts, the purpose for
4 practicing it is not to beat people up, but when an enemy attacks, you will not
5 be beaten and even be able to teach the attacker a lesson (not through total
6 destruction, but something to remember). A closely related Chinese phrase is
7 “wei yu chou mou, you bei wu huan” (prepare your house by adding more
8 dried grasses on your roof for rain before it rains). In Chinese philosophy the
concern for security is self-concentrated. People will prepare hand-dried grasses
9 before rain to cover up their own roof, but they will not tear off the other’s roof
1011 for their own use. Alastair I. Johnston, “Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist
1 China,” p. 217, n.2.
2 91 There are also some of the interpretations of ancient Chinese language. Ancient
3111 Chinese language is different from the modern Chinese language, which leads
to quite different interpretations. For example, one character in Chinese can
4
have different pronunciations and can be translated into different meanings.
5 The word “yi” with a third tone can mean firstly “use”, or “through means
6 of”, or “depending on”, etc., much depending on the will of the writer and the
7 context. Also, the punctuation of sentences may mean different things.
8 Misinterpreting some key characters may result in a completely different
9 meaning and understanding. See also Chapter 1.
92 See Huiyun Feng, “The Operational Code of Mao Zedong: Defensive or
20111 Offensive Realist?” Security Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct.–Dec. 2005),
1 pp. 637–662.
2 93 Johnston, “Realism(s) and Chinese Security Policy”; Wang Yuan-kang, “Culture
3 and Foreign Policy: What Imperial China Tells Us?” Andrew Scobell, “China
4 and Strategic Culture,” May 2002, Strategic Studies Institute Occasional papers,
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2002/culture/culture.htm.
5
94 Thomas Kane argues for the influence of Legalism which is the realpolitik
6 counterpart of Confucianism. Thomas Kane, “China’s Foundations: Guiding
7 Principles of Chinese Foreign Policy,” Comparative Strategy, Vol. 20, No. 1
8 (January 1, 2001), pp. 45–55. He argues that even if China benefits from world
9 markets and the existing balance of power, the Chinese regime will not be
30111 satisfied with that balance because China depends on force to protect its wealth
through means of arms. The Chinese will want to retain the potential to
1 challenge the existing order by force. See also Johnston, Cultural Realism,
2 “Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China,” “Realism(s) and Chinese
3 Security Policy”; Christensen, “Chinese Realpolitik”; and Wang Yuan-kang,
4 “Culture and Foreign Policy: What Imperial China Tells Us?”
5 95 See Fairbank, The United States and China; and Zhang Tiejun, “Chinese
Strategic Culture.”
6
96 Scobell, “China and Strategic Culture.”
7 97 Scobell, “The Chinese Cult of Defense,” Issues and Studies, Vol. 37, No. 5
8 (2001), pp. 100–127.
9 98 Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?”
40111 99 Ibid.
1 100 Johnston provides a thorough literature review in his article. See Johnston, “Is
China a Status Quo Power?” pp. 13–22.
2 101 Johnston, ibid., pp. 5–6.
3 102 Ibid., p. 50.
44111 103 Ibid., p. 48.
145
NOTES
1111 104 Though in general scholars writing on the topic recognize the significance
2 of the concept and the general origin of strategic culture studies from the
work of Snyder and Booth, they differ considerably in the definition and
3 operationalization they offer or follow, or what kind of role they bestow on
4 strategic culture in decision-making or determining policy preferences. See the
5 debate between Alastair I. Johnston and Colin Gray: Colin S. Gray, “Strategic
6 Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory Strikes Back,” Review
of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1999), pp. 49–69; Alastair Iain
7
Johnston, Cultural Realism; Johnston, “Strategic Cultures Revisited: Reply
8 to Colin Gray,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1999),
9 pp. 519–523. Gray acknowledges that gathering all scholars working on the
1011 topic makes only “a small party.” Colin S. Gray, “Strategic Culture as Context,”
1 p. 49, footnote 1.
105 Jack Snyder, The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear
2 Operations (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation Report R-2154-aF,
3 September 1977). Snyder, “The Concept of Strategic Culture: Caveat Emptor,”
4 in Carl Jacobsen ed., Strategic Power: USA/USSR (London: Macmillan, 1990).
5 106 Major works include Peter Katzenstein ed., The Culture of National Security
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); Raymond Cohen, Negotiating
6 Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy
7 (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1990); Robert Rubinstein,
8 “Cultural Aspects of Peacekeeping: Notes on the Substance of Symbols,”
9 Millennium, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Winter 1993), pp. 547–562; Alastair Iain Johnston,
Cultural Realism; Keith R. Krause ed., Culture and Security: Multilateralism,
20111
Arms Control and Security Building (London, Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 1999);
1 Ken Booth and Russell Trood eds, Strategic Cultures in Asia-Pacific Region
2 (New York: St Martin’s Press, Inc., 1999).
3 107 Examples are the studies of regionalism and multilateral cooperation in the
4 Asia-Pacific region in the edited book by Ken Booth and Russell Trood, Strategic
Cultures in Asia-Pacific Region. However, in the past and in the recent trend
5 of research on strategic culture, China has always been an interesting and
6 significant case. This consistency can be seen from a series of works by Fairbank,
7 Johnston, and other scholars. Since the 1990s, there has been an increasing
8 interest in China studies especially from a cultural perspective. For earlier works,
see John K. Fairbank, China Perceived; The Chinese World Order; The United
9 States and China. Works by Johnston include “Thinking About Strategic
30111 Culture,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 4 (1995), pp. 32–64; Cultural
1 Realism; “Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China;” “International
2 Structures and Chinese Foreign Policy;” “Is China a Status Quo Power?;”
“Strategic Cultures Revisited.” Johnston and Robert S. Ross, Engaging China:
3
The Management of an Emerging Power (London and New York: Routledge,
4 1999). Stuart Poore, “What is the Context? A Reply to the Gray–Johnston
5 Debate on Strategic Culture,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2
6 (2003), pp. 279–284. Some recent works on Chinese strategic culture include
7 Jonathan R. Adelman and Chih-yu Shih, Symbolic War; Zhang Shu Guang,
“China: Traditional and Revolutionary Heritage,” in Ken Booth and Russell
8 Trood eds, Strategic Cultures in Asia-Pacific Region (New York: St Martin’s
9 Press, Inc., 1999); Yuan Jing-dong, “Culture Matters: Chinese Approaches to
40111 Arms Control and Disarmament,” in Keith R. Krause ed., Culture and Security:
1 Multilateralism, Arms Control and Security Building (London, Portland, OR:
Frank Cass, 1999); Shih Chih-yu, China’s Just World; Michael D. Swaine
2 and Ashley J. Tellis, Interpreting China’s Grand Strategy; Andrew Scobell,
3 “China and Strategic Culture;” Scobell, “The Chinese Cult of Defense;” Wang
44111 Yuan-kang, “Culture and Foreign Policy: What Imperial China Tells Us?;”
146
NOTES
1111 Wang Guangwu, “The Chinese Way”; Zhang Shu Guang, Deterrence and
2 Strategic Culture: Chinese-American Confrontations, 1949–1958 (Ithaca, NY
and London: Cornell University Press, 1993); Zhang Tiejun, “Chinese Strategic
3 Culture;” and Chapters by Lawrence C. Katzenstein, “Change, Myth, and the
4 Reunification of China,” and Rosita Dellios, “ ‘How May the World be at
5 Peace?’: Idealism as Realism in Chinese Strategic Culture,” in Valerie M.
6 Hudson ed., Culture and Foreign Policy (Boulder, CO and London: Lynne
7 Rienner Publishers, 1997). For a general debate in the 1990s of the return of
culture to international relations studies, see Josef Lapid and Friedrich
8 Kratochwil, The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder, CO and
9 London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996).
1011 108 See Yitzhak Klein, “A Theory of Strategic Culture,” Comparative Strat-
1 egy, Vol. 10, 1991, pp. 3–23. Yuan Jing-Dong, “Culture Matters: Chinese
2 Approaches to Arms Control and Disarmament,” p. 87; Johnston, Cultural
Realism. In this book, I am adopting Johnston’s definition, which I think is more
3111 comprehensive than the other definitions in structuring the concept and pointing
4 out a way of measurement.
5 109 Klein, “A Theory of Strategic Culture,” p. 11.
6 110 Gray, “Strategic Culture as Context”; Johnston, Cultural Realism; Johnston,
7 “Strategic Cultures Revisited: Reply to Colin Gray.”
111 Poore, “What is the Context?” p. 279.
8 112 Ibid., p. 283.
9 113 Ibid.
20111 114 Ibid., p. 284.
1 115 Johnston, Cultural Realism, pp. 112–113.
116 Ibid.
2
3
4 3 MAO ZEDONG AND ZHOU ENLAI
I N T H E K O R E A N WA R
5
6 1 Omar Bradley, quoted in Joseph C. Goulden, Korea: the Untold Story of the War
(New York: Times Books, 1982). This chapter is based heavily on recent works
7
on the Korean War. See Chen Jian, China’s Road to the Korean War: The
8 Making of the Sino-American Confrontation (New York: Columbia University
9 Press, 1994). Thomas J. Christensen, Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy,
30111 Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958 (Princeton,
1 NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). Sergei Goncharov, John Lewis, and Xue
Litai, Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War (Stanford, CA:
2 Stanford University Press, 1993). Hao Yufan and Zhai Zhihai, “China’s
3 Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited,” The China Quarterly,
4 121 (1990), pp. 94–115. Shen Zhihua, “Khrushchev, Mao and the Unrealized
5 Sino-Soviet Military Cooperation,” in Parallel History Project on NATO and
6 the Warsaw Pact: China and the Warsaw Pact, 2002. Willian Stueck, The
Korean War: An International History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
7 Press, 1995). Zhang Shuguang, Mao’s Military Romanticism: China and the
8 Korean War (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1995). Zhang Shuguang,
9 Deterrence and Strategic Culture: Chinese-American Confrontations,
40111 1949–1958 (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1993). See also
1 the new evidence provided in the Cold War International History Project
Bulletins and Working Paper series at http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=
2 1409&fuseaction=topics.home.
3 2 Michael H. Hunt, “Beijing and the Korean Crisis, June 1950–June 1951,”
44111 Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 107, No. 3 (1992), pp. 453–478.
147
NOTES
1111 3 Bajanov argues that Stalin did not consult Mao in advance about the North Korean
2 invasion plan “because he wanted to work out the plans for the Korean War
himself without Chinese interference and objections and then present Beijing with
3 a fait accompli when Mao would have no choice but to agree with the invasion
4 and assist it.” See Evgueni Bajanov, “Assessing the Politics of the Korean War,
5 1949–51,” Cold War International History Project Bulletins b6–75q (1995).
6 During Mao’s visit to Moscow in 1950, Mao wanted to liberate Taiwan but Stalin
opposed the idea.
7
4 The North Korean nuclear crisis can be seen as a continuation of the unsettled
8 Korean War. Despite the efforts of the six party negotiations involving the United
9 States, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and China, North Korea
1011 launched missile tests in 1998 and in October 2006 conducted nuclear test.
1 Although North Korea agreed to return to negotiations, the future over non-
proliferation and arms control darkened for Asia and the world.
2 5 Chen Jian, China’s Road to the Korean War, Chapter 4, pp. 92–124.
3 6 Chen Jian reported that Mao wanted to liberate Taiwan in the shortest time (ibid.,
4 p. 26, p. 89, and p. 94).
5 7 Ibid. Chapter 5 “Beijing’s Response to the Outbreak of the Korean War,” p. 130.
8 Chen Jian states that Mao and his fellow CCP leaders realized that by adding their
6 strength to the North Koreans, they could contribute to the creation of a new
7 international order in East Asia more favorable to revolutionary China. Therefore,
8 Korea became the focus of Chinese security against America (Chen, ibid., p. 150).
9 It must also be noted that although China and Korea were both socialist countries,
and even Kim Il Sung, the North Korean leader, was trained in northeast China
20111
during the Chinese war against Japan, the Korean leader maintained vigilance
1 against Chinese influence, especially given his internal politics struggle with those
2 “Chinese sections.” Therefore, as Chen reports, Beijing and Pyongyang shared a
3 very sensitive relationship. Kim did not inform Mao and the CCP of his specific
4 plan and timing of attack until three days after the attack (June 27). Even during
the war, Kim did not inform the Chinese of developments until he encountered
5 severe resistance and counterattacks from the US/UN forces. The differences
6 continued when China sent Chinese People’s Volunteers (CPV) under Peng. Peng
7 often ran into conflict with Korean officers and Kim himself. The Chinese troops
8 also encountered many difficulties as a result of uncoordinated cooperation from
the North Korean military and civilians (ibid., pp. 134–135).
9 9 Stalin wanted the Chinese to get involved, but Mao did not agree due to his priority
30111 of unification with Taiwan. Mao was misled by Kim as well in the latter’s
1 miscalculation of American involvement. Mao warned of American military
2 intervention and the potential landing at Inchon, but this information was ignored
by the North Korean leadership who neglected the Chinese throughout the war
3
in favor of Soviet opinions, Chen, China’s Road to the Korean War, pp. 129–130.
4 10 Clashes between the North and the South were constant along the 38th Parallel
5 initiated by both sides. Stalin wanted the North to refrain from provocative actions
6 along the 38th Parallel to avoid direct war with the Americans in 1949. The South
7 started a battle along the 38th Parallel in May 1949 to fight the North Korean
guerrillas. Evgueni Bajanov, “Assessing the Politics of the Korean War, 1949–51.”
8 www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea.htm.
9 11 Until the end of 1949, Stalin did not plan any aggression against South Korea but
40111 worried about an attack from the South. Stalin did not want to fight a war right
1 then with Washington though the Soviets had acquired nuclear power and the
Chinese Communist Revolution had just succeeded, adding triumphs to the
2 international Communist movement. Stalin was also worried about the North
3 Korean military capability in carrying out the mission of military reunification
44111 due to its lack of trained military personnel, adequate ammunition and logistic
148
NOTES
1111 support. See Michael H. Hunt, “Beijing and the Korean Crisis, June 1950–June
2 1951;” Bajanov, “Assessing the Politics of the Korean War, 1949–51.”
12 www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea.htm.
3 13 See telegrams between Stalin and Kim from late 1949 to early 1950 in Kathryn
4 Weathersby, “To Attack, or Not to Attack? Stalin, Kim Il Sung, and the Prelude
5 to War,” Cold War International History Project Bulletins, 1995. Kathryn
6 Weathersby (translation and commentary), “New Findings on the Korean War,”
Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), 1993. Bajanov, “Assessing the
7
Politics of the Korean War, 1949–51.”
8 14 Hao Yufan and Zhai Zhihai, “China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War.”
9 15 Chen Jian reports in Mao’s China and the Cold War:
1011 Although the North Korean Communists might not have informed the Beijing
1 leadership of the exact date and specific details of their plans to invade the
2 South, extensive exchanges existed between Beijing and Pyongyang before
3111 the outbreak of the Korean War. Beijing leaders knew that the Korean
Communists were determined to use military means to ‘liberate’ the South.
4 Beijing leaders, and Mao in particular, did take into account the possibility of
5 American intervention in the wake of such invasion, but the Chinese military
6 planners did not believe that the Americans had the intention or capacity to
7 engage in a major military intervention in Asia at that time.
(Chen Jian, Mao’s China and the Cold War (Chapel Hill, NC
8 and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001)
9 Chapter 4, En. 4, p. 314)
20111
16 When the Civil War ended with the GMD troops fleeing to Taiwan, the Chinese
1 domestic economic situation was devastated after continuous wars; first with the
2 Japanese then with Jiang Jieshi. China was not prepared to fight another war
3 though unifying Taiwan was top on the Chinese military agenda. Mao was not
4 prepared to fight America in Korea. Although Beijing knew that the North Korean
leadership wanted to reunify with the South, Beijing was not informed of the exact
5 time for the invasion nor was Mao prepared for supporting North Korea’s military
6 actions. First, the PLA started to demobilize in early 1950 and Premier Zhou was
7 in charge of demobilizing 1.4 million of the PLA (the total number was then 5.4
8 million) starting June 20, 1950, five days before the North Korean attack. Second,
the Chinese Embassy was not established and the Chinese ambassador was not in
9 his post until August 1950; therefore, communication between the North and the
30111 Chinese Communist Party was limited. Third, the Chinese stationed only the 42nd
1 Army of the Fourth Field Corps along the Yalu river border when the war started,
2 which was engaged with domestic agricultural production. The troops later sent
to Korea were shifted from other regions, therefore not logistically prepared for
3
fighting in Korea especially in winter. The armies at that time were helping out
4 mainly in domestic production and economic reconstruction. Some of the troops
5 shifted to the northeast were originally stationed in the coastal area to liberate
6 Taiwan (9th and 10th Field Corps). Hao and Zhai, “China’s Decision to Enter the
7 Korean War: History Revisited.” Hao and Zhai’s analysis is based on a large
amount of new Chinese resources, mainly memoirs by Chinese generals directly
8 involved in the war decision-making process, military analysts’ recent publications
9 and interviews. See also Zhang Xiaoming, “China and the Air War in Korea,
40111 1950–1953,” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 2 (1998), pp. 335–370.
1 17 Mao was aware that Stalin might have considered stopping the Chinese from
taking Taiwan. Stalin did not want to see the unification of China. China’s
2 emergence as a communist giant in Asia was not in the Soviet interest. Mao had
3 his security agenda set on Taiwan and domestic consolidation. Therefore, China
44111 did not want to get involved so quickly in a conflict with America. The question
149
NOTES
1111 of Chinese awareness of the North Korean attack was under debate for some time
2 until the recent release of Mao, Kim, and Stalin’s exchange of telegrams by the
former Soviet Union archives. The new evidence challenges some of the claims
3 that China was forced completely into the Korean War for security reasons.
4 However, Mao was not completely aware of the military plans of Kim or the details
5 of the attack. Kim only reported this information to Stalin directly, which indicated
6 the closeness of the Korean leadership with the Soviets rather than the Chinese,
as Kim believed that only the Soviet Union could provide the kind of support he
7
needed. Recent Chinese sources confirmed that “the Chinese leaders had no
8 intention at all of intervening in the war at its beginning, and they provided only
9 moral support for Kim Il-Sung” (Hao and Zhai, p. 100). However, as the war
1011 turned out later, the Soviet Union was not as enthusiastic as Kim expected. There
1 were also discussions over Mao’s calculation about getting involved in the Korean
War. Mao saw a confrontation with the Americans as inevitable but speculated
2 three possible places: Taiwan, Korea, or Vietnam. Mao decided that Korea was
3 the best choice to confront the US due to its geographical location, inevitable
4 Soviet support, and strategic importance. Hao, Yufan, and Zhihai Zhai, “China’s
5 Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited.”
18 This date was disputed (see n. 21 below). Some state that the Chinese troops were
6 in Korea long before November. One account by Chen Jian states that Oct. 19,
7 1950 was the date the Chinese forces entered Korea. There was no denying that
8 some Chinese troops were already in Korea before Nov. 25; however, the
9 deployment of a large number of forces after formally declaring Chinese
involvement was on Nov. 25. Therefore, I am using that date as the official entry
20111
date here.
1 19 Allen S. Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu: The Decision to Enter the Korean War
2 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960). There was a debate among the
3 Chinese leadership; on the one hand, China did not want to directly get into a war
4 with the US, therefore, the troops should not be formal military troops. On the
other hand, the Chinese leadership firmly believed that they were entering for a
5 just cause to help fight against imperialists. The CPV represented the aspiration
6 of the Chinese people to fight a righteous war to help save the Korean people
7 voluntarily for an anti-imperialism cause. This term was coined by a Chinese
8 official for this special purpose.
20 The phrase was quite popular in the Chinese media, see People’s Daily and Beijing
9 Review during the time.
30111 21 Historians debate when the Chinese forces entered the war. Some argue that
1 Chinese troops were already inside North Korea fighting with Kim’s forces early
2 on and Chinese troops were long prepared to enter. New evidence shows that
China did transfer some troops from the south to the northeastern border.
3
However, the major force along the northeastern border was Lin Biao’s Fourth
4 Field Army, which was the major force fighting in Korea later under Peng Dehuai’s
5 command.
6 22 Chen Jian argues that Mao’s China in many key respects was not a peripheral
7 actor but a central one during the cold war. See Chen Jian, Mao’s China and The
Cold War, p. 2.
8 23 Evgueni Bajanov, “Assessing the Politics of the Korean War, 1949–51.”
9 24 Ibid. See also Chen Jian, China’s Road to Korea.
40111 25 Mao’s son Mao Anying died in the Korean War.
1 26 It was not until 1951 that the Soviet airforce started patrolling and engaged the
US airforces disguised as Chinese or North Korean pilots. Stalin still did not want
2 to fight the US directly especially given the possibility of a nuclear showdown
3 between the two superpowers. Zhang Xiaoming, “China and the Air War in
44111 Korea, 1950–1953.”
150
NOTES
1111 27 Hong Xuezhi, Nie Rongzhen memoirs (in Chinese).

2 28 Chen Jian, China’s Road to the Korean War. Zhang Shuguang, Mao’s Military
Romanticism. Christensen argues that Mao saw the “status quo” as “even more
3 risky” because “Mao believed that America’s blocking of the Taiwan Straits and
4 crossing of the 38th Parallel meant that war was inevitable,” and “Mao would not
5 have settled for the status quo if American troops had remained anywhere in North
6 Korea.” Christensen, Useful Adversaries, p. 170.
29 On Oct. 4, 1950, Mao called an urgent meeting of the Central Committee to
7
discuss sending troops to rescue the North Koreans, where he obtained Marshall
8 Peng’s support in his decision and agreement to command the troops in Korea.
9 Mao’s first choice was Lin Biao whose troops were deployed in the northeastern
1011 border area already, but Lin excused himself for being sick and needing medical
1 treatment in Moscow. Mao’s second choice was Marshall Su Yu who was
preparing the attack on Taiwan in the southeast. Su was also seriously ill at that
2 time, so was unfit for commanding troops in Korea. Marshall Peng who was
3111 commander of the first Field Army was the third choice. Peng was called and
4 flew to Beijing immediately before the Oct. 4 meeting. Peng agreed to command,
5 and Mao sent his son (who died in Korea) under Peng’s command. Chen, China’s
Road to the Korean War, pp. 172–175.
6 30 Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu. Whiting stressed that Beijing’s decision to enter
7 the Korean War was a reluctant reaction to the imminent threats to the security
8 of Chinese territory as Beijing certainly did not welcome a war when facing severe
9 economic conditions, political consolidation, and reunification. In other words,
China would not have intervened if American forces had not crossed the 38th
20111
Parallel, rendering an increasingly immediate threat to the PRC. Whatever the
1 motivation of the Chinese, a thorough study of the combined effect of Chinese
2 security concerns, communist ideology and the leaders’ beliefs is necessary. Given
3 the particular domestic and international situations, China preferred not to
4 become entrapped in the quagmire in Korea in 1950. However, the American
forces at the Yalu River formed a severe threat to Chinese national security.
5 31 Chen Jian, Mao’s China and the Cold War.
6 32 Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu.
7 33 Thomas Christensen, Useful Adversaries, p. 151. Christensen stresses that it was
8 a failure of mutual deterrence of both the Chinese and the US.
34 I do not include military officials mainly due to the limitation on the number of
9 English digital sources (public statements) available for analysis.
30111 35 In the MANOVA design of leader vs. situation, there were no significant results
1 for interaction effects. See Huiyun Feng, A Dragon on Defense: China’s Strategic
2 Culture and War, PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, May 2005.
36 Arguably, the period before 1950 was not so peaceful for Mao and Zhou as leaders
3
and for China as a nation. After the Anti-Japanese War, the civil war started
4 between the Communist and Jiang Jieshi’s GMD. Even after the People’s Republic
5 was founded, the domestic situation was by no means stable. But compared to the
6 Korean War, these domestic sources of instability did not pose as serious a threat
7 to the survival of the nation and communist leadership.
37 Traditionally, Whiting argued that China crossed the Yalu River out of concern
8 for national security. Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu. In his recent study, Chen
9 Jian challenges this hypothesis and argues that Mao’s strong ideology and
40111 personality, and China’s domestic situation were the major driving force in China’s
1 decision to enter Korea. Furthermore, drawing on recently released documents,
Chen argues that the Chinese leadership was aware of the plan of the North
2 Korean leadership to invade the South although the specific details were not
3 released to the Chinese leaders until after the North attacked the South. Recent
44111 evidence from Soviet sources also shows that Stalin had a significant role in pushing
151
NOTES
1111 the Chinese into Korea. The PRC preferred more attention to recovering Taiwan
2 to finalize its unification than getting involved with a superpower as indicated by
its troop deployment in southeastern China prior to the Korean War (see Whiting).
3 While there is no denying that Mao was preparing to fight a war with the
4 Americans in his strategic planning, in Korea it would be a defensive realist’s war
5 of safety not an offensive realist’s war of gain. See Chen Jian, China’s Road to the
6 Korean War; Mao’s China and the Cold War. Zhang Shu Guang, Mao’s Military
Romanticism. For a Chinese perspective, see Hao, Yufan, and Zhihai Zhai,
7
“China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War”; Shen Zhihua, “Sino-Soviet Relations
8 and the Origins of the Korean War: Stalin’s Strategic Goals in the Far East,”
9 Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2000), pp. 44–68.
1011 38 Stephen Walker, Mark Schafer, and Michael Young, “Systematic Procedures for
1 Operational Code Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42 (1998),
pp. 175–190; Walker, Schafer, and Young, “Presidential Operational Codes and
2 the Management of Foreign Policy Conflicts in the Post-Cold War World,” Journal
3 of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 43 (1999), pp. 610–625.
4 39 David Shambaugh, “China’s Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era”, Survival,
5 Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer 1992), p. 89.
40 Shambaugh, “China’s Security Policy,” p. 90.
6 41 See Chapter 1 for a brief discussion of the expanded Theory of Inference about
7 Preferences (TIP). The expanded version of TIP is listed here for immediate
8 reference:
9 1 If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, <), then Settle > Deadlock > Submit >
20111 Dominate: Appeasement Strategy
1 2 If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, =), then Settle > Deadlock > Dominate >
2 Submit: Reward/Deter Strategy
3 If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (+, >), then Settle > Dominate > Deadlock >
3 Submit: Exploit Strategy
4 4 If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, <), then Dominate > Settle > Submit >
5 Deadlock: Bluff Strategy
6 5 If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, =), then Dominate > Settle > Deadlock >
Submit: Compel/Punish Strategy
7 6 If (I-1, P-4a) or (P-1, P-4b) is (–, >), then Dominate > Deadlock > Settle >
8 Submit: Bully Strategy
9 42 Chen Jian, China’s Road to the Korean War. Shen Zhihua, “Khrushchev, Mao and
30111 the Unrealized Sino-Soviet Military Cooperation.” See also the new evidence
1 provided in the Cold War International History Project Bulletins and Working
2 Paper series at http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=topics.
3 home.
43 Brams discusses the recurrence of a game may make it rational for a player
4 possessing threat power to threaten and, if necessary, carry out its threat—even if
5 it results in a worse pay-off for both players before the game is played again.
6 Brams, Theory of Moves, pp. 138–148.
7
8 4 CHINA AS A REGIONAL POWER
9 1 The major literature informing my narrative includes “The Sino-Indian Boundary
40111 Question” (Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 1962). Laurie Burkitt, Andrew
1 Scobell, and Larry M. Wortzel eds, The Lessons of History: The Chinese People’s
Liberation Army at 75 (The Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College,
2 2003). Andrew Dapondes, The Cuban Crisis and the Chinese-Indian Border
3 War (New York: Vantage Press, 1969). Steven A. Hoffman, India and the China
44111 Crisis (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990). Liu Xuecheng,
152
NOTES
1111 The Sino-Indian Border Dispute and Sino-Indian Relations (New York: University
2 Press of America, 1994). Neville Maxwell, India’s China War (Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books, 1972). D. K. Palit, War in High Himalaya: The Indian Army in
3 Crisis, 1962 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1991). Shi Bo Bian, 1962, Zhong Yin
4 Da Zhan Ji Shi (Beijing: Zhongguo Dadi Chubanshe, 1993). Shanti Prasad Varma,
5 Struggle for the Himalayas: A Study in Sino-Indian Relations (Jullundur University
6 Publishers, 1965). Yaacov Vertzberger, Misperceptions in Foreign Policymaking:
The Sino-Indian Conflict, 1959–1962 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984).
7
Recently there has been new evidence on this war, but official documents from
8 China and India are still limited due to security and secrecy reasons. However, the
9 Indian defense department did release a document on the 1962 border war which
1011 can be downloaded from the web URL at: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/
1 LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1962War/PDF/index.html.
2 John W. Garver, “China’s Decision for War with India in 1962.” From web page:
2 http//www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf. Garver notes in this
3111 article that the 1962 war with India was long China’s forgotten war, as little was
4 published in China regarding the decision to fight the war. He also points out that
5 the situation began to change during the 1990s. The Indian side published its long-
classified official history in 2002. These new publications provide new evidence
6 on the study of this war.
7 3 The Sino-Indian boundary altogether is 2,000 kilometers long. The eastern sector
8 is about 650 kilometers long, and runs from the juncture of the borders of China,
9 India, and Bhutan to the juncture of the borders of China, India, and Burma
(Myanmar), with southeastern Tibet on the Chinese side and Arunachal Pradesh
20111
Province on the Indian side. The middle sector is about 450 kilometers.
1 The western sector of about 600 kilometers overlaps areas of Xinjiang and western
2 Tibet on the Chinese side, and the Ladakh Range region of Kashmir on the Indian
3 side. See Cheng Feng and Larry M. Wortzel, “PLA Operational Principles
4 and Limited War: The Sino-Indian War of 1962,” in Mark A. Ryan, David M.
Finkelstein, and Michael A. McDevitt eds, Chinese Warfighting: The PLA
5 Experience since 1949 (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2003), p. 174. The Sino-Indian
6 border dispute was a historical legacy. The border consists of three parts, the west,
7 the middle and the east. Dispute over the eastern sector of the border resulted
8 from the British colonialist era when British Foreign Secretary McMahon drew the
infamous McMahon line at the Simla Conference in 1914. Parties attending the
9 Simla Conference include British India, Tibet, and China (then the Republic under
30111 GMD rule). The conference was to settle the Tibet issue. The British clearly
1 attempted to undermine both Chinese sovereignty and Chinese rule in Tibet as the
2 Republic of China was very weak at that time. The Chinese government declared
that the Chinese representative never signed the conference treaty though the
3
Tibetan representative did. Traditionally, the boundary had never been formally
4 stipulated. After the founding of the PRC, India and China were on good terms.
5 The Indian government was one of the first to recognize the new China, and India
6 played a significant role in mediation during the Korean War. Friendly trade
7 relations prevailed for some time along the border by the two peoples until the
British colonial intervention. Thereafter, India declared that the international
8 treaty delineated the India–China border while the Chinese kept on disputing it.
9 The exchange of notes between Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Nehru showed
40111 that India admitted in 1959 the boundary had not been stipulated and remained
1 ambiguous. See Cheng Feng and Larry M. Wortzel, pp. 174–176. Clashes along
the borderline increased in the 1950s until a final showdown in 1962. Liu
2 Xuecheng, a Chinese scholar, claims that global structure has conditioned the
3 Sino-Indian relationship. The key to the dispute lies in the alliances and their
44111 reversal within the cold war framework. Liu’s perspective is that the positions of
153
NOTES
1111 China and India were not affected by the cold war. There were no formally
2 delimited, delineated, or demarcated boundaries between the two pairs of
countries except the colonial treaty based on the McMahon Line signed at the
3 Simla Agreement of 1914 between the British colonial government, China, and
4 Tibet. British India and China as two expanding powers were bound to come into
5 conflict. He thinks that naturally such conflicts would have arisen, because India
6 inherited the legal claims of the British. The Indian position was inflexible,
aggravated by the Indian policy of staking claims to the territory it claimed by
7
establishing check-posts that led the Chinese to attack India. Liu Xuecheng, The
8 Sino-Indian Border Dispute and Sino-Indian Relations. The boundary issue
9 remained unresolved through the 1990s.
1011 4 Whiting, The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
1 Michigan Press, 1975). Maxwell, India’s China War.
5 Reported in Whiting, The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence. The document
2 acknowledged the fault of the Indian government and army in provoking the war.
3 6 Whiting, The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence.
4 7 Donald S. Zagoria, The Sino-Soviet Conflict, 1956–1961 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
5 University Press, 1962).
8 John W. Garver, “China’s Decision for War with India in 1962.” From web page:
6 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ejohnston/garver.pdf (accessed June 23,
7 2006).
8 9 In fact, it was the US who was providing help to the Tibetans. See John Garver,
9 “China’s Decision for War with India in 1962.”
10 Neville Maxwell, India’s China War.
20111
11 Ibid.
1 12 Garver, John W. “China’s Decision for War with India in 1962.”
2 13 See Whiting, The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence; Maxwell, India’s China War.
3 14 Mao thought China was betrayed when the Soviets declared in the late 1950s a
4 neutral position over Sino-Indian disputes, as China and the Soviets were in the
Communist camp while India belonged to the non-aligned group. China had felt
5 certain it would obtain Soviet support in its relationship with India. The change
6 in the Soviet position to favor China in 1962 betrayed India.
7 15 In Nehru’s calculation the Chinese PLA were really not so strong (Whiting, The
8 Chinese Calculus of Deterrence, p. 48) and the Chinese had many of their own
troubles. These included internal disorders due to food shortage, floods, and
9 political stability of the regime. Therefore, India’s strong position seen from the
30111 forward policy would meet no serious risk in terms of Chinese resistance. The
1 successful recovery of Goa in mid-December by India over Portugal, the better
2 weather, and improved Indian logistic capability in the spring of 1962, as well as
Nehru’s election need to recover Indian territory from China, contributed to
3
Nehru’s misperception and miscalculation. See Vertzberger, Misperceptions
4 in Foreign Policymaking.
5 16 Maxwell, India’s China War. Vertzberger, Misperceptions in Foreign Policymaking.
6 17 For details, see the discussions of the international, domestic, and leadership
7 situations of the PRC in the early 1960s presented above.
18 A cell in a 2 = 2 ordinal game contains a Nash equilibrium when the pay-offs for
8 both players in the cell are such that neither player can move from the cell without
9 immediately generating a worse pay-off for itself. A Nash equilibrium is a myopic
40111 equilibrium because it is based on looking ahead only one cell from the initial cell
1 in the game.
19 According to TOM, pre-play communication becomes credible in the context of
2 repeated plays of the same game, making (3,3) an NME for the prisoner’s dilemma
3 game. See Brams, Theory of Moves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
44111 1994), pp. 124–130, 138–148.
154
NOTES
1111 20 Brams, Theory of Moves, p. 224; see also pp. 92–94 regarding moving power in
2 Game 41. When cycling is a possibility for one or both players, he is willing to relax
Rule 5 (the termination rule) to allow further analysis of the dynamics between
3 the players in these conflict games (see Brams, ibid., pp. 88–102).
4 21 Ron Christman, “How Beijing Evaluates Military Campaigns: An Initial
5 Assessment,” p. 256 in The Lessons of History: The Chinese People’s Liberation
6 Army at 75, edited by Larry Wortzel and Andrew Scobell. Army War College,
Strategic Studies Institute, accessed March 2005, available at www.strategic
7
studiesinstitute.army.mi/pdffiles/PUB52.pdf.
8 22 King C. Chen, China’s War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and
9 Implications (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1987).
1011 23 Ibid.
1 24 Beijing Review, Feb. 19, 1979.
25 My narrative of the Sino-Vietnamese War is based mainly on the following
2 works: Laurie Burkitt, Andrew Scobell, and Larry M. Wortzel eds, The Lessons
3111 of History. Nayan Chanda, Brother Enemy: The War after the War (San Diego,
4 CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986). Chang Pao-min, The Sino-Vietnamese
5 Territorial Dispute (New York: Praeger, 1986). King C. Chen, China’s War with
Vietnam, 1979. Vietnam Courier, “Chinese Aggression against Vietnam: Dossier”
6 (Hanoi: Vietnam Courier, 1979). William J. Duiker, China and Vietnam: The
7 Roots of Conflict (Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of East Asian
8 Studies, 1986). Anne Gilks, The Breakdown of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance,
9 1970–1979 (Berkeley, CA: Center for Chinese Studies, 1992). Steven J. Hood,
Dragons Entangled: Indochina and the China-Vietnam War (Armonk, NY: M. E.
20111
Sharpe, 1992). Robert S. Ross, The Indochina Tangle: China’s Vietnam Policy,
1 1975–1979 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). Odd Arne Westad,
2 Chen Jian, Stein Tonnesson, Nguyen Vu Tung, and James G. Hershberg, “77
3 Conversations between Chinese and Foreign Leaders on the Wars in Indochina,
4 1964–1977,” in CWIHP Working Paper, (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, 1998). Zhai Qiang, “Beijing and the Vietnam
5 Peace Talks, 1965–68: New Evidence from Chinese Sources,” in CWIHP Working
6 Paper, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, 1997;
7 and China and the Vietnam Wars (Chapel Hill, NC and London: University of
8 North Carolina Press, 2000).
26 On several occasions, Chinese leaders also hinted to this effect. See interviews of
9 Wang Zhen, Huang Hua. The Vietnamese were aware of the danger of war as
30111 well. In their major media, lines such as “Leave Vietnam Alone” were all over the
1 place. In addition, Vietnamese leaders were drawing the analogy from Chinese
2 action against India when India turned to the Soviets in 1962.
27 Duiker, China and Vietnam, points out that the Sino-Vietnamese conflict was
3
caused more by such modern issues as ideology, power politics, and territorial
4 disputes than any historical legacy.
5 28 Gilks thinks that dynamic factors were the converging and conflicting interests
6 from the beginning in the Sino-Vietnamese case, thus the 1979 war was a logical
7 result of the gradual degeneration of bilateral relations that had begun in 1970
(Anne Gilks, The Breakdown of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance, 1970–1979).
8 29 Duiker, China and Vietnam. Anne Gilks, The Breakdown of the Sino-Vietnamese
9 Alliance, 1970–1979.
40111 30 Duiker pointed out that in terms of revolutionary ideas, the Vietnamese (ideology)
1 version was closer to the Soviet’s. Ho Chi Minh was closer to Mao, but Ho was
dead in 1979. Therefore, many scholars agree, that if Ho were alive, probably
2 there would not have been war between the two brothers. See William Duiker,
3 China and Vietnam; Anne Gilks, The Breakdown of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance,
44111 1970–1979; Chen King, China’s war with Vietnam, 1979.
155
NOTES
1111 31 Chen King stresses the condescending paternalism of Chinese leaders toward
2 Vietnam as a major contributing factor in the conflict. Chen, China’s War with
Vietnam, 1979.
3 32 Duiker, China and Vietnam, p. 16.
4 33 Duiker sees the later 1950s as the beginning of an irreconcilable divergence
5 between China and Vietnam. By the mid-1960s, Vietnam realized China would
6 not intervene to deter the US in its war against the US. In 1971 Kissinger visited
China and the tension between China and the US relaxed. China’s goal was to
7
balance the USSR which, in turn, made Hanoi conclude that it had to lean to
8 Moscow. The strategic interests of Beijing and Hanoi further diverged since the
9 early 1970s.
1011 34 Duiker, China and Vietnam, p. 31.
1 35 Ibid.
36 Duiker reported, “Deng Xiaoping allegedly informed Le Duan that, with the war
2 over, China needed a ‘breathing space’ and could no longer provide large amounts
3 of technical assistance to Vietnam . . . there would be no increase in Chinese aid,
4 to the evident disappointment of the Vietnamese” (ibid., p. 64).
5 37 Chinese media criticized this effort as imperialism and hegemonism.
38 Chang states that
6
7 The five years of 1970 to 1975 therefore witnessed intensive behind the scene
maneuvering by all three parties in the precarious triangular alliance, with
8 Hanoi attempting to regain its dominant position in the Khmer revolution, the
9 Khmers playing China off against Vietnam, and China striving to preserve
20111 both a united front and the separate identity of Kampuchea.
1 (Chang Pao-min, The Sino-Vietnamese
2 Territorial Dispute, p. 7)
3 39 Chang, The Sino-Vietnamese Territorial Dispute, p. 9, states this would constitute
4 too humiliating a blow to China’s stature and credibility.
40 The Vietnamese Chinese issue was economic in nature. The Vietnam government
5 accused the bourgeois Chinese who had control over the South’s economy of being
6 anti-Vietnam and pro-China. With a deteriorating Sino-Vietnamese relationship,
7 the Vietnamese government started to force repatriation of the Chinese by taking
8 away their businesses, their properties and even food rations. By the end of 1978,
200,000 Chinese either fled or were pushed across the border. Vietnam’s treatment
9 of the Chinese in Vietnam was an indicator of the relationship between China
30111 and Vietnam. The two had reached an agreement in 1955 for settling the status
1 of Vietnam’s Chinese. But negotiations in the late 1970s were futile. China made
2 some efforts by sending two ships to help the Vietnamese Chinese repatriate
3 to China, but their effort was not successful. Chang states that: “The futile
negotiations, the endless flow of people, and the sheer chaos that prevailed along
4 the land border finally led China to resort to large-scale military action in February
5 1979 to retaliate against Vietnam’s policy of expulsion and end the refugee crisis.”
6 For details, see Chang Pao-min, The Sino-Vietnamese Territorial Dispute, pp. 2–6.
7 41 Chen, China’s War with Vietnam, 1979, p. 73. Chen King reports the struggle
between Hua and Deng as the following: “Whereas Hua tried hard, in a mediocre
8 way, to enhance his power and prestige by glorifying Mao unceasingly, Deng
9 quietly but dynamically worked for military and party support” (Chen, China’s
40111 War with Vietnam, 1979, p. 72).
1 42 While Hua Guofeng and his followers advocated the dogmatic following of Mao’s
thought, Deng’s pragmatic and flexible interpretations of Mao won out given the
2 new international and domestic situations. Chen discusses in detail the ideological
3 debate and the institutional support and impact it had on China. However, there
44111 was no denying Deng was the winner. The significance of winning this debate was
156
NOTES
1111 reported by Chen King, “Ever since 1949, it has become a Chinese political custom
2 for a political debate to be won before a new policy can be established.” Chen,
China’s War with Vietnam, 1979, p. 75. However, a compromise was made by
3 Deng later in order to ensure support from Hua of his policy and war against
4 Vietnam.
5 43 Although Defense Modernization was the last one of the four modernizations
6 initiated by Deng, in the late 1970s, Deng clearly realized the backwardness of the
7 military and the necessity to reform the PLA according to the new situation.
44 For details of the military modernization issue see Chen, China’s War with
8 Vietnam, 1979, pp. 98–100.
9 45 Ibid., p. 76. Here it must be noted that revisionist means reformist, and is different
1011 from revisionist during the 1950s.
1 46 Adding to it was the smooth process of normalization of China–US relations (ibid.,
2 p. 87).
47 Ibid., p. 77.
3111 48 Ibid., p. 80.
4 49 Ibid., p. 83. “In fact, he [Deng] was the man who masterminded Beijing’s policy
5 for Vietnam at the time, and Deng was gaining influence in foreign policy decision-
6 making.”
50 This part depends heavily on Chen King’s narrations in his book. See Chen, China’s
7
War with Vietnam, 1979, pp. 83–95.
8 51 Chen King cited Geng Biao, p. 86, fn 58.
9 52 Ibid., p. 88. This point shows clearly Deng was well aware of the military situation
20111 and wanted to make use of the war to push forward military reforms in the struggle
1 against the moderates.
53 Ibid.
2 54 Chen King cited Renmin Ribao, December 25, 1978; the title of the article was
3 “There Is a Limit to China’s Forbearance.” In this article China made it clear that:
4
China . . . will never attack unless it is attacked. But if it is attacked, it will
5 certainly counterattack. China means what it says. We wish to warn the
6 Vietnamese authorities that if they count on Moscow’s support to seek a foot
7 after gaining an inch and continue to act in an unbridled fashion, they will
8 decidedly meet with the punishment they deserve. We are telling you this now.
9 Don’t complain later that we’ve not given you a clear warning in advance.
30111 The reason that I am citing this again, as Chen King did, is to draw the attention
1 of the reader. I think this is a typical way of Chinese thinking. Do not push too
hard. Enough warning is given and if the situation continues, there is no other
2 choice but to fight back. See also Chapter 3. Chen King puts it that in late
3 December it was still possible to settle the hostility between China and Vietnam
4 through negotiations should a third party intervene (US, USSR, or ASEAN).
5 55 China’s decision to send troops into Vietnam in February 1979 was a response to
6 a collection of provocative actions and policies on Hanoi’s part. Beijing Review
reported the frequency of the occurrence of Vietnam’s mistreatment of ethnic
7 Chinese (Hoa) living in Vietnam, its practice of hegemonic imperialism in
8 Southeast Asia and constant provocations on the Sino-Vietnamese border
9 disturbing people’s lives and killing civilians and PLA border guards. See Beijing
40111 Review, January–February, 1979. Vietnam also blamed China for encroaching
1 upon its territory. The Spratly Islands and the Tonkin Strait (Qiongzhou Haixia
in Chinese) were two other issues in dispute. William Duiker points out “it is
2 doubtful that either Hanoi or Beijing deliberately wished to provoke a breakdown
3 in relations between the two countries” as both countries were faced with serious
44111 domestic and international problems. Duiker, China and Vietnam, p. 63.
157
NOTES
1111 56 Beijing Review’s coverage was filled with these notices and diplomatic exchanges.
2 57 Whiting, The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence, p. xvi.
58 The Eastern Wing was under the command of Xu Shiyou with five armies and two
3 divisions, and the Western Wing was under the command of Yang Dezhi with
4 three armies and four divisions.
5 59 Lang Son was strategically important for Hanoi’s defense. Therefore, taking over
6 Lang Son would be a severe blow to the Vietnamese.
7 60 Chen, China’s War with Vietnam, 1979, p. 109.
61 According to Chen King, this announcement served several purposes. Internation-
8 ally, it addressed the concerns of the US who called for a withdrawal and dissuaded
9 the Soviet Union from intervening; and other states’ concern about a larger war.
1011 Domestically, it served to calm down opponents to war (Chen, China’s War with
1 Vietnam, 1979, p. 109).
2 62 Chen King reported that Vietnam called for a national mobilization the same day
(ibid., p. 111).
3 63 Ibid., p. 98.
4 64 Gerald Segal in his book Defending China (Oxford and New York: Oxford
5 University Press, 1985) stated, “China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal
6 from [Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength
7 of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed
to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition.”
8 65 “The Punitive War was representative of Beijing’s foreign policy since 1949.”
9 Chen, China’s War with Vietnam, 1979, p. 95.
20111 66 Chen King cited fn. 87. p. 113.
1 67 “What is important in this decision-making process, however, is the quality of
2 prudence and restraint” which is both a result of principle (restrained policy) and
limited capabilities. Chen, China’s War with Vietnam, 1979, pp. 93–95.
3 68 Ibid., p. 93.
4 69 An ANOVA test conducted on the three leaders further demonstrates that Mao,
5 Deng, and Zhou differ from one another in major beliefs (I-1, I-2, I-4A, I-4B,
6 I-5RE, I-5AP, I-5PU, P-1, and P-2). Mao shows a preference for conflictual means
towards goals (Oppose, Threaten, and Punishment) and is less likely to use
7
cooperative means (Reward, Promise, Appeal) based on his view of the nature of
8 the political universe (conflictual) and his pessimism in realizing political values.
9 These results indicate that Mao is not as cooperative as the norming group of
30111 world leaders, while Deng is more cooperative. Mao displays characteristics of a
1 conflict-oriented leader while Deng is definitely cooperatively oriented. See Huiyun
Feng, “A Dragon on Defense.”
2 70 An ANOVA test on the audience effect was also conducted, which shows that
3 Deng is in general cooperative in front of both international and domestic
4 audiences. Deng displayed higher control over historical development during the
5 Sino-Vietnamese War in front of an international audience. Deng also used more
6 promises as expressions in front of international audiences compared to domestic
audiences. However, except when facing an international audience (P-1), Deng’s
7 major belief scores (I-1/P-1) are above the norming group means about conflict and
8 cooperation. His belief in historical control (P-4) is below the norming group
9 facing a domestic audience. Although there are changes for some beliefs in front
40111 of different audiences, they do not appear to be substantively significant to support
1 the revisionist worry that Chinese leaders will conceal revisionist intentions before
an international audience. See Huiyun Feng, “A Dragon on Defense.”
2 71 The ideological debate between the Deng group and Hua Guofeng’s group was still
3 going on, but by the late 1970s, Deng had triumphed and taken control. Chen
44111 King, China’s War with Vietnam, 1979.
158
NOTES
1111 72 Mel Gurtov and Hwang Byong-Moo, China’s Security: The New Roles of the
2 Military (Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner, 1998), p. 59.
73 Tang Jiaxuan, “New China’s Diplomacy Over the Past Fifty Years,” at
3 www.fmprc.gov.cn (2000 accessed).
4 74 Shambaugh, “China’s Security Policy,” p. 91.
5 75 “China’s National Defense” (1998) at www.peopledaily.com.cn.
6 76 Allen S.Whiting, “China’s Use of Force, 1950–56, and Taiwan,” International
Security, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Fall 2001), pp. 103–131.
7
77 The border disputes all resulted from colonial rule. The British governor of India,
8 McMahon, drew an ambiguous line for the Sino-Indian border leaving the two
9 parties fighting over how to demarcate. The French did the same for China and
1011 the Vietnam border, especially the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea where
1 disputes continue up to now.
78 Whiting, “China’s Use of Force, 1950–96, and Taiwan.”
2 79 Ibid., p. 110. However, Segal was very pessimistic, “Until a new defense policy
3111 emerges, if at all, past experience and doctrines will remain valid. Furthermore,
4 certain fundamental determinants of Chinese defense (geography and topography,
5 climate, demography, borders and neighbors) will never change in any meaningful
way and will always shape China’s strategic thinking and military behavior”
6 (Gerald Segal, Defending China (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press,
7 1985)).
8
9 5 P O S T- C O L D WA R C H I N A U N D E R N E W L E A D E R S
20111
1 Alastair I. Johnston and Robert S. Ross ed., Engaging China: The Manage-
1 ment of An Emerging Power (London and New York: Routlege, 1999). Denny
2 Roy, “The China Threat Issue: Major Arguments,” Asian Survey, Vol. 36, No. 8
3 (August 1996). David Shambaugh, “Containment or Engagement of China:
4 Calculating Beijing’s Responses,” International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall
1996), pp. 180–209.
5 2 John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W.
6 Norton, 2001). Thomas J. Christensen, “Causing Problems without Catching
7 Up,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Spring 2001), pp. 5–40. Gerald Segal,
8 “Does China Matter?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 5 (September/October 1999).
Thomas J. Christensen, “Chinese Realpolitik: Reading Beijing’s World-View,”
9 Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75 (September/October 1996), pp. 37–52; Paul Dibb, David
30111 Hale, and Peter Prince, “Asia’s Insecurity,” Survival, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn
1 1999), pp. 5–20; David L. Shambaugh, “Sino-American Strategic Relations: From
2 Partners to Competitors,” Survival, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring 2000), pp. 97–115; and
Shambaugh, “China’s Military Views the World,” International Security, Vol. 24,
3
No. 3 (Winter 1999/2000), pp. 52–79.
4 3 Alastair I. Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in
5 Chinese History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). Johnston,
6 “Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China,” in Peter Katzenstein ed., The
7 Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1996). Johnston, “Realism(s) and Chinese Security
8 Policy in the Post Cold War Period,” in Ethan B. Kapstein and Michael
9 Mastanduno eds, Unipolar Politics: Realism and State Strategies after the Cold
40111 War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), pp. 261–263. Johnston,
1 “International Structures and Chinese Foreign Policy,” in Samuel S. Kim ed., China
and the World: Chinese Foreign Policy Faces the New Millennium (Boulder, CO
2 and Oxford: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 55–56.
3 4 Alastair Iain Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?” International Security,
44111 Vol. 27, No. 4 (2003), pp. 5–56, p. 50.
159
NOTES
1111 5 In Chinese zonghe guoli. This is the major phrase the Chinese use when referring
2 to capability.
6 No state wants to see China fall into an economic trap like North Korea. Then
3 the world would need to worry much more. As to Chinese military development,
4 it seems only normal that the PLA aspires to benefit from the information and
5 technology revolution like every other state’s military forces. The PLA advocacy
6 of revolution in military affairs is also aimed at building a more quality-based
military rather than quantity-based. China has also actually taken steps to reduce
7
the size of its military since the 1980s. See Li Nan, “The PLA’s Evolving
8 Warfighting Doctrine, Strategy and Tactics, 1985–1995: A Chinese Perspective,”
9 The China Quarterly, No. 146 (1996), pp. 443–463. Li Nan, “Organizational
1011 Changes of the PLA 1985–1997,” The China Quarterly, No. 158 (1999),
1 pp. 314–349.
7 David C. Kang, “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical
2 Frameworks,” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Spring 2003), pp. 57–85,
3 p. 58.
4 8 Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?” p. 50.
5 9 Denny Roy, “China’s Reaction to American Predominance,” Survival, Vol. 45,
No. 3 (Autumn 2003), pp. 57–78.
6 10 Richard Weitz, “Meeting the China Challenge: Some Insights from Scenario-Based
7 Planning,” The Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (September 2001),
8 pp. 19–48.
9 11 Kang, “Getting Asia Wrong,” p. 66. Kang further states (pp. 66–67) “East Asian
regional relations have historically been hierarchic, more peaceful, and more stable
20111
than those in the West . . . East Asian international relations emphasized formal
1 hierarchy among nations while allowing considerable informal equality.”
2 12 Ibid., p. 63.
3 13 Alastair Iain Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?” p. 5.
4 14 Wen Jiabao, “Turning Your Eyes to China,” speech by H. E. Mr Wen Jiabao,
Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China at Harvard,
5 December 10, 2003. For the full speech, see www.fmprc.gov.cn/topics/wen
6 visituscaeth/t56076.htm.
7 15 Yan Xuetong, Zhongguo Jueqi-Guoji Huanjing Pinggu, [International
8 Environment for China’s Rise], Tianjin Renmin Chubanshe, 1998, pp. 191–192.
16 Mel Gurtov and Hwang Byong-Moo, China’s Security (Boulder, CO: Lynne
9 Rienner, 1998), p. 59.
30111 17 Ibid., p. 70.
1 18 Robert R. Ross ed., After the Cold War-Domestic Factors and U.S.–China
2 Relations (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1998), p. 8.
19 Ibid., p. 9. Although in the most recent US–Japan joint security statement, Japan
3
formally supports the status quo and peaceful resolution of Taiwan for the first
4 time, the PRC remains deeply concerned with any involvement of Japan in the
5 Taiwan situation. The US and Japan stated in February 2005 that “Taiwan was
6 one of their mutual concerns.” This kind of statement is firmly opposed by the
7 Chinese government. http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20050307
fc.htm.
8 20 James C. F. Wang, Contemporary Chinese Politics: An Introduction, Seventh edn
9 (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 57.
40111 21 David L. Shambaugh, “China’s Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era,”
1 Survival, Vol. 34, No. 2 (1992), pp. 88–106, p. 92.
22 David Shambaugh, “China’s Military Views the World,” p. 67.
2 23 Yan Xuetong, Zhongguo yu Yatai Anquan [China & Asia-Pacific Security], Shishi
3 Chubanshe (1999), pp. 20–23.
44111 24 Shambaugh, “China’s Military Views the World,” p. 67.
160
NOTES
1111 25 Before formally putting forward this New Security Concept at the ASEAN
2 Regional Forum (ARF) in 1997, China had been practicing diplomatic relations
in cultivating good security relations with surrounding countries. In 1996, China
3 reached a friendship treaty with India to solve their border disputes by signing the
4 “Agreement on Maintaining Peace and Tranquility in the China-India Border
5 Areas Along the Line of Actual Control” and the “Agreement on Confidence-
6 Building Measures in the Military Fields Along the Line of Actual Control in the
China-India Border Areas.” Following the signing of the 1994 joint declaration
7
on non-first use of nuclear weapons and non-targeting of the strategic nuclear
8 weapons at each other, China and Russia announced in April 1996 the establish-
9 ment of “a strategic cooperative partnership based on equality and trust orientated
1011 to the 21st century.” The two sides committed themselves to creating a peaceful
1 and friendly border, and most border issues left over from history have been solved.
In April 1997, China signed a five-state treaty (including China, Russia, Tajikistan,
2 Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan) that will reduce the risk of war through such
3111 measures as reductions of border forces and anti-aircraft defense, mutual inspec-
4 tions of military exercises, and exchanges of military information. This initiative
5 was institutionalized into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that
holds regular summit meetings among the members. More states are thinking about
6 joining the SCO. Besides bilateral security treaties, China also actively participated
7 in official and non-official multilateral security dialogues, such as ASEAN Regional
8 Forum, the Four Party Talks for the Korean Peninsula and the Council for Security
9 and Cooperation in the Asia Pacific. Recently, China has been the major party in
bringing North Korea to the multilateral talks to solve the nuclear crisis.
20111
26 Some scholars state that the NSC was to weaken the US alliance system by arguing
1 that bilateral security treaties are the cold war relics, because China does not have
2 military treaties and would like to see American alliance dismantled—except
3 possibly with Japan. However, Chinese views toward the US role in the Asia-
4 Pacific have changed from suspicion to acceptance. The PRC now acknowledges
that the US presence contributes to regional security, not only reining in Japan.
5 27 Quote from You Ji, “The Revolution in Military Affairs and the Evolution of
6 China’s Strategic Thinking,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 21, No. 3,
7 December 1999, p. 353.
8 28 Robert R. Ross, Chapter 1, “The Strategic and Bilateral Context of Policy-Making
in China and the United States: Why Domestic Factors Matter,” pp. 3–39, in Ross
9 ed., After the Cold War, p. 28.
30111 29 Ibid., p. 29.
1 30 Ibid.
2 31 Denny Roy, “The China Threat Issue.”
32 Wen Jiabao’s general profile also turns out to be a Confucian leader just like the
3
other two leaders. Due to the small size of his speech sample, I will not focus
4 further on him in this chapter.
5 33 Huiyun Feng, “A Dragon on Defense: China’s Strategic Culture and War,” PhD
6 Dissertation, Arizona State University, May 2005.
7 34 Although Hu appears more likely to use punishment after crises, his I-5PU scores
are generally much lower than the average world leader’s (.138). However, there
8 are very few speeches for the crisis time period, Hu’s score (.000) for crisis period
9 indicates that there is no mentioning of punishment. See Huiyun Feng, “A Dragon
40111 on Defense.”
1 35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
2 37 See Feng Huiyun, “The Operational Codes of Four Generations of Chinese
3 Leaders: Is China a Revisionist Power?” paper presented at the 2005 Annual
44111 Meeting of the American Political Science Association Meeting.
161
NOTES
1111 38 An NME is “a state from which neither player, anticipating all possible rational
2 moves and countermoves from the initial state, would have an incentive to depart
unilaterally because the departure would eventually lead to a worse, or at least not
3 a better, outcome.” Steven J. Brams, Theory of Moves (Cambridge: Cambridge
4 University Press, 1994), p. 224.
5 39 Prior communication (PC) occurs when a player with threat power, in making a
6 compellent or a deterrent threat, communicates its willingness and ability to move
7 to and stay, if necessary, at a Pareto-inferior state. Brams, Theory of Moves, p. 225.
A Pareto-inferior state is one in which another state is better for both players or
8 at least better for one player and no worse for the other (ibid., pp. 224–225).
9 40 Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?”
1011 41 Jervis defines a security dilemma as a situation in which any state’s efforts to
1 increase its security necessarily decreases the security of others. In this situation
2 one side’s efforts to reduce its insecurity through an arms build-up or through the
conquest of strategic territory will inevitably trigger similar behavior by other
3 security-conscious actors. Robert Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security
4 Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 2 (January 1978), pp. 167–214. See also
5 John Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics,
6 Vol. 2 (1950).
7
8 6 TA I WA N A N D T H E F U T U R E O F
9 S I N O - A M E R I C A N R E L AT I O N S
20111 1 The Chinese side insisted it was a state visit while the US refused to agree. As a
1 result, Hu was given a 21-gun salute as a head of state (although some dispute how
many shots were actually fired), but was treated to a working luncheon and not a
2
state dinner. These differences reflect to some extent the differences between the
3 US and China over the bilateral relationship.
4 2 Joseph Nye, Jr, “Assessing China’s Power,” Boston Globe, April 19, 2006.
5 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/19/a
6 ssessing_chinas_power/ (accessed April 22, 2006).
3 David A. Shlapak, David T. Orletsky, and Barry A. Wilson, “Dire Strait? Military
7
Aspects of the China-Taiwan Confrontation and Options for U.S. Policy,” 2000,
8 RAND Corporation.
9 4 Michael Brecher defines a foreign policy crisis as a situation in which three
30111 conditions, deriving from a change in a state’s external or internal environment,
1 are perceived by the highest-level decision-makers of the state: (1) a threat to
basic values; (2) an awareness of a finite time for response to the external threat
2 to basic values; and (3) a high probability of involvement in military hostilities.
3 Michael Brecher, “Toward a Theory of International Crisis Behavior: A
4 Preliminary Report,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (March
5 1977), pp. 39–74.
6 5 The five nos are: no declaration of independence; no change in the “national title”;
no “state-to-state description in the Constitution”; no referendum to change the
7 status quo; no abolition of the National Unification Council nor the Guidelines
8 for National Unification.
9 6 On March 20, the day of the election, Chen’s administration held a “defensive
40111 referendum” under the legislature’s referendum law to decide if the island’s
1 sovereignty was under imminent threat from the mainland’s military threat, that
is, its increasing defense budget, and increasing numbers of missiles deployed
2 opposite Taiwan. Therefore, the referendum is “anti-missile” and “anti-war.”
3 Chen claims that it is also to raise the awareness of the Taiwanese to the magnitude
44111 of the threat, and gain a consensus on self-defense.
162
NOTES
1111 7 It bumped back up into the 30 percent range after Chen’s notorious diplomatic
2 effort to transit in the US was refused. However, Chen’s public support dropped
soon afterward when his wife and son-in-law were found to be involved in
3 scandals.
4 8 Mulvenon, James “Anticipation is Making Me Wait: The Inevitability of War and
5 Deadlines in Cross-Strait Relations,” China Leadership Monitor, No. 12 (Fall
6 2004).
9 Some scholars had thought 2005 was crucial and some believed 2006 was the
7
year that the mainland would consider using force, while others predicted that
8 the year 2008 might be more dangerous. Wendell Minnick “The year to fear for
9 Taiwan: 2006” Asia Times online version, April 10, 2004. http://www.atimes.com/
1011 atimes/China/FD10Ad02.html. By the end of 2006, the Taiwanese leaders are
1 entangled in the internal political scandals leading to a relaxed but still cautious
look for the future of Taiwan.
2 10 David Lampton, “Cross-Strait Relations, the Present and Near Term, A
3111 Washington View,” speech presented at the Finnish Institute of International
4 Studies, Helsinki, Finland, May 12, 2004. http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/
5 LamptonSpeech.pdf.
11 Ibid.
6 12 “Taiwan’s Elections, seen from the Mainland,” The Economist, March 18, 2004.
7 13 David M. Lampton, Remarks at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, May
8 12, 2004 “Cross-Strait Relations: The Present and Near Term: A Washington
9 View.”
14 Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3545361.stm.
20111
15 “Taiwan relations still top security concerns in Northeast Asia,” from
1 www.cato.org/foreignpolicy/east-asia.html.
2 16 Scobell, “China and Strategic Culture,” Strategic Studies Institute occasional paper
3 (May 2002). http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2002/culture/culture.htm,
4 p. 31. A message released by the Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress in 1979 named “A Message to Taiwan Compatriots,” first states the
5 basic lines for cross-strait relations that Deng Xiaoping said indicates “the sincere,
6 fair and reasonable” attitude of the mainland. www.chinataiwan.org/web/
7 webportal/W5023254/ (accessed Dec. 12, 2004).
8 17 In the 2004 Defense White Paper released in December 2004, it is emphasized
that “The Chinese Government continues to adhere to the basic principles of
9 ‘peaceful reunification’ and ‘one country, two systems’ along with the eight-point
30111 proposal on developing cross-Strait relations and advancing the process of peaceful
1 reunification of the motherland at the current stage.” The 2004 Defense White
2 Paper can be downloaded from Lexus-Nexus Internet Index.
18 Divergent views exist over what is the one-China policy/principle: Beijing stressed
3
that there is only one China and Taiwan is a province of China. In Cheney’s speech
4 during his 2003 visit to Beijing, the US put it in a way that a one-China policy is
5 based on the three joint communiqués and the TRA.
6 19 At the March 2005 National People’s Congress, an Anti-secession Law was passed
7 by the Chinese legislature. However, views differ over the impact of this law. The
DPP felt threatened by the law, while the KMD felt assured by the Chinese gesture
8 toward peace as some members visited or planned to visit the mainland.
9 20 Robert L. Suettinger, “Leadership Policy toward Taiwan and the United States in
40111 the Wake of Chen Shui-Bian’s Reelection,” China Leadership Monitor, No. 11
1 (2004).
21 To what extent the US role is a mediator is under discussion between the Chinese
2 and American governments.
3 22 Brams, Theory of Moves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
44111 pp. 88–98. He also argues that moving power is irrelevant if the outcome
163
NOTES
1111 induced by one player is better for both players, which is the case for this game
2 (Game 27).
23 Zoellick, May 2006 hearing, web, accessed May 26, 2006.
3 24 “Taiwan Strait IV: How an Ultimate Political Settlement Might Look.” Feb. 26,
4 2004. International Crisis Group, ICG Asia Report, No. 75.
5 25 Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, The Coming Conflict with China (New
6 York: A.A. Knopf: Distributed by Random House, 1997).
26 Ted Galen Carpenter, America’s Coming War with China: A Collision Course over
7
Taiwan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
8 27 Robert Ross, “Taiwan’s Fading Independence Movement,” Foreign Affairs,
9 Vol. 85, No. 2 (March/April 2006), pp. 141–148.
1011 28 Council on Foreign Relations, Chinese Military Power (New York: 2003). David
1 Shambaugh’s excellent monograph, Modernizing China’s Military: Progress,
Problems, and Prospects (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002).
2 Allen Whiting, “China versus Taiwan: Balance of Power or of Will?” http://
3 www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=6671.
4 29 Ted Galen Carpenter, “Tougher Than It Looks,” Wall Street Journal Asia, April
5 12, 2006. www.cato.org, (accessed April 18, 2006).
30 Craig Meer, “Strait Talk: Washington Increasingly Opts Out” Asia Times, April
6 15, 2006. www.atimes.com (accessed April 15, 2006).
7 31 Robert Sutter, China’s Rise in Asia, East West Center studies series, 21.
8 32 Ted Galen Carpenter, “How China Reassure Neighbors, U.S.,” the article
9 appeared in Foxnews.com on March 17, 2006 and was accessed March 23, 2006
from www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6033&print=Y.
20111
33 Sutter, “China’s Rise,” p. 8.
1 34 East Asia Strategic Review for 2006 “Executive Summary”, p. 3. March 2006, The
2 National Institute for Defense Studies, Japan. http://www.nids.go.jp/english/
3 dissemination/east-asian/pdf/east-asian_e2006s.pdf (accessed March 31, 2006).
4 35 Ibid.
36 Robert G. Sutter, “China’s Rise: Implications for US Leadership in Asia,” Policy
5 Studies, 21, East-West Center, Washington, DC, p. 6.
6
7 METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX
8
1 VICS is a computer software program for content analysis based on verbs in a
9 leader’s speeches. The verbs are coded with a dictionary to construct indices of a
30111 leader’s view of the political universe and preferences for the outcomes of
1 domination, accommodation, submission or deadlock. See Walker, Forecasting
2 the Political Behavior of Leaders with the Verbs in Context System of Opera-
3 tional Code Analysis (Hilliard, OH: Social Science Automation, 2000). Walker,
Schafer, and Young, “Profiling the Operational Codes of Political Leaders,” in
4 Jerrold M. Post ed., The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders. Michael
5 Young, “Building Worldviews with Profiler+,” in G. Barnett ed., Applications of
6 Computer Content Analysis, Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. 17 (2001),
7 pp. 17–32.
2 The results showed that the operational codes are consistent across different kinds
8 of sources for these leaders. Therefore, I am using combined data of public
9 speeches and interviews, and telegrams.
40111 3 The length requirement is for statistical purposes. Short speeches may not produce
1 sufficient results for analysis. If there are too few references to “Self” or “Other”
in the speech, it may result in too many 0 values thus no results for the instrumental
2 or philosophical beliefs. However, using aggregate data helps to relieve this
3 problem. Another solution that was applied in some cases, for example, Deng’s
44111 speeches during the Sino-Vietnamese War, short paragraphs of foreign policy
164
NOTES
1111 speeches are cut out from different speeches and put together to form a long one
2 for that time period. Doing so does not hurt the validity of the results as the
speeches are targeting the same “Other” during the same wartime period.
3 4 Schafer, Mark and Crichlow, Scott, “The Process-outcome Connection in
4 Foreign Policy Decision-making: A Quantitative Study Building on Groupthink”,
5 International Studies Quarterly 46: 45–68.
6 5 Culture is a very difficult concept to define. Overall, culture provides a social
context, which affects decision-makers and society in general. Johnston puts
7
culture in terms of shared beliefs and norms held by individuals. Based on his
8 definition and operationalization (Johnston, Cultural Realism, 32–33), I define
9 culture as shared beliefs. Key decision-makers embody the major beliefs of the
1011 time and the circumstance when a decision was made. By tracing how a decision
1 was made, I claim that the revealed beliefs and norms reflect the strategic culture
of the state’s decision-makers.
2 6 It remains true almost 40 years later that, “Hard data on the influence of
3111 psychological variables in foreign policy are, so far, not abundant, and the
4 obstacles to be surmounted in collecting such data are often formidable” (James
5 N. Rosenau ed., Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (Conference on Public
Opinion and Foreign Policy, 1965: Princeton, NJ), (New York: Free Press, 1967),
6 pp. 56–57.
7 7 David A. Lake and Robert Powell, Strategic Choice and International Relations
8 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 11.
9 8 Ibid., p. 11, note 11.
9 Jing-Dong Yuan, “Culture Matters: Chinese Approaches to Arms Control and
20111
Disarmament,” in Keith R. Krause ed., Culture and Security: Multilateralism,
1 Arms Control and Security Building (London and Portland, OR: F. Cass, 1999),
2 pp. 85–128.
3 10 Lisa Wedeen, “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science,”
4 American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, No. 4 (December 2002), pp. 713–728.
In this article, Wedeen shows how culture as semiotic practices can be applied as
5 a causal variable. See also Colin S. Gray, “Strategic Culture as Context: The First
6 Generation of Theory Strikes Back,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 25,
7 No. 1 (1999), pp. 49–69. Alastair Iain Johnston, “Strategic Cultures Revisited:
8 Reply to Colin Gray,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1999),
pp. 519–523.
9 11 Steven Brams, Theory of Moves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
30111 p. 27.
1 12 Steven Brams, “Game Theory in Practice: Problems and Prospects in Applying it
2 to International Relations,” in Michael Brecher and Frank Harvey eds, Millennial
Reflections on International Studies (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,
3
2002), especially pp. 393–395.
4 13 Ibid.; see also Brams, Theory of Moves, especially pp. 217–234.
5 14 Brams, Theory of Moves, p. 224.
6 15 Ibid., pp. 138–148.
7 16 Brams, “Game Theory in Practice,” p. 395. The italics in the quote are mine. See
also Robert Aumann, “Backward Induction and Common Knowledge of
8 Rationality,” Games and Economic Behavior, 8 (1995), pp. 6–19.
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
165
1111
2
3
4
5 SELECTED
6
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
8
9
1011
1
2
3 Adelman, Jonathan R. and Chih-yu Shih. 1993. Symbolic War: The Chinese Use of
4 Force, 1840–1980. Taiwan: National Chengchi University.
5 Allison, Graham T. 1969. Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American
6 Political Science Review 3: 689–718.
––––. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA:
7
Little, Brown.
8 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2002, 2005,
9 and 2006.
20111 Anon. 1962.The Sino-Indian Boundary Question. Beijing: Foreign Language Press.
1 Babbie, Earl. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.
2 Bajanov, Evgueni. 1995. Assessing the Politics of the Korean War, 1949–51. Cold War
3 International History Project Bulletins b6–75q.
4 Ball, Desmond. 1993. Strategic Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region. Security Studies 3
5 (1): 44–74.
6 Bendor, J. and T. H. Hammond. 1992. Rethinking Allison’s Models. American
7 Political Science Review 86 (2): 301–322.
Blum, Samantha. 2003. Chinese Views of US Hegemony. Journal of Contemporary
8
China 12 (35): 239–264.
9 Booth, Ken and Russell Trood (eds). 1999. Strategic Cultures in Asia-Pacific Region.
30111 New York: St Martin’s Press.
1 Brams, Steven J. 1994. Theory of Moves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2 ––––. 2001. “Response to Randall Stone.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (2):
3 245–254.
4 Brecher, Michael and Frank P. Harvey. 2002. Conflict, Security, Foreign Policy, and
5 International Political Economy: Past Paths and Future Directions in International
6 Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
7 Breslauer, George W. and Philip E. Tetlock (eds). 1991. Learning in US and Soviet
Foreign Policy. Boulder, CO, San Francisco, CA, Oxford: Westview Press.
8
Broomfield, Emma V. 2003. Perceptions of Danger: The China Threat Theory. Journal
9
of Contemporary China 12 (35): 265–284.
40111 Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller (eds). 1997. The Perils
1 of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge, MA:
2 MIT Press.
3 Bulletins, Cold War International History Project. 1994. Letters: Stalin, Kim, and
44111 Korean War Origins.
166
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1111 ––––. 1995/1996. New Evidence on the Korean War. 6–7.

2 ––––. 1996/97. More New Evidence on the Cold War in Asia. 8–9.
3 Burkitt, Laurie, Andrew Scobell, and Larry M. Wortzel (eds). 2003. The Lessons of
4 History: The Chinese People’s Liberation Army at 75. The Strategic Studies Institute,
5 US Army War College.
Burles, Mark and Abram N. Shulsky. 2000. Patterns in China’s Use of Force: Evidence
6
from History and Doctrinal Writings. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
7
Burr, William (ed.). 1998. The Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks with Beijing
8 and Moscow. New York: The New Press.
9 Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (eds). 1979. Reliability and Validity
1011 Assessment. Edited by J. L. Sullivan, Quantitative Applications in the Social
1 Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA and London: Sage Publications.
2 Chanda, Nayan. 1986. Brother Enemy: The War after the War. San Diego, CA:
3111 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
4 ––––. 1986. Cambodia’s Future: The View from Vietnam. Madison, WI.: Center for
5 Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin.
6 Chang, Pao-min. 1986. The Sino-Vietnamese Territorial Dispute. New York: Praeger.
7 Chen, Jian. 1994. China’s Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American
8 Confrontation. New York: Columbia University Press.
9 ––––. 2001. Mao’s China and the Cold War. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The
20111 University of North Carolina Press.
Chen, King C. 1969. Vietnam and China, 1938–1954. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
1
University Press.
2
––––. 1975. Hanoi’s Three Decisions and the Escalation of the Vietnam War. Political
3 Science Quarterly 90 (2): 239–259.
4 ––––. 1987. China’s War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications.
5 Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.
6 Chen, Rosalie. 2003. China Perceives America: Perspectives of International Relations
7 Experts. Journal of Contemporary China 12 (35): 285–297.
8 Cheng, Joseph Y. S. and Wankun Zhang. 2002. Patterns and Dynamics of China’s
9 International Strategic Behavior. Journal of Contemporary China 11 (31): 235–260.
30111 Cheng, Li. 2001. China’s Leaders: The New Generation. New York, Oxford: Rowman
1 & Littlefield.
2 Christensen, Thomas J. 1996. Chinese Realpolitik: Reading Beijing’s World-View.
3 Foreign Affairs 75: 37–52.
4 ––––. 1996. Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-
American Conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5
––––. 2001. Causing Problems Without Catching Up. International Security 25 (4):
6
5–40.
7
Coulter, Edwin M. 1965. The Diplomacy of the Sino-Indian Border Dispute,
8 1950–1962. Microform.
9 Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. (ed.). 2001. China: Rising Power, Foreign Affairs
40111 Reader. Foreign Affairs.
1 Dapondes, Andrew. 1969. The Cuban Crisis and the Chinese-Indian Border War.
2 New York: Vantage Press.
3 Dellios, Rosita. 2001. Daoist Perspectives on Chinese and Global Environmental
44111 Management. The Cultural Mandala 4 (2).
167
1111 Deng, Yong. 1998. The Chinese Conception of National Interests in International
2 Relations. The China Quarterly 154: 308–329.
3 ––––. 2001. Hegemon on the Offensive: Chinese Perspectives on US Global Strategy.
4 Political Science Quarterly 116 (3): 343–365.
Dibb, Paul, David Hale, and Peter Prince. 1999. Asia’s Insecurity. Survival 41 (3):
5
5–20.
6
Donnelly, Jack. 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge
7 University Press.
8 Dougherty, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. 2001. Contending Theories
9 of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. Fifth edn. New York:
1011 Longman.
1 Duiker, J. William. 1986. China and Vietnam: The Roots of Conflict. Berkeley, CA:
2 Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
3 Dutter, Lee E. and Raymond S. Kania. 1980. Explaining Recent Vietnamese Behavior.
4 Asian Survey 20 (9): 931–942.
5 Edelstein, David M. 2002. Managing Uncertainty: Beliefs about Intentions and the
Rise of Great Powers. Security Studies 12 (1): 1–40.
6
Eekelen, Willem Frederik van. 1967. Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute
7
with China. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
8 Elleman, Bruce A. 2001. Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795–1989. London and New
9 York: Routledge.
20111 Elman, Colin. 2004. “Extending Offensive Realism: The Louisiana Purchase and
1 America’s Rise to Regional Hegemony”, American Political Science Review, 98:
2 563–76.
3 —— and Miriam Elman. 1995. History vs. Neo-Realism: A Second Look.
4 International Security 20 (1): 182–193.
5 Eyre, Dana P. and Marc C. Suchman. 1996. Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of
6 Conventional Weapons. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity
in World Politics, edited by P. J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press,
7
pp. 79–113.
8
Fairbank, John King (ed.). 1968. The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s
9 Foreign Relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
30111 ––––. 1974. China Perceived: Images and Policies in Chinese-American Relations.
1 New York: Random House.
2 ––––. 1983. The US and China. Fourth edn. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
3 University Press.
4 –––– and Frank A. Kierman Jr (eds). 1974. Chinese Ways in Warfare. Cambridge,
5 MA: Harvard University Press.
6 Fearon, J. D. 1995. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49
7 (3): 379–414.
Finnemore, M. 1996. Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s
8
Institutionalism. International Organization 50 (2): 325–347.
9
Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor. 1991. Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-
40111 Hill.
1 Friedberg, Aaron L. 2002. 11 September and the Future of Sino-American Relations.
2 Survival 44 (1): 33–50.
3 Garrett, Banning N. and Bonnie S. Glaser. 1995–1996. Chinese Perspectives on
44111 Nuclear Arms Control. International Security 20 (3): 43–78.
168
1111 Garrison, Jean A. 2003. Foreign Policymaking and Group Dynamics: Where We’ve
2 Been and Where We’re Going. International Studies Review 5 (2): 155–202.
3 Garthoff, Raymond L. 1990. Deterrence and the Revolution in Soviet Military
4 Doctrine. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Garver, John W. China’s Decision for War with India in 1962. http://www.people.fas.
5
harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf.
6
––––. 1981. Sino-Vietnamese Conflict and the Sino-American Rapprochement.
7 Political Science Quarterly 96 (3): 445–464.
8 ––––. 2003. The [former] Coming War with America. Journal of Contemporary China
9 12 (36): 575–585.
1011 George, Alexander L. 1969. The Operational Code. International Studies Quarterly
1 13: 190–222.
2 –––– (ed.). 1979. The Causal Nexus between Cognitive Beliefs and Decision-Making
3111 Behavior. Edited by L. Falkowski, Psychological Models in International Politics.
4 Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5 ––––. 1993. Bridging the Gap. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.
Gilks, Anne. 1992. The Breakdown of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance, 1970–1979.
6
Berkeley, CA: Center for Chinese Studies.
7
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
8 University Press.
9 Glaser, Charles L. 2003. Structural Realism in a More Complex World. Review of
20111 International Studies 29 (3): 403–414.
1 Goldgeier, J. M. and P. E. Tetlock. 2001. Psychology and International Relations
2 Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 67–92.
3 Goldstein, Avery. 1997–1998. Great Expectations: Interpreting China’s Arrival.
5 ––––. 2000. Deterrence and Security in the 21st Century: China, Britain, France, and
6 the Enduring Legacy of the Nuclear Revolution. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
7
Goldstein, Joshua S. and John R. Freeman. 1990. Three-Way Street: Strategic
8
Reciprocity in World Politics. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago
9 Press.
30111 Goldstein, Judith and Robert O. Keohane (eds). 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy:
1 Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell
2 University Press.
3 Goldstein, Lyle J. 2001. Return to Zhenbaodao Island: Who Started Shooting and
4 Why it Matters. The China Quarterly: 985–997.
5 Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis, and Litai Xue. 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao
6 and the Korean War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7 Graff, David A. and Robin Higham. 2002. A Military History of China. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
8
Gray, Colin S. 1991. Geography and Grand Strategy. Comparative Strategy 10 (4):
9
311–329.
40111 ––––. 1999. Clausewitz Rules, Ok? The Future is The Past—With GPS. British
1 International Studies Association 25 (5): 161–182.
2 ––––. 1999. Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory Strikes
3 Back. Review of International Studies 25 (1): 49–69.
44111 ––––. 2003. In Praise of Strategy. Review of International Studies 29 (2): 285–295.
169
1111 Green, Colin Robert. 2003. The Spirit of the Military (Junren Hun): The Tradition and
2 its Revival in the Republican Period. PhD Dissertation, Department of History,
3 University of British Columbia.
4 Grieco, Joseph M. 1997. Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics.
In New Thinking in International Relations Theory, edited by M. W. Doyle and
5
G. J. Ikenberry. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6
Gries, Peter Hays. 2001. Power and Resolve in US China Policy. International Security
7 26 (2): 155–165.
8 Griffith, Samuel B. 1963. Sun Tzu: The Art of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9 Guan, Ang Cheng. 1997. Vietnamese Communists’ Relations with China and the
1011 Second Indochina Conflict, 1956–1962. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
1 Gurtov, Mel and Byong-Moo Hwang. 1998. China’s Security. Boulder, CO: Lynne
2 Rienner.
3 Hao, Yufan and Zhihai Zhai. 1990. China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War: History
4 Revisited. The China Quarterly 121: 94–115.
5 Herring, Eric. 1995. Danger and Opportunity: Explaining International Crisis
Outcomes. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
6
Herz, John. 1950. Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma. World
7
Politics 2.
8 Hoffman, Steven A. 1990. India and the China Crisis. Berkeley, CA: University of
9 California Press.
20111 Holsti, Ole R. 1977. The “Operational Code” as an Approach to the Analysis of Belief
1 Systems. Final Report to the National Science Foundation.
2 Hood, Steven J. 1992. Dragons Entangled: Indochina and the China-Vietnam War.
3 Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
4 Hopf, T. 1998. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.
6 Hu, Weixing. 1995. China’s Security Agenda after the Cold War. The Pacific Review
8 (1): 117–135.
7
Hudson, Valerie M. (ed.). 1997. Culture and Foreign Policy. Boulder, CO and London:
8
Lynne Rienner.
9 Hui, Victoria Tin-bor. 2002. Why did Balancing Fail in the Ancient Chinese System,
30111 665–221 BC? Paper read at the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Political
1 Science Association, Boston, MA, August 29–September 1, 2002.
2 Hunt, Michael H. 1992. Beijing and the Korean Crisis, June 1950–June 1951. Political
3 Science Quarterly 107 (3): 453–478.
4 –––– and Niu Jun (eds). Toward A History of Chinese Communist Foreign Relations,
5 1920s-1960s: Personalities and Interpretive Approaches. Woodrow Wilson Center
6 Asia Program.
7 Ikenberry, G. John and Jitsuo Tsuchiyama. 2002. Between Balance of Power and
Community: The Future of Multilateral Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific.
8
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2 (1): 69–94.
9
–––– and Mastanduno, Michael (eds). 2003. International Relations Theory and the
40111 Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press.
1 Jencks, Harlan W. 1979. China’s Punitive War on Vietnam: A Military Assessment.
2 Asian Survey 19.
3 Jepperson, R., A. Wendt, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 1996. Norms, Identity, and
44111 Culture in National Security. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and
170
1111 Identity in World Politics, edited by P. J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia

2 University Press.
3 Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics.
4 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
––––. 1978. Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics 30 (2): 167–214.
5
–––– and Jack Snyder. 1991. Dominoes and Bandwagons. New York and Oxford:
6
Oxford University Press.
7 Jiang, Siyi and Hui Li. 1994. Zhong-Yin bianjing ziqwi fanji zuozhan shi (history of
8 the self-defensive counterattack operations on the Sino-Indian border). Beijing:
9 Military Science Press.
1011 Jin, Dexiang. 1997. Zhongguo de Heping Waijiao Chuantong yu Xifang de
1 Huanghuolun [China’s Peaceful Diplomatic Tradition and Western ‘Yellow Peril’].
2 Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi [World Economy and Politics] 11.
3111 Johnston, Alastair Iain. 1995. Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy
4 in Chinese History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5 ––––. 1995. Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security 19 (4): 32–64.
––––. 1995/1996. China’s New “Old Thinking”: The Concept of Limited Deterrence.
6
International Security 20 (3): 5–42.
7
––––. 1996. Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China. In The Culture of
8 National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by P. Katzenstein.
9 New York: Columbia University Press.
20111 ––––. 1996. Prospects for Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization: Limited Deterrence
1 Versus Multilateral Arms Control. The China Quarterly (146): 548–576.
2 ––––. 1998. China’s Militarized Interstate Dispute Behavior 1949–1992: A First Cut
3 at the Data. The China Quarterly: 1–30.
4 ––––. 1998. International Structures and Chinese Foreign Policy. In China and the
5 World: Chinese Foreign Policy Faces the New Millennium, edited by S. Kim.
6 Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
––––. 1999. Strategic Cultures Revisited: Reply to Colin Gray. Review of International
7
Studies 25 (3): 519–523.
8
––––. 2003. Is China a Status Quo Power? International Security 27 (4): 5–56.
9 –––– and Robert S. Ross. 1999. Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging
30111 Power. London and New York: Routledge.
1 Kang, David C. 2003. Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks.
3 ––––. 2003. International Relations Theory and the Second Korean War. International
4 Studies Quarterly 47: 301–324.
5 Kapstein, Ethan B. and Michael Mastanduno (eds). 1999. Unipolar Politics: Realism
6 and State Strategies after the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press.
7 Katzenstein, Peter (ed.). 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity
in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
8
Kier, B. 1996. Culture and French Military Doctrine before World War II. In The
9
Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by
40111 P. J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press.
1 Kier, Elizabeth. 1997. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine between
2 the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3 Kim, Woosang and James D. Morrow. 1992. When Do Power Shifts Lead to War?
44111 American Political Science Review 36 (4): 896–922.
171
1111 King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry:
2 Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
3 Press.
4 Klein, Yitzhak. 1991. A Theory of Strategic Culture. Comparative Strategy 10 (1):
3–23.
5
Krause, Keith R. (ed.). 1999. Culture and Security: Multilateralism, Arms Control
6 and Security Building. London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
7 Kupchan, Charles A. 1994. The Vulnerability of Empire. Ithaca, NY and London:
8 Cornell University Press.
9 Kydd, A. 1997. Game Theory and the Spiral Model. World Politics 49 (3): 371–400.
1011 Lapid, Josef and Friedrich Kratochwil. 1996. The Return of Culture and Identity in
1 IR Theory. Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner.
2 Larson, Deborah Welch. 1985. Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation.
3 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4 Lawson, Eugene K. 1984. The Sino-Vietnamese Conflict. New York: Praeger.
Legro, J. W. and A. Moravcsik. 1996. Culture and Preferences in the International
5
Cooperation Two-Step. The American Political Science Review 90 (1): 118–137.
6 —— 1999. Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security 24 (2): 5–55.
7 Leifer, Michael (ed.). 1986. The Balance of Power in East Asia. New York: St Martin’s
8 Press.
9 Leites, Nathan C. 1951. The Operational Code of The Politburo. New York: McGraw
20111 Hill.
1 ––––. 1953. A Study of Bolshevism. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
2 Levy, Jack S. 1987. Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War. World
3 Politics 40 (1): 82–107.
4 ––––. 1989. The Causes of War: A Review of Theories and Evidence. In Behavior,
Society, and Nuclear War, edited by P. E. Tetlock, Jo L. Husbands, Robert Jervis,
5
Paul C. Stern, and Charles Tilly. New York: Oxford University Press.
6 Li, Jijun. 1997. Traditional Military Thinking and the Defensive Strategy of China.
7 Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, accessed March 2005,
8 available at www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mi/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=82.
9 Li, Nan. 1996. The PLA’s Evolving Warfighting Doctrine, Strategy and Tactics,
30111 1985–1995: A Chinese Perspective. The China Quarterly (146): 443–463.
1 ––––. 1999. Organizational Changes of the PLA, 1985–1997. The China Quarterly
2 (158): 314–349.
3 Lindeman, Kaori Nakajima. 2002. What Makes a Revisionist State Revisionist?—
4 The Role of International Norms in State Identity Formation. Paper read at 43rd
Annual International Studies Association Convention, March 23–27, 2002, at New
5
Orleans.
6 Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the
7 Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO, San Francisco, CA, and Oxford:
8 Westview Press.
9 Liu, Xiyuan. 2001. Wo Yu 38 Jun Zai Chaoxian (With Corp. 38 in Korea). Bai Nian
40111 Chao (A Hundred Year Tide) (1): 33–39.
1 Liu, Xuecheng. 1994. The Sino-Indian Border Dispute and Sino-Indian Relations.
2 New York: University Press of America.
3 Loewe, Michael and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds). 1999. The Cambridge History
44111 of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
172
1111 Lynn, John A. 2003. Battle: A History of Combat and Culture. Boulder, CO:
2 Westview Press.
3 Maoz, Z. and B. Russett. 1993. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic
4 Peace: 1946–1986. American Political Science Review 87 (3): 624–638.
5 Maxwell, Neville. 1972. India’s China War. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York and
6
London: W.W. Norton & Company.
7
Medeiros, Evan S. and M. Taylor Fravel. 2003. China’s New Diplomacy. Foreign
8 Affairs 82 (6).
9 Mercer, Jonathan. 1996. Reputation and International Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell
1011 University Press.
1 Miller, H. Lyman. 2004. Commemorating Deng to Press Party Reform. China
2 Leadership Monitor (12).
3111 Millett, Allan R. 2001. The Korean War: A 50-Year Critical Historiography. Journal
4 of Strategic Studies 24 (1): 188–224.
5 Morgenthau, Hans J. 1985. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
6 Peace. Sixth edn, revised by Kenneth W. Thompson (ed.). New York: Knopf.
7 Morrow, James D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton, NJ:
8 Princeton University Press.
Mulvenon, James. 2004. Anticipation is Making Me Wait: The “Inevitability of War”
9
and Deadlines in Cross-Strait Relations. China Leadership Monitor (12).
20111
–––– and Andrew N.D. Young (eds). 2001. Seeking Truth from Facts: A Retrospective
1 on Chinese Military Studies in the Post-Mao Era. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
2 Corporation.
3 Neack, Laura, Jeanne A. K. Hey, and Patrick J. Haney (eds). 1995. Foreign Policy
4 Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
5 Prentice Hall.
6 Neustadt, Richard E. and Ernest R. May. 1986. Thinking in Time: The Use of History
7 for Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press.
8 O’Dowd, Edward and Arthur Waldron. 1991. Sun Tzu for Strategists. Comparative
9 Strategy 10 (1): 25–36.
30111 Palit, D. K. 1991. War in High Himalaya: The Indian Army in Crisis, 1962. New
1 York: St Martin’s Press.
Pande, Savita. 2000. Chinese Nuclear Doctrine. Strategic Analysis: A Monthly Journal
2
of the IDSA XXIII (12).
3 Paquette, Laure. 1991. Strategy and Time in Clausewitz’s On War and In Sun Tzu’s
4 The Art of War. Comparative Strategy 10 (1): 37–51.
5 Poore, Stuart. 2003. What is the Context? A Reply to the Gray–Johnston Debate on
6 Strategic Culture. Review of International Studies 29 (2): 279–284.
7 Posen, Barry R. 1984. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany
8 between the World Wars. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
9 Post, Jerald M. (ed.). 2003. The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With
40111 Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
1 Press.
2 Powell, Ralph L. 1968. Maoist Military Doctrines. American-Asian Educational
3 Exchange.
44111 Powell, Robert. 1999. The Modeling Enterprise and Security Studies. International
Security 24 (2): 97–106.
173
1111 Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of 2-Level
2 Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.
3 Reiter, Dan. 1996. Crucible of Beliefs: Learning, Alliances, and World Wars. Edited
4 by S. M. Walt, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell
5 University Press.
Rosati, Jerel A. 1995. A Cognitive Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy. In
6
Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in its Second Generation, edited
7
by L. Neack, Jeanne A. K. Hey, and Patrick J. Haney. Prentice Hall, NJ: Prentice-
8
Hall.
9 ——. 2000. The Power of Human Cognition in the Study of World Politics.
1011 International Studies Review 2 (3): 45–75.
1 Rose, Gideon. 1998. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World
2 Politics 51 (1): 144–172.
3 Rosecrance, Richard and Arthur A. Stein (eds) 1993. The Domestic Bases of Grand
4 Strategy. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
5 Ross, Robert S. 1988. The Indochina Tangle: China’s Vietnam Policy, 1975–1979.
6 New York: Columbia University Press.
7 ––––. 1998. After the Cold War—Domestic Factors and US-China Relations: M. E.
8 Sharpe.
9 Roy, Denny. 1996. The China Threat Issue: Major Arguments. Asian Survey 36 (8):
20111 757–771.
––––. 2000. Tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Survival 42 (1): 76–96.
1
––––. 2003. China’s Reaction to American Predominance. Survival 45 (3): 57–78.
2
Rozman, Gilbert. 2002. China’s Changing Images of Japan, 1989–2001: The Struggle
3 to Balance Partnership and Rivalry. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2 (1):
4 95–130.
5 Ryan, Mark A., David M. Finkelstein, and Michael A. McDevitt (eds). 2003. Chinese
6 Warfighting: The PLA Experience Since 1949. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
7 Sawyer, Ralph D. (translated and commentary). 1993. The Seven Military Classics
8 of Ancient China. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9 Scalapino, Robert A. 2004. Asia-Pacific Security—the Current Balance of Power.
30111 Australian Journal of International Affairs 58 (3): 368–376.
1 Schafer, Mark. 2003. Science, Empiricism, and Tolerance in the Study of Foreign
2 Policymaking. International Studies Review 5 (2): 155–202.
3 Schroeder, Paul. 1994. Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory. International
4 Security 19 (1): 108–148.
5 Schweller, Randall L. 1996. Status Quo Bias: Bringing the Revisionist State Back.
Security Studies 5 (3): 90–121.
6
––––. 1998. Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of World Conquest.
7
New York: Columbia University Press.
8 Scobell, Andrew. 2001. The Chinese Cult of Defense. Issues and Studies 37 (5):
9 100–127.
40111 ––––. 2002. China and Strategic Culture. Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army
1 War College, accessed March 2005, available at www.strategicstudiesinstitute.
2 army.mi/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=60.
3 ––––. 2003. China’s Use of Military Force: Beyond the Great Wall and the Long
44111 March. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
174
1111 Sears, David O., Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (eds). 2003. Oxford Handbook
2 of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3 Segal, Gerald. 1985. Defending China. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
4 Press.
5 ––––. 1996. East Asia and the “Constrainment” of China. International Security
20 (4): 107–136.
6
––––. 1999. Does China Matter? Foreign Affairs 78 (5).
7
Shambaugh, David L. 1992. China’s Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Survival
8 34 (2): 88–106.
9 ––––. 1999/2000. China’s Military Views the World. International Security 24 (3):
1011 52–79.
1 ––––. 2000. Sino-American Strategic Relations: From Partners to Competitors.
2 Survival 42 (1): 97–115.
3111 ––––. 2001. China or America: Which is the Revisionist Power? Survival 43 (3):
4 25–30.
5 ––––. 2003. Introduction: Imagining Demons: The Rise of Negative Imagery in
6 US-China Relations. Journal of Contemporary China 12 (35): 235–237.
7 Shen, Zhihua. 2000. Sino-Soviet Relations and the Origins of the Korean War: Stalin’s
8 Strategic Goals in the Far East. Journal of Cold War Studies 2 (2): 44–68.
9 ––––. 2002. Khrushchev, Mao and the Unrealized Sino-Soviet Military Cooperation.
20111 In Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact: China and the Warsaw
Pact.
1
Shi, Bo Bian. 1993. 1962, Zhong Yin Da Zhan Ji Shi. Beijing: Zhongguo Dadi
2
Chubanshe.
3 Shih, Chih-yu. 1993. China’s Just World: The Morality of Chinese Foreign Policy.
4 Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner.
5 Simon, Herbert A. 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with
6 Political Science. American Political Science Review 79: 293–304.
7 Sinha, Dr P. B. and Col. A. A. Athale (eds). 1992. History of the Conflict with China,
8 1962. Edited by D. P. S. N. Prasad. New Delhi: History Division, Ministry of
9 Defence, Government of India.
30111 Snyder, Glenn H. 1971. “Prisoner’s Dilemma” and “Chicken” Models in International
1 Politics. International Studies Quarterly 15 (1): 66–103.
2 Snyder, J. 1977. The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear
3 Operations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
4 ——. 1984. Civil-Military Relations and the Cult of the Offensive; 1914 and 1984.
––––. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca,
6
NY and London: Cornell University Press.
7
Sondhaus, Lawrence. 2001. The Strategic Culture of the Habsburg Army. Austrian
8 History Yearbook 32: 225–234.
9 Stern, Eric K. 2003. Crisis Studies and Foreign Policy Analysis: Insights, Synergies, and
40111 Challenges. International Studies Review 5 (2): 155–202.
1 Stone, Randall W. 2001. The Use and Abuse of Game Theory in International
2 Relations: The Theory of Moves. Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (2): 216–244.
3 Stueck, William. 1995. The Korean War: An International History. Princeton, NJ:
44111 Princeton University Press.
175
1111 Suettinger, Robert L. 2004. Leadership Policy toward Taiwan and the US in the Wake
2 of Chen Shui-bian’s Reelection. China Leadership Monitor (11).
3 ––––. 2004. The Rise and Descent of “Peaceful Rise.” China Leadership Monitor
4 (12).
Swaine, Michael D. 2000. Does China have a Grand Strategy? Current History:
5
274–279.
6
–––– and Ashley J. Tellis. 2000. Interpreting China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present,
7 and Future. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
8 –––– with Loren H. Runyon. 2002. Ballistic Missiles and Missile Defense in Asia.
9 NBR Analysis 13 (3): 82.
1011 Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. 2000/01. Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism
1 Revisited. International Security 25 (3): 128–161.
2 Tetlock, Philip E. (ed.). 1998. Social Psychology and World Politics. In Handbook
3 of Social Psychology, edited by D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. New York:
4 McGraw-Hill.
5 Van Evera, Stephen. 1999. Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca,
NY and London: Cornell University Press.
6
Van Ness, Peter. 2002. Hegemony, not Anarchy: Why China and Japan are not
7
Balancing US Unipolar Power. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2 (1):
8 131–150.
9 Varkey, Ouseph. 1974. At the Crossroads: The Sino-Indian Border Dispute and the
20111 Communist Party of India, 1959–1963. Calcutta: Minerva Associates.
1 Varma, Shanti Prasad. 1965. Struggle for the Himalayas: A Study in Sino-Indian
2 Relations. Jullundur: University Publishers.
3 Vertzberger, Yaacov. 1984. Misperceptions in Foreign Policymaking: The Sino-Indian
4 Conflict, 1959–1962. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5 Vietnam Courier. 1979. Chinese Aggression against Vietnam: Dossier. Hanoi: Vietnam
6 Courier.
Walker, Stephen G. 1977. The Interface between Beliefs and Behavior: Henry
7
Kissinger’s Operational Code and the Vietnam War. Journal of Conflict Resolution
8
21 (1): 129–168.
9 ––––. 1983. The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems. International
30111 Studies Quarterly 27 (2): 179–202.
1 ––––. 1990. The Evolution of Operational Code Analysis. Political Psychology 11
2 (2): 403–418.
3 ––––. 2000. Forecasting the Political Behavior of Leaders with the Verbs in Context
4 System of Operational Code Analysis. Hilliard, OH: Social Science Automation.
5 ––––. 2002. Beliefs and Foreign Policy Analysis in the New Millennium. In Conflict,
6 Security, Foreign Policy, and International Political Economy, edited by M. Brecher
7 and Frank P. Harvey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
––––. 2003. “Operational Code Analysis as a Scientific Research Program: A
8
Cautionary Tale”, in Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the
9
Field, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT,
40111 pp. 245–276.
1 –––– and Mark Schafer. 2003. The Contributions of Operational Code to Foreign
2 Policy Theory: Beliefs as Causal Mechanisms.
3 –––– and ––––, eds. 2006. Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and
44111 Applications of Operational Code Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
176
1111 ––––, ––––, and Michael Young. 1998. Systematic Procedures for Operational Code
2 Analysis: Measuring and Modeling Jimmy Carter’s Operational Code. International
3 Studies Quarterly 42: 175–190.
4 ––––, ––––, and —— (eds). 2003. Profiling the Operational Codes of Political Leaders.
5 In The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam
Hussein and Bill Clinton, edited by J. M. Post. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
6
Michigan Press.
7
––––, ––––, and –––– (eds). 2003. William Jefferson Clinton: Beliefs and Integrative
8
Complexity: Operational Code Beliefs and Objective Appraisal And Saddam
9 Hussein: Beliefs and Integrative Complexity: Operational Code Beliefs and
1011 Objective Appraisal. In The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, edited
1 by J. M. Post. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
2 Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
3111 ——. 1991. The Renaissance of Security Studies. International Studies Quarterly 35
4 (2): 211–239.
5 ––––. 1999. Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies. Inter-
6 national Security 23 (4): 5–48.
7 Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York:
8 Columbia University Press.
9 ––––. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.
20111 Wang, Enbao. 2002. Engagement or Containment? Americans’ Views on China and
Sino-US Relations. Journal of Contemporary China 11 (31): 381–392.
1
Wang, Guangwu. 1995. The Chinese Way: China’s Position in International Relations.
2
Scandinavian University Press: Norwegian Nobel Institute Lecture Series.
3 Wang, James C. F. 2002. Contemporary Chinese Politics: An Introduction. Seventh
4 edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5 Wang, Qingxin Ken. 2003. Hegemony and Socialization of the Mass Public: the
6 Case of Post-war Japan’s Cooperation with the US on China Policy. Review
7 of International Studies 29 (1): 99–119.
8 Wang, Yuan-kang. 2002. Culture and Foreign Policy: What Imperial China Tells Us?
9 Paper read at 2002 APSA Annual Conference (with author permission to cite), at
30111 Boston, MA.
1 Ward, Adam. 2003. China and America: Trouble Ahead? Survival 45 (3): 35–56.
2 Watson, George and McGraw, Dickinson. 1980. Statistical Inquiry. New York: John
3 Wiley & Sons.
4 Weathersby, Kathryn. 1995. To Attack, Or Not To Attack? Stalin, Kim Il Sung, and
5 the Prelude to War. Cold War International History Project Bulletins.
—— (translation and commentary). 1993. New Findings on the Korean War. Cold
6
War International History Project (CWIHP).
7
Wedeen, Lisa. 2002. Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science.
8 American Political Science Review 96 (4): 713–728.
9 Weitz, Richard. 2001. Meeting the China Challenge: Some Insights from Scenario-
40111 Based Planning. The Journal of Strategic Studies 24 (3): 19–48.
1 Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power-
2 Politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.
3 ––––. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge Studies in
44111 International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
177
1111 West, Philip. 1989. Interpreting the Korean War. The American Historical Review
2 94 (1): 80–96.
3 Westad, Odd Arne, Chen Jian, Stein Tonnesson, Nguyen Vu Tung, and James G.
4 Hershberg. 1998. 77 Conversations between Chinese and Foreign Leaders on the
Wars in Indochina, 1964–1977. In CWIHP Working Paper. Washington, DC:
5
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
6
Whiting, Allen S. 1960. China Crosses the Yalu: The Decision to Enter the Korean
7 War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8 ––––. 1975. The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
9 Michigan Press.
1011 ––––. 1996. The PLA and China’s Threat Perceptions. The China Quarterly 0 (146):
1 596–615.
2 ––––. 2001. China’s Use of Force, 1950–96, and Taiwan. International Security 26
3 (2): 103–131.
4 Wingrove, Paul. 2002. Mao’s Conversations with the Soviet Ambassador, 1953–55. In
5 CWIHP Working Paper. Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
Wu, Guoguang. 2004. Passions, Politics, and Politicians: Beijing between Taipei and
6
Washington. The Pacific Review 17 (2): 179–198.
7
Xiang, Lanxin. 2001. Washington’s Misguided China Policy. Survival 43 (3): 7–23.
8 Yan, Xu. 1993. Zhong-Yin Bianjie zhi zhan lishi zhenxiang (The Historic Truth of the
9 Sino-Indian Border War). Hong Kong: Tian Di Books.
20111 Yan, Xuetong. 1998. Zhongguo Jueqi-Guoji Huanjing Pinggu (International
1 Environment for China’s Rise). Tianjin: Tianjin Renmin Chubanshe.
2 Yuan, Jing-dong. 2000. Asia-Pacific Security: China’s Conditional Multilateralism and
3 Great Power Entente. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
4 ––––. 2002. The Evolution of China’s Nonproliferation Policy since the 1990s: Pro-
5 gress, Problems, and Prospects. Journal of Contemporary China 11 (31): 209–233.
6 Zhai, Qiang. 1997. Beijing and the Vietnam Peace Talks, 1965–68: New Evidence from
Chinese Sources. In CWIHP Working Paper. Woodrow Wilson International Center
7
for Scholars, Washington, DC.
8
––––. 1999. Opposing Negotiations: China and the Vietnam Peace Talks. Pacific
9 Historical Review 68 (1).
30111 ––––. 2000. China and the Vietnam Wars. Chapel Hill, NC and London: University
1 of North Carolina Press.
2 Zhang, Biwu. 2002. China’s Perception of the US: An Exploration of China’s Foreign
3 Policy Motivations. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University.
4 Zhang, Shu Guang. 1993. Deterrence and Strategic Culture: Chinese-American
5 Confrontations, 1949–1958. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
6 ––––. 1995. Mao’s Military Romanticism: China and the Korean War. Lawrence, KS:
7 University of Kansas Press.
Zhang, Tiejun. 2002. Chinese Strategic Culture: Traditional and Present Features.
8
Comparative Strategy 21 (2): 73–90.
9
Zhang, Xiangming. 2002. On Two Ancient Chinese Administrative Ideas: Rule of
40111 Virtue and Rule by Law. The Cultural Mandala 5 (1).
1 Zhang, Xiaoming. 1998. China and the Air War in Korea, 1950–1953. The Journal
2 of Military History 62 (2): 335–370.
3 Zhao, Suisheng (ed.). 2004. Chinese Foreign Policy: Pragmatism and Strategic
44111 Behavior. Armonk, NY and London: M. E. Sharpe.
178
1111
2
3
4
5 INDEX
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 Pages containing relevant illustrations are indicated in italic type.
4
5 accommodationist-defensive strategic Bush, George W. 84–5, 96–7, 102, 105,
orientation 89 118, 123
6 accommodation strategies 122, 132n3 Buzhan Ersheng (win without fight or use
7 Aksai Chin 55, 57 of force) 26, 133n5
8 America’s Coming War with China
9 (Carpenter) 118 Cambodia (Kampuchea) 68–73, 75–6, 78,
Anti-secession Law 103, 117, 163n19 156n38
20111 armistice, Korean 37, 50–1 Cao Bang 73
1 arms sales to Taiwan, US 82, 86, 101, 105, Carpenter, Ted 118–19
2 118 Carter, Jimmy 10, 72
3 Art of War, The (Sun Zi) 18, 21–3, case studies 127
4 139n30, 140n39 changes in leaders’ strategic beliefs 122,
audience factor 89, 96, 158n70 125–7; Deng Xiaoping 62, 64–7, 75,
5 Australia 120 77–9; Hu Jintao 87–93, 98; Jiang Zemin
6 87–93, 98, 106; Lee Teng-hui 106, 109;
7 backward induction 127–30 Mao Zedong 43, 44, 46, 47, 51, 59,
8 ba dao (expansionist/hegemonic way) 22 64–7, 121; Zhou Enlai 43, 44, 46, 47,
Bajanov, Evgueni 148n3 51, 59, 64–7
9 Ba system 140n51 Chang Pao-min 156
30111 Beijing Review 7, 72, 125, 157n55 charm diplomacy 100–1, 104, 120
1 Belgrade, bombing of Chinese Embassy in Chen, King C. 67, 71–2, 74, 156–8
2 87, 93–6 Cheney, Dick 163n18
beliefs 2–3, 5–7, 8–9, 12, 15, 32–5, 82, Chen Jian 148–51
3 120–2, 126–7; see also changes in Chen Shuibian 99–102, 104–5, 119,
4 leaders’ strategic beliefs; instrumental 123, 162n6, 163n7; operational code
5 beliefs; operational code beliefs; beliefs 107, 111–13; subjective games
6 philosophical beliefs 113–18
7 Bernstein, Richard 118 chi (morale, life energy) 22
Bolshevik Politburo 6, 8 Chiang Kai-shek see Jiang Jieshi
8 Bradley, Omar 36 China studies 146n107
9 Brams, Steven 7, 12–14, 35, 48–9, 94; Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 48, 71,
40111 backward induction 127, 130; moving 83, 95, 120; Korean War 36–8, 148n8;
1 power 64, 163n22; Nash equilibria Taiwan 103, 111, 113, 123
135n48; nonmyopic equilibria 136n49, Chinese Embassy bombing 87, 93–6
2 162n38; threats 152n43, 162n39 Chinese Foreign Ministry 7, 125
3 Brecher, Michael 162n4 Chinese language 3, 7, 30, 124, 132n5,
44111 Burles, Mark 22, 140n41 145n91; Pinyin 125, 136n2, 139n30
179
INDEX
1111 Chinese People’s Volunteers (CPV) 39–40, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and
2 125, 148n8, 150n19 Grand Strategy in Chinese History
Chinese philosophy 18–20, 145n90 (Johnston) 3, 30
3 Christensen, Thomas J. 41, 151nn28, Cultural Revolution 5, 71, 74, 76, 79
4 33 culture, study of 127, 165n5, 165n10;
5 Civil War 25, 36, 38, 103, 149n16, see also strategic culture, concept of
6 151n36 currency 102, 115, 118
Clausewitz, Carl von 21–2, 140n41 cycling possibility 64, 155n20
7 Clinton, Bill 95
8 coercive diplomacy 78, 80, 101 Dalai Lama 55
9 cold war 32, 37, 39, 56, 59, 80; end of 82; Daoism 18, 137n12
1011 and Taiwan 103; see also multipolarity Defense White Papers 78, 103–4,
of post-cold war world 163n17
1
Coming Conflict with China, The defensive realists 14, 44, 59, 121, 127–8,
2 (Bernstein and Munro) 118 133n9
3 Communist Party see Chinese Communist defensive referendum 100, 104–5, 111,
4 Party (CCP) 113, 162n6
5 confidence-building measures (CBMs) 4, defensive strategic culture 1–2, 4, 26–7,
29, 54, 84–5 80, 122, 133n7, 142n61
6 Confucianism 7, 17–21, 136n3, 138n22, definitions of strategic culture 32–3
7 139n29; New Security Concept 85; and democracy, Taiwan as example of 119
8 pacifism 24; and Parabellum realism 30; Democratic People’s Party (DPP) 100–1,
9 strategic preference rankings for 34; 104, 115–16, 119–20
and Sun Zi’s Art of War 22, 140n39; Deng Xiaoping 2, 83, 142n60; operational
20111 and Taiwan 104; see also Confucian code beliefs 57–62, 75–8, 91, 92,
1 leaders; Confucian strategic culture; 121–2; Sino-Indian War 53, 56; Sino-
2 Confucius Vietnamese War 67–74, 156–8; sources
3 Confucian leaders 14, 123, 128; Chen for statements of 7, 124–6; subjective
Shuibian 111, 115, 117; Deng Xiaoping games 62–7, 78–80; Taiwan 103,
4
59, 62, 66–7, 75, 78, 121; Hu Jintao 163n16
5 87, 93, 98, 111, 114; Jiang Zemin 87, diplomacy 31, 81; charm 100–1, 104,
6 93, 98, 106; Lee Teng-hui 106, 109; 120; coercive 78, 80, 101; panda 104,
7 Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai 44, 45, 115
8 47; Wen Jiabao 161n32; see also domain of politics 10, 12
Confucianism; Confucian strategic domestic situation, China’s 37–41, 55–7,
9 culture; Confucius 68–72, 119
30111 Confucian strategic culture 25–32, 121–2, Duiker, J. William 71, 155nn27, 30,
1 132n3; see also Confucianism; 156nn33, 36, 157n55
2 Confucian leaders; Confucius
Confucius 19–21, 138n17; see also East Asia Strategic Review for 2006
3 Confucianism; Confucian leaders; 120
4 Confucian strategic culture economic development 78, 86
5 containment policy toward China 48, Eight-Point Proposal 103, 106, 114
6 81–2, 141n59 Elleman, Bruce A. 72
content analysis 2–3, 6–7, 124–31; see Embassy bombing, Chinese 87, 93–6
7
also Verbs in Context System (VICS) energy 115, 118
8 context 10, 12, 33 engagement policy toward China 81, 86,
9 cooperative orientation of leaders 59, 75, 122, 141n59
40111 121–2 EP-3 incident 87, 96–8
1 Council for Mutual Economic Europe, comparisons between ancient
Cooperation (Comecon) 69 China and 23–4
2 Cuban missile crisis 55–6
3 cultural realism 3, 30, 34–5, 81, 98, 121; face validity 3, 30, 132n5
44111 see also realism Fairbank, John King 26–7
180
INDEX
1111 fangyu (defensiveness) 26 Hu Jintao 1, 6–7, 85–6, 162n1;

2 Far Eastern Economic Review 7 operational code beliefs 87–92, 107,
FBIS (WNC) 7 111–13, 121, 123, 161n34; sources
3 feigong (non-violence) 26 for statements of 125; subjective
4 five nos 100, 162n5 games 92–8, 113–18; Taiwan 101–5,
5 five principles of peaceful coexistence 118–19
6 70 human rights 31, 86, 115, 118
foreign policy behavior, Chinese 2,
7 4–5 Inchon landing 39, 41, 148n9
8 foreign policy crisis, defined 162n4 India 53–7, 62–7, 161n25; see also Sino-
9 France 69–70, 159n77 Indian War
1011 Friedberg, Aaron L. 28 Indochina 69–70
initial states 12–13
1
games, subjective see subjective instrumental beliefs 8, 9, 11, 13, 32, 34;
2 games Chen Shuibian 107; Deng Xiaoping 58,
3111 game theory 2–3, 7, 94, 127–30, 134n30; 76; Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin 88, 107;
4 see also subjective games Lee Teng-hui 107; Mao Zedong 42, 58,
5 Gao Gang 40 76; Wen Jiabao 88; Zhou Enlai 42, 58,
Garver, John W. 153n2 76
6 Geneva 70 intended target 10, 12
7 George, Alexander 6, 8 international security studies 32
8 Gilks, Anne 155n28 international situation, China’s 37–41,
9 Goa 54, 57, 154n15 55–7, 68–72
Graff, David 24 inter-state relations, philosophical
20111 grand strategies 30, 32, 35, 122 influences on 23–5
1 Gray, Colin S. 33, 146n104 Iran 102, 115, 118
2 Great Britain 153n3, 159n77
3 Great Cultural Revolution 5, 71, 74, 76, Japan 29, 84, 99, 101–2, 120, 160n19,
79 161n26
4
Great Leap Forward 55 Jervis, Robert 5, 162n41
5 Great Wall 26 Jiang Jieshi 56, 99
6 Green, Colin Robert 23–4, 141n53 Jianguo Yilai Mao Zedong Wengao 124
7 Gries, Peter 28 Jiang Zemin 1, 7, 83–6; operational code
8 Griffith, Samuel B. 23 beliefs 87–92, 106–9, 121, 123; sources
Guo Min Dang (GMD) 37, 56, 101, 119, for statements of 125; subjective games
9 149n16, 151n36 92–8, 109–10; Taiwan 103–5
30111 Jin Dexiang 142n62
1 Han Dynasty 18, 20–1, 143n62 Johnston, Alastair Iain 2–4, 17, 33–5, 47,
2 Han Feizi 137n11 81–3, 98; change in views 132n1;
Hao, Yufan 149n16 Confucian strategic culture 26–32;
3 he (harmony) 19, 22; see also peace definition of culture 165n5; definition
4 Higham, Robin 24 of strategic culture 147n108; use of
5 historiography of Chinese warfare 24, ‘Parabellum’ 144n91
6 141nn53, 58
Ho Chi Minh 69–70, 155n30 Kampuchea see Cambodia
7
Holms, Richard 23 Kane, Thomas 145n94
8 Holsti, Ole 6; see also Holsti typology Kang, David C. 30, 83, 160n11
9 Holsti typology 9, 12–13, 44, 89 Khmer Rouge 68, 70, 156n38
40111 Hong Kong 103, 117 Kim Il Sung 36–9, 49, 148n8, 150n17
1 Hsu Chuo-yun 18–19, 23–4, 139n27, Kissinger, Henry 156n33
140nn46, 51 Korea 37–8; see also Korean War
2 Hua Guofeng 71, 156nn41–2, Korean War 1, 4, 36, 75, 80, 133n7,
3 158n71 147–52; Confucian strategic culture 25;
44111 Hui, Victoria 20, 23 international and domestic situations
181
INDEX
1111 37–41; Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai martial arts 145n90
2 41–8; subjective games of Mao and Matsu 99
Zhou 48–52; Sun Zi’s The Art of War Ma Ying-jeou 101, 104, 119
3 22; Taiwan 103 Mearsheimer, John J. 28
4 Khrushchev, Nikita 56 Mencius 19, 21, 137n13
5 Kuomingtang (KMT) 100 Meng Huo 140n39
6 methodology, research 2–3, 124–31
Lampton, David 101–2 military, Chinese 123; historiography 24,
7 Lang Son 73, 158n59 141nn53, 58; modernization 71–2, 74,
8 language, Chinese see Chinese language 85; reduction in 160n6; and Taiwan
9 Laos 70 105, 119; see also missile tests; nuclear
1011 Lao Zi 137n12 weapons; People’s Liberation Army
leaders: comparisons of Chinese/world (PLA)
1
leaders 41, 48, 87, 106, 121, 124; military strategists 18
2 public statements of 2, 7, 12–13, 124, Ming Dynasty 4, 26, 30
3 126–7; ranking of strategic preferences missile tests 100, 106, 109–10, 148n4; see
4 of 13; revisionist 29, 82, 92, 98; studies also nuclear weapons
5 of 5–6; see also beliefs; Confucian modernization 71–2, 74, 78, 85, 119,
leaders; individual leaders by name 157n43
6 leadership succession 71, 83 Mojia 18, 137n13
7 Le Duan 67, 69–70, 73, 156n36 Mongols 4, 30
8 Lee Teng-hui 100, 105; operational moving power 64, 109–10, 155n20,
9 code beliefs 106–9; subjective games 163n22
109–10 Mo Zi 137n13
20111 Legalism 18, 20, 137n11, 138n22, multilateralism 28
1 145n94 multipolarity of post-cold war world 83–4
2 Leites, Nathan 6, 8 Munro, Ross H. 118
3 Lewis, Mark Edward 140n46 Myanmar 57
Lexis-Nexis Academics Index 7, 125
4
li (rituals, moral standards) 19, 138n18 Nash equilibria 12, 35, 113, 117, 154n18;
5 Lin Biao 22, 39, 151n29 Chinese Embassy bombing 93; defined
6 Line of Actual Control 55 14, 129, 135n48; Korean War 49;
7 Liu Liankun 110 Sino-Indian War 62, 64
8 Liu Shaoqi 56 Nationalists 48–9
Liu Xuecheng 153n3 National Security Archives 7
9 Loewe, Michael 138n18 National Unification Council (NUC)
30111 Luo Guanzhong 140n39 100
1 Luoyang 18, 136n5 Nehru, Jawaharlal 54–7, 62, 153n3,
2 Lynn, John A. 21, 24, 140n50 154n15
New Security Concept (NSC) 28, 84–5,
3 MacArthur, Douglas 39, 50 87, 161nn25–6
4 McGraw, Dickinson 11 new security practices 4
5 McMahon line 54, 153n3, 159n77 New Year speeches 113–16
6 Mandate from Heaven 21–2, 138n18, Nivison, David 18–19
141n51 Nixon, Richard M. 69
7
Mao Anying 150n25, 151n29 Non-Aligned Movement 48, 57
8 Mao Zedong 2, 5, 36–41, 71, 74, 78; nonmyopic equilibria (NMEs) 12, 35,
9 operational code beliefs 42–8, 45, 46, 114, 117; backward induction 129–30;
40111 57–62, 75, 76, 91, 92, 121–2; Sino- Chinese Embassy bombing 94–5;
1 Indian War 53–7, 154n14; Sino- defined 14, 136n49, 162n38; EP-3
Vietnamese War 156nn41–2; sources incident 97; Korean War 49; 1996
2 for statements of 7, 124–6; subjective Taiwan crisis 109–10; Sino-Indian War
3 games 48–52, 62–7; Korean War 103, 62, 64
44111 148–52 Northern Song Dynasty 139nn27, 29
182
INDEX
1111 North Korea 29, 37–40, 48, 148, 161n25; People’s Daily 7, 72, 125
2 see also Korean War People’s Liberation Army (PLA): Chinese
North Vietnam 68, 70, 75; see also Embassy bombing 96; Korean War
3 Sino-Vietnamese War 37–8, 49; post-cold war 85, 160n6;
4 nuclear weapons 36–7, 40, 48–50, 84, Sino-Indian War 54–5; Sino-Vietnamese
5 161n25; Cuban missile crisis 55–6; War 71–4, 79; Taiwan 104, 110,
6 India 54; North Korea 148n4; Taiwan 118–20
102; see also missile tests People’s Republic of China (PRC) 5, 30,
7 Nye, Joseph Jr 99 49, 99; Korean War 37–8, 40; Taiwan
8 103, 120
9 O’Dowd, Edward 22–3 people’s war strategy, Mao’s 71, 74
1011 offensive realists 4, 14, 67, 98, 127, persuaders 18, 137n10
133n9; Mao Zedong 44, 47, 59 philosophers, Chinese 18–20
1
offensive revisionists 98 philosophical beliefs 8–9, 11, 13, 32–4,
2 offensive strategic culture 1, 30, 81, 145n90; Chen Shuibian 107; Deng
3111 121–2 Xiaoping 58, 76; Hu Jintao and Jiang
4 Olympic Games, 2008 100, 103 Zemin 88, 107; influence on inter-state
5 One China Principle 103, 114, 163n18 relations 23–5; Lee Teng-hui 107;
‘one country, two systems’ 103, 114, 117, Mao Zedong 42, 58, 76; Wen Jiabao 88;
6 163n17 Zhou Enlai 42, 58, 76
7 operational code analysis 124–31, Pinyin 125, 136n2, 139n30
8 134n28 policies toward China 48, 81–2, 86, 122,
9 operational code beliefs 121–3; Chen 141n59
Shuibian 107, 111–13; Deng Xiaoping Pol Pot 70
20111 57–62, 75–8, 91, 92; Hu Jintao 87–92, preemption strategies 122
1 107, 111–13, 161n34; Jiang Zemin preference rankings 13, 34, 35, 127;
2 87–92, 106–9; Lee Teng-hui 106–9; see also strategic preferences
3 Mao Zedong 41–8, 57–62, 75, 76, 91, preponderance strategies 122
92; Wen Jiabao 88, 90, 161n32; Zhou prior communication (PC) 94–5, 110, 130,
4
Enlai 41–8, 57–62, 76, 91; see also 162n39
5 operational code analysis; operational prisoner’s dilemma games 49, 62, 65,
6 code construct 93–5, 154n19
7 operational code construct 6–12, 17, Profiler Plus 12, 124–5
8 34, 35 propaganda 126
public statements, leaders’ 2, 7, 12–13,
9 pacific culture, China’s 24, 26, 141n59, 124, 126–7
30111 143n69; see also peace
1 Pakistan 56–7 Qin Dynasty 20
2 panda diplomacy 104, 115 Qing Dynasty 19, 25, 102, 136n3, 139n29
Parabellum, meaning of 144n91 Quemoy 99
3 Parabellum offensive realist leaders 14, 47,
4 67, 92, 121 rankings, strategic preference see
5 Parabellum strategic culture 2–3, 17, 30–1, preference rankings
6 34, 82, 105, 122 realism 2, 4–7, 29–30, 34–5, 81, 98, 121;
Pareto-inferior state 162n39 see also defensive realists; offensive
7
Pareto outcome 93–4, 117 realists
8 peace: China’s dedication to 83, 142nn60, realpolitik strategic culture 3, 30–1, 33,
9 62; five principles of peaceful 47–8, 98, 141n59, 145n94
40111 coexistence 70; si pacem, parabellum reforms 81; see also modernization
1 144n91; Taiwan 99, 103, 111, 114, Reiter, Dan 4
116; see also he (harmony); pacific ren (humane government) 19, 85,
2 culture, China’s 138n18
3 Peng Dehuai 40, 50, 124–5, 148n8, Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) 7, 72,
44111 151n29 125
183
INDEX
1111 research methodology 2–3, 124–31 South Asia 55, 120

2 revisionist leaders 29, 82, 92, 98 South China Sea 4, 29, 71, 96, 159n77
revisionist states 6, 29–32, 81–3, 121, Southern Song Dynasty 4, 139n29
3 127, 133n9 South Korea 37–9, 120; see also Korean
4 Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) 85 War
5 Rice, Condoleezza 120 South Vietnam 68; see also Sino-
6 righteous wars 142n61 Vietnamese War
Rosenau, James N. 165n6 Soviet Union 6, 8, 28, 32, 83; Korean War
7 Ross, Robert S. 86 37–40, 48, 148–50; Sino-Indian War
8 Roy, Denny 87 54–9, 154n14; Sino-Vietnamese War
9 Russia 161n25; see also Soviet Union 68–70, 72–6, 78; see also Russia
1011 speeches, sources for 7, 124–6, 164n3
sampling steps for speeches 124–6 Spratly Islands 69, 157n55, 159n77
1
Schafer, Mark 14, 42, 88 Stalin, Joseph 36, 38–40, 49, 148–50,
2 scholars: Confucian 19–21, 139n29; 151n37
3 Western 2, 25, 27, 30, 83, 86–7 status quo states 6, 29–31, 81–2, 127,
4 Schweller, Randall L. 6 133n9
5 Scobell, Andrew 31, 103 Stone, Randall 134n30
security, post-cold war 83–5 strategic culture, China’s 17–18;
6 security dilemmas 32, 34, 98, 133n9, Confucian 25–32, 121–2, 132n3;
7 162n41 Parabellum 2–3, 17, 30–1, 34, 82, 122;
8 Segal, Gerald 158n64, 159n79 philosophical influences on 23–5; and
9 Selected Works (Mao Zedong) 7, 125 Sun Zi’s The Art of War 21–3; theory of
September 11 86, 143n71 2, 6, 33–4
20111 sequential game analysis 124–31 strategic culture, concept of 32–5,
1 Seven Military Classics 3, 21, 134n29, 134n28, 146n104
2 139n33 strategic preferences 7–8, 13, 21, 34, 35,
3 Shambaugh, David L. 28, 48, 84–5, 102 121, 127
Shanghai Cooperation Organization strategies, linking beliefs with 12
4
(SCO) 161n25 structural realism 4–5; see also realism
5 Shao Zhengzhong 110 subject 10, 12
6 Shaughnessy, Edward L. 138n18 subjective games 12–15, 127, 132n2,
7 Shulsky, Abram N. 22, 140n41 136n53; Chen Shuibian 113–18; Deng
8 Simla Conference 153n3 Xiaoping 62–7, 78–80; Hu Jintao 92–8,
Simon, Herbert 5 113–18; Jiang Zemin 92–8, 109–10;
9 Singapore 101, 120 Lee Teng-hui 109–10; Mao Zedong and
30111 Sino-American relations, future of Zhou Enlai 48–52, 62–7
1 99–105, 119–21, 123, 143n71; Hu subjective game theory 126–30
2 Jintao and Chen Shuibian as leaders Summers, Larry 17
111–18; Jiang Zemin and Lee Teng-hui Sun Tzu see Sun Zi
3 as leaders 106–10 Sun Zi (Sun Tzu) 17–18, 21–3, 26,
4 Sino-Indian border 53, 153n3, 159n77 139n30, 140nn39, 41
5 Sino-Indian War 1, 4, 25, 53–6, 80, Sutter, Robert 120
6 133n7, 152–4; operational code beliefs Su Yu 151n29
for Mao, Zhou, and Deng 57–62;
7
people’s war strategy 74; subjective Taiwan 7, 56, 84–6, 99–105, 160n19,
8 games of Mao, Zhou, and Deng 62–7 162–4; Hu Jintao and Chen Shuibian as
9 Sino-Vietnamese War 1, 4, 25, 59, 124, leaders 111–18; Jiang Zemin and Lee
40111 133n7, 155–9; background to 67–72; Teng-hui as leaders 106–10; Korean
1 Chinese military campaign 73; War 37, 39–40, 49, 51–2, 148–9,
consequences of 74; Deng Xiaoping’s 152n37; potential for war between US
2 operational code beliefs 75–80 and China over 118–20, 123; use of
3 Snyder, Jack 6, 32 force to reunify with 29, 82
44111 social psychology 2 Taiwan Information Office 100
184
INDEX
1111 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) 99, 101, 105, Waldron, Arthur 22–3
2 163n18 Walker, Stephen 6, 8, 9–11, 14
Taiwan Strait 99, 105, 123 Walt, Stephen M. 5, 133n8
3 Tang Dynasty 139nn27, 29 wang dao (righteous/kingly way) 22
4 tense of verb 10, 12 war, nature of 18
5 terrorist attacks 86, 143n71 war between US and China, potential for
6 theater missile defense (TMD) 84, 101 118–20, 123
theories of strategic culture, critiques of Warring States Period 17–18, 20, 134n29,
7 33–4 140nn46, 51
8 theory of cultural realism 30, 34–5; see wars see Civil War; cold war; Korean
9 also cultural realism War; Sino-Indian War; Sino-Vietnamese
1011 Theory of Inferences about Preferences War
(TIP) 13–15, 48, 152n41 Watson, George 11
1
Theory of Moves (TOM) 7, 12–14, 35, Wedeen, Lisa 165n10
2 48, 127, 130, 134n30 wen (civilization or culture) 24
3111 Third World 57 Wen Jiabao 1, 6, 83, 105, 121, 123, 125;
4 Third World War 48, 78 operational code beliefs 88, 90,
5 threats 44, 83, 94–5, 130, 152n43, 161n32
162n39; Taiwan 103, 105, 110, 119; Western scholars 2, 25, 27, 30, 83, 86–7
6 theory of 4–6, 133n8 Whiting, Allen S. 41, 78, 80, 151nn30,
7 Tibet 55, 153n3, 154n9 37
8 Tonkin Strait 157n55 World Trade Organization (WTO) 95–6
9 translations, Chinese 30, 125, 132n5 wu (war, force or military) 24
Treaties of Friendship and Cooperation
20111 69, 72 Xin Hua News Agency Web 7
1 Truman, Harry S. 38, 44 Xu Shiyou 72, 158n58
2 typology, operational code 8, 9
3 Yalu River 151nn30, 37
United Nations 39–41, 50 Yang Dezhi 72, 158n58
4
United States: bombing of Chinese yi (righteousness) 19, 26–7, 85
5 Embassy 87, 93–6; Cuban missile crisis yizhan (righteous war) 26
6 55–6; EP-3 incident 87, 96–8; Korean Yuan Dynasty 4, 139n29
7 War 22, 36–41, 44, 48–52, 148–52; Yuan-Mongolian Dynasty 30
8 policy toward China 28, 82; post-cold
war relations with China 83–6, 98, Zhai, Zhihai 149n16
9 161n26; Sino-Vietnamese War 68–9, Zhenbaodao 69
30111 71–2, 75–6; Taiwan 99–105, 109–11, Zhou (Chou) Dynasty 18
1 113, 115–20, 123, 160n19, 162–4; Zhou Enlai 40–1, 71, 122; operational
2 Tibet 154n9 code beliefs 42–8, 45, 46, 57–62, 75,
unit-level factors 5 76, 91, 121; Sino-Indian War 56,
3 USSR see Soviet Union 153n3; Sino-Vietnamese War 70;
4 sources for statements of 125–6;
5 verb category 10, 12 subjective games 51–2, 62–7
6 Verbs in Context System (VICS) 2–3, 8, Zhou state 140n51
12, 48, 124, 127; defined 6, 135n41, Zhuang Zi 137n12
7
164n1; steps in 10 Zhuge Liang 140n39
8 Vertzberger, Yaacov 57 Zoellick, Robert 117
9 Vietnam 56, 67–74, 143n62; see also Zong Heng Jia (diplomatic negotiators)
40111 Sino-Vietnamese War 133n5, 137n10; see also persuaders
1
2
3
44111
185

(Huiyun Feng) Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Huiyun Feng) Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Huiyun Feng) Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1111

1111 Quantitative results can be replicated easily due to the application of

1111 measure threat perceptions. Schweller provides us with a “zoo analogy” of

1111 Specifically, I analyze the operational codes of China’s decision-makers in

1111 The operational code construct

7 a. Coop v. Conf Tactics Where X = Coop and Y = Conf

1111 A computerized automated content analysis system, VICS, was developed

1111 The expanded version of a simple TIP is “a more nuanced model of

1111 Confucianism: Confucius and Mencius

1111 steps: an emphasis on non-violence (feigong), defensiveness (fangyu), and

1111 Confucian strategic culture in Chinese decisions

Settle > Deadlock > Dominate

30111 Belief system Grand strategy

6 Philosophical dilemma; self-help;

beliefs offensive and expansionist

benefit calculation; zero-

1111 Mao and Zhou as types of leaders

Mao’s subjective war game (32)

Although the Korean armistice was signed, moving Sino-US relations

1111 Zhou’s post-war subjective game (27)

1111 and unequal treaties regarding Soviet/Russian seizure of Chinese territories.

3 Type DEF (P-1/ I-1) Type B

1111 Mao’s and Zhou’s pre-war subjective game (32)

1111 Deng’s subjective war game (27)

1111 Zhou’s post-war subjective game

1111 Therefore, diverging strategic interests contributed to the war although

1111 The warring brothers

1111 The consequences of war

1111 Deng Xiaoping: what kind of leader?

1111 Deng’s post-war game

1111 spectrum. To understand completely the historical trajectory of Chinese

1 Type DEF (P-1/ I-1) Type B

1111 According to Brams’ sequential game theory, however, settlement (3,3) is

1111 EP-3 incident subjective game for Jiang

1111 Post-EP-3 incident subjective games for Jiang and Hu

1111 keeps on providing highly advanced defensive weapon systems to Taiwan

1111 Hu and Chen: what kinds of leaders and

1111 Subjective no-conflict game for Hu and Chen in 2006

1111 public statements of leaders are coded to see if there is consistency

1111 In reasoning backward counterclockwise, Other calculates that Self

1111 To sum up, my research examines Chinese decision-making processes in

1111 International Relations: The Theory of Moves,” Journal of Conflict Resolution,

1111 International Relations” (Scandinavian University Press: Norwegian Nobel

1111 27 Hong Xuezhi, Nie Rongzhen memoirs (in Chinese).

1111 ––––. 1995/1996. New Evidence on the Korean War. 6–7.

1111 Identity in World Politics, edited by P. J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia

1111 fangyu (defensiveness) 26 Hu Jintao 1, 6–7, 85–6, 162n1;

1111 research methodology 2–3, 124–31 South Asia 55, 120

You might also like