China Leader's Limits Come Into Focus As US Visit Nears

Tibet is today's equivalent of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. Writing off the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet was the "price" we paid China for "prosperity in our time". Now, much like the 3rd Reich, China flexes it's muscle, while saying that everything is all right.

So what next, after Mr. Hu and Mr. Obama shake hands and head off to their respective corners of this global ring?

I think that this criticism of Pres. Hu Jintao may be misplaced. However, it does suggest that China is experiencing a transformation at least in the way it manages and conducts its foreign policy. I wonder whether this is a sign of the beginnings of a ?democratization? process in China?s foreign policy?the expansion of the realm of participation in foreign policy decision making. The observations expressed in the New York Times article certainly seem to support this theory.

?Mr. Hu is often at the mercy of a diffuse ruling party in which generals, ministers and big corporate interests have more clout, and less deference, than they did in the days of Mao or Deng Xiaoping, who commanded basically unquestioned authority.

?China?s military has sometimes pursued an independent approach to foreign policy. So have many of China?s biggest state-owned companies, sometimes to the United States? detriment.?

?e has been boxed in or circumvented by rival power centers.?

A number of scholars have hypothesized that Canada is experiencing a similar process in its foreign policy, citing the ?Ottawa Process? on the banning of landmines as a prime example because of the increased participation of NGOs in the formation of Canada?s foreign policy position that occurred in this instance. There is, however, a considerable amount of debate on the issue (See, for example, Maxwell Cameron, ?DEMOCRATIZATION OF FOREIGN POLICY? in Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1998; Mark Neufeld, ?Democratization in/of Canadian Foreign Policy? in Studies in Political Economy, Vol. 58, 1999). If China is in fact experiencing such a transition, the complaints that the NYT authors have expressed towards Pres. Hu Jintao may provide an explanation for the dysfunctions that has been noted in Canada?s foreign policy.

The authors complain that ?Mr. Hu also may be the weakest leader of the Communist era,? because of the increasing influence of other players in the China?s foreign policy decision making process. If this is so, what must we say about Stephen Harper, who is the Prime Minister of a minority government, and who is, constantly ?at the mercy? of the members of not only his own party, the Conservatives, but the opposition parties in the HOC, lobby and special interest groups, the media, you name it.

The authors believe that the effect of Pres. Hu Jintao?s ?weakness? is that ?He is less able to project authority.? As they elaborate on their claim, however, they touch on a number of issues that are Canada has been confronting, which may provide insight into ways that Canada can remedy them.

First, ?jockeying for power and an coming leadership transition have degraded China?s ability to set consistent policies,?

Second, ?There is a remarkable amount of chaos in the system, more than you ever saw dealing with the Chinese 20 years ago,?

Third, ?Divided leadership has made it harder to resolve disputes with China, much less strike grand bargains like the reopening of relations between the two countries under Mao,?

If these are the result of ?democratizing? foreign policy, maybe Canada should rethink its decision to make foreign policy making a free-for-all. This isn?t to say that the foreign policy making process should be closed down to public input?only that the inputs into foreign policy should be managed in a way that maintains a degree of consistency and coherence in conformity with Canadian values and national interests?whatever those may be.