Chinese Foreign Policy Think Tanks and China’s Policy Towards Japan (review)

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-466
Author(s):  
Zhiqun. Zhu
Author(s):  
Andrea Ghiselli

Securitization does not happen in a vacuum. Key functional actors can play a very important role in helping the securitizing actor to understand the nature of the threat to the referent object. In foreign policy, this is particularly true when the policymakers are not familiar with the issue at hand and, therefore, there is ample room for other actors to influence them. This chapter, however, shows that the Chinese foreign policy bureaucracy and the community of experts was only partially able to do aid this securitization. These findings emerge from an examination of the development of the Chinese diplomatic system in terms of regional expertise, personnel, resources, and political standing. As for the scholars in Chinese universities and think tanks, they lacked either the skills or the influence to warn the government about the risks brewing in North Africa and the Middle East. At most, they were able to shape the government’s response to the crisis in those regions only after it took place.


Discourse ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 71-85
Author(s):  
N. B. Pomozova

Introduction. The article examines the formation of a network of Chinese think tanks as a special socio-political institution – a research system, not only aimed at solving the tasks set by the state, but also, due to the specifics of these tasks, exerting an ever-increasing influence on the same state is the customer. This process is been studied from the standpoint of social reflection, determined by the modern “fluid” nature of society, which is becoming in conditions of increasing socio-cultural dynamics and risk. Today think tanks, as a very popular institution in the West, are actively discussed in the scientific community in the context of their engagement and loss of expert independence. At the same time, in China, where such structures appeared later than in the United States and Europe, their influence on political and economic decision-making is recognized as consistently high. The aim of the study is to classify the leading Chinese think tanks and analyze their activities from the perspective of sociological reflection.Methodology and sources. The methodological basis of the study was the approach of reflective sociology, with the help of which was made an attempt to analyze the activities of modern analytical centers in the PRC and their focus. The empirical base was made up of publicly available data on the activities of Chinese think tanks, included in the list of the best, according to the American Go Global Think Tank Index Report, on the basis of which a study of the nature of these organizations and their topics was carried out.Results and discussion. Based on the study of the structural dynamics and research topics of Chinese think tanks, it is argued that the development of such a network since the 2000s is due to the reorientation of Chinese foreign policy from two “superpowers” to Europe and countries lying on the “new silk road” to it. There is a widespread opinion in the West that think tanks are capable of influencing political decision-making only in Western-style democratic societies. An analysis of the activities of modern think tanks in China refutes this opinion and demonstrates that it is there that ideas are discussed, which subsequently form the basis for political decision-making by the leadership of the PRC.Conclusion. Interaction with Europe, as the main foreign policy goal, has led to a social reflection of problems in the construction of comprehensive cooperation with it. Such a reflection combined with social practical rationality, led to an appeal to European rationalism with the aim of both understanding Europe and trying to establish communication with it using a discourse that it understands. The work of Chinese think tanks, whose importance in shaping China’s foreign policy is growing, is aimed at solving this problem.


Author(s):  
Jean-Marc F. Blanchard

AbstractThis piece examines and critiques the massive literature on China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It details how research currently seems stuck on the road to nowhere. In addition, it identifies a number of the potholes that collective research endeavors are hitting such as that they are poorly synchronized. It also stresses that lines of analysis are proliferating rather than optimizing, with studies broadening in thematic coverage, rather than becoming deeper. It points out that BRI participants are regularly related to the role of a bit player in many analyses and research often is disconnected from other literatures. Among other things, this article recommends analysts focus on the Maritime Silk Road Initiative (MSRI) or Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) in specific regions or countries. It also argues for a research core that focuses on the implementation issue (i.e., the issue of MSRI and SREB project implementation), project effects (i.e., the economic and political costs and benefits of projects), and the translation issue (i.e., the domestic and foreign policy effects of projects) and does work that goes beyond the usual suspects. On a related note, research need to identify, more precisely, participants and projects, undertake causal analysis, and take into account countervailing factors. Furthermore, studies need to make more extensive use of the Chinese foreign policy literature. Moreover, works examining subjects like soft power need to improve variable conceptualization and operationalization and deliver more nuanced analyses. Finally, studies, especially by area specialists, should take the area, not the China, perspective.


2021 ◽  
pp. 186810262110186
Author(s):  
Patrik Andersson

Research confirms that China is becoming more engaged in the Arctic. However, international relations scholarship often extrapolates from relatively few instances of activity to wide-ranging claims about Chinese priorities. Fortunately, Chinese political discourse is organised by labels that allow us to study how the Arctic is classified and ranked along China’s other foreign policy priorities. This article analyses two such classifications – “important maritime interest” and “strategic new frontier,” exploring how they have come about, what they mean, and how they add political priority to the Arctic. It argues that hierarchies are constructed in two ways: by adding gradients and by including/excluding categories of priority. It views categories as performative: they not only convey information about character and relative importance of interests but are also used for achieving different objectives. By focusing on foreign policy classifications, the article contributes to a more nuanced and precise understanding of China’s Arctic interests.


1970 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 892
Author(s):  
John F. Copper ◽  
Peter Van Ness

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document