Two views have emerged about China’s role in the Burma crisis. Both have evidence to support their contentions.
One view is that China failed miserably to live up to the promise of becoming a “responsible great power.” Beijing blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on the military junta and failed to directly condemn the regime for the violence in Yangon. It also remains silent on the plight of detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The other view is that China turned over a new leaf and acted with great responsibility. As the crisis built, one Chinese official told a visiting junta leader in Beijing that Myanmar should “push forward a democracy process that is appropriate for the country.”
Premier Wen Jiabao later urged the junta to “achieve democracy and development.” On Oct. 11, China supported a U.N. Security Council resolution that condemned the violence used against protestors and demanded the release of political prisoners. These appeals are an about-face from Beijing’s previous view, which held that calls for democracy were an interference in Burma’s internal affairs. Beijing also facilitated the appointment of the U.N.’s special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari.
Which view is right? The answer depends on how we define a “responsible great power.” To be sure, Beijing’s behavior has disappointed the U.S. and Europe. But it has been consistent with the views of other major players in the crisis—including Russia, India and Burma’s nine fellow-members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. While pressing the junta to embrace democratic change, these countries have all blanched at the imposition of sanctions, which they feel might further entrench the regime.
This division highlights one of the biggest challenges facing Beijing as it emerges onto the world stage: In whose eyes should it seek to be a responsible great power? Recent polling by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey shows that citizens in an increasing number of countries have a more favorable view of China than of the U.S. This includes people not just in the developing world, but in the West as well.
From the perspective of leaders in Beijing, then, becoming a “responsible great power” in the eyes of a majority of the world’s key states may depend on maintaining a clear distance from U.S. or Europe on issues like Burma.
The bottom line is this: China demonstrated in the Burma crisis that it is becoming a responsible great power—but only as defined by countries outside of the West. Western countries concerned about a loss of leadership in global politics should study carefully what Beijing’s behavior says about how world opinion is moving in search of a new “alternative center.” If Western countries want to regain their moral leadership in world affairs, they need to take a page out of China’s current foreign policy, which is premised not just on the creation of soft power but also its use in ways that reflect the consensus of world opinion.
Mr. Gilley is a professor of political science at Queen’s University in Canada.