Columnists

Why China has multiple identities

Sam-Makinda

Sam Makinda

I recently asked an African diplomat, who had been a member of her country’s delegation to China, whether she regarded China as a developing country or developed one, and she replied that it embraced both types of identity. However, when I put the same question to a Chinese diplomat, he insisted China was a developing country due to the limited level of industrialisation. Unfortunately, the Chinese government has not been consistent in the description of its identity.

In human beings, social identity is often a matter of personal choice, but as far as countries are concerned, identity is gauged through international behaviour. In the past few decades, it has been the nature of activity at a particular time and the perception of the national interest that has determined whether China would play the developing country card, the superpower card or any other identity card. On some occasions, Beijing viewed itself as the leader of the developing world, especially when it saw an opportunity to join forces with African, Asian and Latin American countries against the West.

For example, in human rights conferences, Beijing waves the developing nation card in the hope of rallying developing countries to influence the agenda in a particular direction.

However, in some economic and financial activities, especially since the global financial crisis of 2008, China has been a major global player and its influence has been on a par with that of the USA. Ten years earlier, China acted like a developed country and used its currency to help stabilise the economies of several East Asian countries during the Asian financial crises.

In the wake of the recent global financial crisis, China, which had been relatively unaffected, has provided funds to several developing and developed countries. It has also imported large quantities of resources from Africa, Australia and Latin America, which have helped stimulate the economies of these places.

The frequent American accusations of China regarding currency manipulations underline two interrelated facts: Washington and Beijing are trade competitors, which regard each other as equals. Under these circumstances, China, which presides over the world’s second biggest economy, does not fit the description of a developing country. The Sino-US trade competition has added to the occasional rivalry of these two countries in the military field, but the US is many times militarily stronger. As permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US and China are aware that neither can use the United Nations machinery to influence the global strategic debate in its favour.

However, they continue to seek more friends and resources in several parts of Africa, and Washington’s establishment of the African Military Command (Africom) in October 2007 is part of this effort to secure influence on the continent. In addition, the two powers have recently increased their military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. During last week’s routine Australian-US ministerial talks, which involved the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and their Australian Counterparts, respectively Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith, the US suggested it was seriously concerned about China’s efforts to project its military presence in the region.

All these developments demonstrate that China has multiple identities, and it is, therefore, unhelpful to regard it as either developed or developing.

[email protected]