China’s Security Council Diplomacy

David Bosco, my American University colleague and author of the always interesting The Multilateralist blog at Foreign Policy, has posted an interview between him and Joel Wuthnow (Princeton’s China and the World Program) on China’s diplomacy at the UN Security Council.  Among many interesting exchanges, this comment on China’s overall role in the world:

The mainstream thinking in Beijing is that China should avoid the costs of global leadership while focusing on economic development and national consolidation. Those who favor a more affirmative, multilateralist diplomacy appear to be a distinct minority within the PRC.

On the meaning of the China-Russia veto of the Syria UNSC resolution that dismayed the US and European allies:

Bosco: The recent Chinese and Russian veto of a draft resolution on Syria has generated anger from Western governments and from the human rights community. It seems to confirm the perception that China is wedded to a vision of national sovereignty very much at odds with that of the West and that may prevent the Security Council from effectively addressing bloody internal conflicts. How do you see the veto in the context of China’s broader performance on the Council?

Wuthnow: I don’t think China’s veto says much about the importance of sovereignty in Beijing’s decision-making at the UN. I also doubt that China’s approval of sanctions against Libya — and its acquiescence to the use of force — earlier this year is evidence of a shift in favor of interventionism. Both cases follow a similar logic, which is political, not normative. On Libya, China followed broad regional opinion in favor of coercion. On Syria, it followed the backlash against intense intervention in the Middle East that occurred after the NATO campaign against Qaddafi. In neither case did it take the lead. Rather, it gauged the political winds and acted accordingly.