The Evolution of China’s National Interest: Implications for Taiwan

  • Peter R. MoodyJr.


Ever since its founding, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has claimed sovereignty over its “sacred territory,” Taiwan. American acknowledgment of this claim, however ambiguously expressed,1 has been a condition for normal relations with the PRC. The assertion of sovereignty over Taiwan is treated as a core Chinese national interest; sovereignty over Taiwan is one aspect of the officially defined Chinese national identity.


Foreign Policy Chinese Communist Party Democratic Progressive Party International Politics State Sovereignty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dennis Van Vranken Hickey, “America’s Two Point Policy and the Future of Taiwan,” Asian Survey 28 (1988): 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The most influential work setting out the contemporary version of Realism remains Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). There are, of course, many variations on the Realist theme, leading to different predictions about how international politics works. Waltz’ own theory, it should be noted, is couched in principle at the “system” level, and strictly speaking should not be used to explain the foreign policy behavior of particular states. I’m capitalizing Realism in this essay when it is used as a term of art, the designation of a particular approach—leaving open the possibility that Realism is not necessarily realistic.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Wendt identifies three styles of international anarchy arrayed in a banal progressivist historical order. Some of Wendt’s themes are anticipated and expressed less bumptiously in the “English school.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    The concept is developed in Richard Lowenthal, World Communism: The Disintegration of a Revolutionary Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Chalmers Johnson, Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power: The Emergence of Revolutionary China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Michael M. Sheng, Battling Western Imperialism: Mao, Stalin, and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Wang Ming, Mao’s Betrayal (Moscow: Progress Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Despite its sometimes dated, shrill, tone, Franz Schurmann’s The Logic of World Power (New York; Pantheon, 1974), especially 244–327, remains a powerful and persuasive analysis of the mid-Cold War relations among China, America, and Russia, showing the inextricable melding of Realist and ideological factors.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    Donald Zagoria, Vietnam Triangle: Moscow, Peking, Hanoi (New York: Pegasus: 1967).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Gao Wenqian, Wannian Zhou Enlai (Zhou Enlai’s Last Years) (New York: Mingjing Chubanshe, 2003), 398.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Lucian Pye, Chinese Communist Negotiating Style (Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, 1982), says the Chinese like to insist on agreement on general principles, allowing details to be worked out later. Pragmatic Americans, apparently, do not want abstract generalities to stand in the way of concrete results. A consequence is that the Americans are vulnerable to charges of bad faith when the Chinese choose to remind them that words mean something.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World (New York: Basic Books, 1986).Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    This is a theme of Joseph Levenson’s Confucian China and Its Modern Fate (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Mary Clabaugh Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T’ung-chih Restoration, 1862–1874 (New York: Antheneum, 1966).Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    On the “rehabilitation” of Zeng Guofan, see Geremie Barmé, “To Screw Foreigners Is Patriotic: China’s Avant Guarde Nationalist,” China Journal 34 (1995): 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 21.
    Lin Biao, Long Live the Victory of People’s War (Peking: People’s Publishing Company, 1965); Hu Jintao’s comments carried by Xinhua, September 3, 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    Peter Gries, China’s New Nationalism: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    For example, National Intelligence Council, “Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project,” January, 2005. (accessed February 2005).Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    Michael Chambers, “China and Southeast Asia: Creating a ‘Win-Win’ Neighborhood,” Asia Program Special Report, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 2005: 16–22; Joshua Kurlantzick, “China’s Chance,” Prospect, March 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    For a description and documentation, with an analysis from the Mainland perspective, see Xu Shiquan, “The 1992 Consensus: A Review and Assessment of Consultations between the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait and the Straits Exchange Foundation,” American Foreign Policy Interests, 23 (2002): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 34.
    Edgar Snow, Red Star over China (New York: Random House, 1938), 88. As was common at the time, Snow renders the island’s name Formosa. The context gives the impression that Mao had not given any particular thought to the issue and, probably, did not really know that much about it.Google Scholar
  23. 35.
    Zhao Suisheng, “Chinese Nationalism and Its International Orientations,” Political Science Quarterly 115 (2000): 1–33; Gries, China’s New Nationalism. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 36.
    In his classic discussion of Japanese decision-making in the last days of World War II, Joseph Butow identifies a similar dynamic. All the leaders knew that Japan had lost the war and would have to surrender, but no one dared to say so. Japan’s Decision to Surrender (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1954). Butow treats this phenomenon as a peculiarity of Japanese culture, but it is probably universal. Compare Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shale Horowitz, Uk Heo, Alexander C. Tan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter R. MoodyJr.

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations