| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China reacted very differently to the first and second North Korean nuclear crisis: engaging in passive and 'behind-the-scenes' diplomacy in the first and choosing more proactive and 'stage-managing' diplomacy in the second. This article has sought to explain this striking contrast in China's foreign behavior. Though most studies tend to rely on Chinese strategic and security interests in explaining China's proactive diplomacy as demonstrated in the six-party talks, those strategic and security interests do not explain directly the contrasting foreign behavior of China. China faced basically equal strategic and security concerns and equally dangerous potential military conflict between the US and North Korea through the first and the second nuclear crises. This article, then, argues that 'same interests, but different behaviors' should be explained not by China's external interest calculus but by internal changes within China itself. By the turn of the new millennium, China had undergone an evolutionary change of state identity from a cautious accommodator to an active constructor, or from a state of 'taoguang yanghui' to a state of 'fuzeren daguo'. The contrasting foreign behaviors in the first and second nuclear crises are profoundly reflective of this identity shift of China.
|