“True nature of the CCP.” Wait, what?
Does policymaking on China require revelation of some hidden truth about the CCP?
“For decades, Donald J. Trump was one of the few prominent Americans to recognize the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party” -- White House, November 2, 2020
“The true nature of the Chinese Communist Party” is a phrase one hears from time to time in speeches, statements and opinion pieces about the People’s Republic of China.[1] The use of this phrase has always puzzled me. A more efficient writing style would just refer to the “CCP.” Adding the preface “true nature of” requires intent. There must be reason. Let’s look into it.
Is knowing the “true nature of the CCP” necessary to understand PRC behavior?
The PRC has a highly authoritarian form of government. It is a one-party state, with all political life controlled by the Communist Party of China. Citizens do not have the ability to change their government. They do not have the freedom to publicly challenge their government’s decisions without risk.
People in the PRC do not enjoy freedom of expression on political matters. There is no independent media. Freedom of assembly only exists insofar as authorities allow it. Religious practice is subject to government regulation.
Access to justice in the PRC is severely restricted and subject to party control. Due process is denied, especially in political cases. Security services subject PRC residents to arbitrary detention, abuse, torture,
The PRC throws its weight around in international institutions and in bilateral relationships. It seeks to shape the international order to suit its interests. It employs threats and other pressure tactics to exert its influence. It engages in transnational repression by committing human rights abuses on the soil of other sovereign countries.
None of these bad behaviors are exclusive to the People’s Republic of China or to the Chinese Communist Party. Lots of governments do some of these things. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran and Russia, arguably do all this things too.
The difference with the PRC is a matter of degree. It has the second largest population and economy in the world. It has immense natural resources and technology development. When the PRC denies basic human rights, it denies the rights of more people than any other. When it flexes its muscle, it flexes a powerful muscle.
It is necessary to believe that there is a “true nature” that needs to be revealed in order to craft a policy toward the PRC? It is an authoritarian state, so can’t we approach it as an authoritarian state? It commits massive human rights violations, so can’t we respond to that? It asserts its interests as a powerful state, so can’t we analyze its actions as a powerful nation state? And so on.
My point is: what is missing if we don’t include the CCP’s “true nature” in our China policy approach? Impossible to know, because the people who speak of the “true nature of the CCP” never tell us what they think this “true nature” is. And if they never tell us, how are we supposed to incorporate it in our policy formulation?
Why insist that there is a “true nature of the CCP?”
I don’t know. Those who use the phrase not only don’t tell us what it means but also don’t tell us why they use it. So this is just speculation on my part. Here goes.
Revelation -- The notion that that there are hidden truths to be revealed has always been a part of the human psyche. Shamans read the bones, Christians read Revelations, Mulder and Scully say “the truth is out there.” Talking of a “true nature of the CCP” can be a rhetorical device that taps into an innate human desire to find a real meaning behind something.
Essentialism – The United States has a long history of political orientalism that portrays people of East Asia as distinct and sinister. Think of the basis for the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 19th century or the racist portrayals of Japanese as “yellow vermin” in World War II. This attitude swung back to the Chinese during the Korean War when people spoke of “ChiComs.” It was revived recently by those who said “China virus” and “Kung Flu.” Ascribing a “true nature” to the leaders of China conveys a sense that they are not what they appear, suggesting a more alien or sinister essence. While those who use “true nature” rhetoric may not have racist intent, they are echoing the ugly essentialism of the past.
Anti-communism – America’s long history of anti-communist politics featured fears of a global communist revolution, and understandably so. That’s what communist leaders preached back then. But not today. CCP leaders don’t talk of world communist revolution. But threads of American anti-communist thought linger today (read my post on this) and it’s possible that “true nature of the CCP” invokes latent fears of a secret communist plot to take us over.
Elitism – If the policymakers who assert that we base our policy toward China on a “true nature of the CCP” but decline to explain to the public what that true nature is, then their message is: trust us, we know better than you. That’s elitism.
Threat inflation – “True nature” is not only applied to the CCP. I found past instances where policymakers used it in regard to the rulers of North Korea, Iran, Cuba, ISIS, Russia.[2] What do these have in common? They’re the bad guys. If the term is only used with adversaries (read my unpacking of the label “adversary”), then it suggests it is meant to imply a hidden danger or malevolence that can be revealed by understanding the true nature. In other words, this is threat inflation. This intent rings true in the China context, given all the other rhetorical tools employed to claim the China threat is greater than perceived, such as claiming the CCP is an “existential threat” and/or that we are in a new Cold War.
Can we form a China policy without knowing its “true nature?”
Yes. This question is easy to answer because they won’t tell us what this “true nature” is that is supposed to inform our policy. The substantive answer is evident too. We base our China policy on an assessment of the PRC as a nation-state and what its leaders consider their national self-interests. It is an authoritarian state and a powerful one with tons of leverage points to exercise. It can be nasty and brutal to its own people. It follows international rules when it suits their interests and ignores them when it doesn’t. It uses its power to bend those rules to its advantage.
Thus, the PRC operates like pretty much like every powerful nation-state in the history of powerful nation-states. I don’t see what adding the CCP’s “true nature” gets us. In fact, it could cloud policy development by bringing in priors and politics that distort the analysis.
[1] Examples: National Security Adviser to President Trump Robert O’Brien, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, Senator Marco Rubio, Congressman Bill Posey, Congressman Ralph Norman, International Republican Institute President Daniel Twining, Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, the Hudson Institute.
[2] Examples: President George W. Bush on North Korea, U.S. State Department on ISIS, Ambassador Nikki Haley on Iran, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez on Cuba, former General Wesley Clark on Russia.