THE UNITED FRONT DOCTRINE AND CHINA'S FOREIGN POLICY by James David Armstrong ...

359 Pages·2017·32.49 MB·English

THE UNITED FRONT DOCTRINE AND
CHINA'S FOREIGN POLICY
by
James David Armstrong
Thesis submitted for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the
Department of International Relations,
Research School of Pacific Studies,
Australian National University,
July 1975
This thesis is rny own original work.
J.D. Armstrong
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my thanks for their advice
and constructive criticism to Ian Adie, Carsten
Holbraad, Geoffrey Jukes and Fred Teiwes, who
supervised various stages of this thesis. I am
also indebted to other members of the Department of
International Relations, but especially to
Geoffrey Warner.
Most of all, my gratitude goes to Maggie for
her patience and support throughout a sometimes
difficult period.
iv
Synopsis
The thesis attempts to answer two questions:
what has been the influence of the united front
doctrine on China's foreign policy; in what ways,
if any, has China's participation in the international
system caused Peking to revise its conception of a
united front in world politics?
After the united front doctrine is considered
in its historical context in Chapter One, Chapter
Two sets out the methodology that is to be employed
in the thesis. This consists essentially of a
united front model' in which it is assumed that the
united front doctrine actually does influence China's
foreign policy. An 'alliance model' in the same
chapter offers an alternative set of propositions
about China's foreign policy.
The remainder of the thesis examines China's
actual behaviour in order to ascertain the extent
to which it corresponds to either model. Chapter
Three assesses the influence of the united front
doctrine on China's 'general policy line'. It finds
that the doctrine's influence was greatest during
the 1958-1965 period but also that the doctrine has
been changed to some extent since the Cultural
Revolution.
The last four chapters comprise case studies
of China's relations with Indonesia, Pakistan,
Cambodia and Tanzania. The object is to examine
whether China's relations with any individual
country may be understood in terms of the united
front doctrine. None of the case studies yields
wholly unambiguous results but Sino-Indonesian
relations come closest to the 'united front model',
V
while Sino-Pakistan relations fit most closely
the 'alliance model'. The Cambodian case must be
seen mainly in the context of developments in the
rest of Indochina. The Tanzanian case study is
included because Peking's publicly proclaimed policy
for the whole of Africa in the early 1960's clearly
reflected certain aspects of the united front
doctrine. However, China's policy towards Tanzania
also provides an unusual and interesting example of
the 'adaptation' of ideology.
vi
CONTENTS
Page No.
Introduction 3
Chapter One The United Front Doctrine in
Historical Perspective 19
Chapter Two The United Front Doctrine as a
Foreign Policy Model 63
Chapter Three The United Front and the
General Line 86
Chapter Four China and Indonesia 1961-1965 -
The Failure of a Dual Policy 152
Chapter Five China’s Alliance with Pakistan 205
Chapter Six China and Camhodia 250
Chapter Seven China3 Tanzania and the
African Devolution 285
Conclusion 325
Appendix Interview with Chang Wen-Chin 330
Bibliography
1
INTRODUCTION
The principal question that is posed in this study
is: what has been the influence of Mao's united front
doctrine on China's foreign policy? A related but
secondary question is also considered: in what ways,
if any, has China's participation in the international
system caused Peking to revise its conception of a
united front in world politics?
In so far as Mao's thought about united fronts is
a part of the total array of theories and operational
principles that makes up the Chinese Communist 'ideology'
this essay considers one aspect of a broader problem:
the relationship between ideology and foreign policy.
Since this question has long been the subject of a
mostly inconclusive and often circular academic debate
it is necessary to state briefly my reasons for returning
to it here. The first is that the problem is no less
important because it admits of no easy solution. Indeed,
with the breakdown in the twentieth century of even the
limited consensus over norms and values that permitted
a great power concert to exist for part of the nineteenth,
the question is clearly one of major significance in
contemporary international relations. Since China has
become in many ways a symbol of the post-war ideological
challenge to the established order in world politics, the
question is particularly relevant in a study of China's
foreign policy. Finally, it is hoped that by combining
The phrase 'united front doctrine’ is not used by the
Chinese or any other communist party. However there is
a sufficient number of common elements in the voluminous
Communist^literature about united fronts for a 'doctrine'
to be derived from it, as is attempted in Chapter One.
2
a strictly limited focus of enquiry with a systematic
approach to the problem it may be possible to overcome
some of the analytical difficulties that surround the
larger issue of the relation of ideas to social
2
practice. This point is argued more fully in the
following pages.
Ideology and 'Realism'
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'ideology' as:
Science of ideas; visionary speculation;
manner of thinking characteristic of a
class or individual; ideas at the basis
of some economic or political theory or
system.3
The considerable differences of meaning between these
four definitions are easily explained, since the
Dictionary has simply provided, in chronological order,
a compressed history of the principal meanings that have
been attached to the word since it first became popular
4
in the nineteenth century. Here 'ideology' will be
taken to mean the 'ideas at the basis of some economic
or political theory or system'. However, the definition
of ideology has evolved and not simply changed so that
it has not completely lost the normative connotations of
some of the first three dictionary meanings. Since this
in turn has influenced the academic debate about ideology
it is necessary to look more closely at the history of
the word.
The following works were of some value in clarifying my
thoughts on this issue: K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia3
(London, 1946), especially pp. 1-48; Talcott Parsons,
The Role of Ideas in Social Action3 in the same author's
Essays in Sociological Theory3 (Glencoe, Illinois, 1954) ,
pp. 19-33; R.P. Dore, Function and Cause and J.W.N.
Watkins, Ideal Types and Historical Explanation3 both in
A. Ryan, (ed.) , The Philosophy of Social Explanation 3
(Oxford, 1973), pp. 65-104.
3
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 3 (Oxford, 1960), p. 589 .
4
For the history of the concept, see K. Mannheim, op.cit.,
pp. 53-62 and J. Plamenatz, Ideology3 (London, 1970),
pp. 15-58.
3
The notion of 'ideology' as 'visionary speculation'
may be attributed to Napoleon's contempt for a French
philosophical school known as the 'ideologists' who
themselves saw ideology as the "science of ideas".5
The word was used in a derogatory sense by Napoleon,
being intended to imply a distinction between the idle
dreamer and the pragmatic, realistic man of action, in
which role Napoleon cast himself. In this way Napoleon
framed one of the two formulations of a dichotomy
between 'ideology' and 'realism' that have most affected
subsequent discussion of ideology. 'Realism' in this
context denoted such qualities as an awareness of the
importance of power in political relations, a constant
regard for ’raison d’etat’ and an ability to balance the
desirable against the practical.6 The 'ideologist', in
contrast, was supposedly dogmatic, doctrinaire and
idealistic.
When Marx defined ideology as the 'false
consciousness' of particular social classes7 - the origin
of the third dictionary definition - he too was employing
a distinction between 'ideology' and 'realism'. Here
'realism' had a philosophical meaning signifying awareness
of the true state of things beneath their appearance,
which could only be comprehended by means of 'true
consciousness'. However the same objections could be
raised against dialectical materialism - Marx's version
of 'true consciousness' - as Marx himself had asserted
against ’bourgeois’ ideology, to the extent that the
J. Plamenatz, p. 15.
Cf. [Realism is thought which] '... takes into
consideration the implications for political life of those
security and power factors which are inherent in human
society'. J.H. Herz, Political Realism and Political
Idealism, (Chicago, 1951), p. 18.
This was not the only sense in which Marx used the word.
For a discussion of the various Marxist uses of 'ideoloqy'
see J. Plamenatz, Man and Society, (London, 1963)
volume 2, pp. 323-327.
4
meaning of 'ideology' as 'false consciousness' or
distorted view of reality has as often been applied to
g
Marxism as to any other 'world view'.
The dichotomy between 'realism' (of either kind)
and 'ideology' is a popular starting point for discussions
about the influence of ideas on social action. In
international relations it underlies the debate that has
been conducted at least since the establishment of Soviet
Russia about the relative influences of 'ideology' and
9
'national interest' on foreign policy.
'National interest' has two closely related meanings.
It denotes the interests of the whole community that
supposedly transcend those of groups within that
community. It also refers to the particular interests of
one nation state as against those of another. 'National
interest' is thought to provide an objective basis for a
state's foreign policy: one, that is, which is founded
upon 'reality' rather than a subjective perception of
reality. Attention to the 'national interest' is also
thought to signify 'realism' (in the sense of pragmatism
etc.) on the part of the administrators of a country's
foreign policy. The concept of 'national interest' has
been used both as description and as prescription: it
has been advanced as the yardstick by which states
actually do manage their affairs as well as the standard
by which they should. Ideology has been depicted as a
Most notably by K.R. Popper. See his The Open Society
and its Enemies3 (London, 1963), volume 2, pp. 212-223.
9
Many of the more significant contributions to this
debate are included in V.V. Aspaturian (ed.) , Process and
Power in Soviet Foreign Policy (Boston, 1971);
E.P. Hoffman and F.J. Fleron (eds.), The Conduct of Soviet
Foreign Policy> (Chicago, 1971); Ideology and Power
Politics: A Symposium, Problems of Communism, March-April,
1958.
Or sometimes as both. See H.J. Morgenthau, In Defense
of the National Interest> (New York, 1951) , for a normative
view of 'national interest' and the same author's Politics
Among Nations ^ (New York, 1966) , p. 5f for one of the most
positive claims about the actual role of 'national interest'
in international relations.