China’s Covert Revisionism: The Elusive Game of Hide and Seek

As it marches on to become a global Superpower, China has presented the contemporary international order with an unusual challenge. The Asian Power finds itself in that roll of time, when every move, in the present and for the future, is choreographed beyond mere Machiavellian Realism to a uniquely Chinese Pragmatism, wherein, rather than outrightly overturning the existing order, Beijing strategizes to mold it in its favor- maintaining enough stability to benefit from it, while quietly building alternatives outside of it. So, what would it take for its contemporaries, especially the neighbors in the dragon’s line of fire, to up their game and avoid being swallowed whole or torched?
A New Term for a New Strategy
Stacie Goddard, in her 2018 academic article, refers to this strategy of China as ‘Bridging Revisionism’, which comes under the wider ambit of ‘Embedded Revisionism’. According to Goddard, a bridging revisionist power has high access to existing institutional structures and high brokerage outside of them to create its own structures. In other words- the best of both worlds. This has been a calculated attempt by China to transform the international system without triggering any comprehensive containment, otherwise expected to befall revisionist powers.
The WTO Game: Trick or Treat
China's accession to the WTO in 2001, following 15 years of intense negotiations with major economies, marks a watershed moment in its modern trade history. Unprecedented access to global markets at lower tariffs and quotas spurred rapid export-led growth, soon resulting in Beijing emerging as the largest trader of goods in the world.
While on one side, Beijing has played it suave by adhering to norms- be it fulfilling the WTO-bound tariffs or grating zero-tariff treatment to the least developed countries, it has also been known to cleverly maneuver the same norms by resorting to selective enforcement and delays, while hugely benefiting from its 'developing country' status- particularly in areas like agriculture, textiles and intellectual property rights. It has also played smart with the dispute resolution platform, knowing exactly when to delay resolutions by the complaining nations and effectively buying time to consolidate its economic interests. This dual approach of engagement at one level and selective defiance at another, has enabled China to gradually reshape the rules in its favor while keeping intact its access to global markets and technologies.
Parallely, Beijing has been at the forefront of building alternative frameworks such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), etc. RCEP, for instance, is an attempt to transfer the economic gravity towards regional trading structures, posing a threat to the core principles of the WTO. For instance, the platform allows preferential tariffs on the member countries, which is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination, potentially challenging WTO's objective of trade liberalization at the global level.
Territorial Tussles- Not Your Average Property Disputes
In matters of territory, China’s belligerence is becoming increasingly visible- from the nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea, to the open bullying of Philippine vessels in the latter’s legitimate waters, or the persistent psychological game of the frequent renaming of places in Arunachal Pradesh, a well-established sovereign territory of India.
Beijing has openly disregarded the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision that delegitimized the nine-dash line claim and continues with its piecemeal approach of randomly claiming neighbouring territories; but without directly engaging in military conflicts that could provoke wider international reaction.
Tech-Tactics and The Cyber Chessboard
Beijing’s adventures reign over the technological realm as well. Allegations include initiating cyberattacks against potential enemies, attacking critical infrastructure through ransomware, and broadly targeting the maritime, military and government agencies. Other accusations include demanding that foreign firms disclose their proprietary technology as a pre-condition to conduct business in its domestic markets and intellectual property theft via cyber operations.
The U.S. Trade Representative has cited how China has been using foreign ownership restrictions and administrative procedures to coerce technology transfer from foreign firms. These practices are indicative of systematic attempts to obtain state-of-the-art technologies and intellectual property while maintaining plausible deniability.
This mixed strategy has not only helped China avoid total isolation, but has also assisted it in gradually consolidating huge profits. Thus, through positive interaction in certain areas and covert-revisionist policies in others, Beijing has managed to protect itself from severe sanctions while retaining access to the global markets and vital technologies crucial for its growth.
Channelling Kautilya- Diplomatic Dexterity in the Contemporary World
The ancient Indian strategic thought, as articulated in Kautilya's Arthasastra, provides insightful references for responding to such covert revisionism. The Arthasastra recommends six strategies (Shadgunyas): samdhi (peace agreements), vigraha (war), asana (neutrality), yana (coercion), samashraya (alliance building) and dvaidhibhava (duplicity). We can infer from these principles that the appropriate response to China would be to use balanced approaches incorporating both engagement and deterrence, based on circumstances and power balance.
Also, Kautilya's four techniques of statecraft, including sama (conciliation), dana (economic activities), bheda (divide and rule) and danda (punishment), offer a practical approach to complicated State conduct. Kautilya pitches for a policy response to start with conciliation and economic involvement, while simultaneously consolidating one's abilities to dismantle hostile alliances and strategizing the effective use of coercive force when necessary.
Way ahead- The Goldilocks Strategy
Contemporary responses to backdoor revisionism must reflect a combination of containment and engagement strategies. As Dr. S. Jaishankar observes:
It has never been the government's position that we should not be having investments from China or doing business with China. But on the investment issue it is common sense that investments from China would be scrutinized. I think the border, and the state of relations between India and China call for it.
So, the need of the hour is an approach that goes beyond the binary thinking typical of a Cold War era. Countries should allow themselves the space to maneuver policies based on China's behavior in specific domains. The true challenge here for Statesmen would be in crafting responses that are neither confrontational nor naively accommodative, but matching Beijing's complexity, while also upholding the principles of international stability.