Abstract
China has been accepted as a rising power in international politics. Regarding that, China
presented its foreign policy features by utilizing the discourses such as non-interference, peaceful rising, benevolent ruler, and the harmonious world through the elements of soft power. Contrary to that, Chinese action in the South China Sea dispute presents the controversy to the Chinese foreign policy discourses. In this thesis, the aim is to determine the real Chinese behavior and intention. This analysis goes with the description, explanation, and evaluation of the Chinese discourses along with the South China Sea dispute. The thesis argues that the discourses are marking the links between Chinese traditional and moral political thoughts evaluation process and the current Chinese foreign policy decisions and aims, and draws a conclusion that Chinese action does not match with the Chinese rhetoric of non-interference and peaceful rising when the Chinese interests clash with the other states’ demands. To understand the resulting pattern of behavior, it is necessary to devote more analytical attention to the development process of current
Chinese foreign policy discourses and their real meaning with Realistic and Chinese IR overview.
The study finds increased assertiveness in Chinese behavior through the foreign policy
perspective derives from the real Chinese understanding and the view of the world system and international politics. Because all the findings and objectives indicate the major Chinese view as a Sinocentric world and Chinese superiority under the name of Tianxia. By stressing the South China Sea dispute features and the objectives of Chinese assertiveness, it creates a more clear link between the real Chinese action in the dispute and the underlying meaning of the Chinese foreign policy discourses.
More information: Gizem ASLANYÜREK (2020), Do Chinese actions in the South China Sea region match with the contemporary Chinese rhetoric of non-interference and soft power?, Master’s Thesis – TALLINN UNIVERSITY, School of Governance, Law, and Society, International Relations.
