On 13 December 2002, the Institute held a one-day conference at Arundel House entitled ‘The People’s Republic of China After the 16th Communist Party Congress’. Organised by Adam Ward, Senior Fellow for East Asian Security and Editor of Strategic Comments, the conference was convened to take stock of the major changes in China’s political and military leaderships that had been announced just four weeks previously at the ruling Communist Party’s five-yearly congress.
The run-up to the congress had been marked by intense but concealed jockeying for position among factional interests linked to outgoing leaders and their protégés. Reflecting this, the leadership line-up eventually unveiled stopped short of a complete handover of power to a ‘Fourth Generation’ of leaders. Hu Jintao, the ‘core’ of the new generation, did take over the top Communist Party post from the outgoing Jiang Zemin, and many other new faces were elevated to senior positions. Yet, the new Politburo Standing Committee was filled with figures primarily loyal to Jiang, whose retention of the chairmanship of the Central Military Commission – making him commander-in-chief – further assured him of continuing influence. This partial leadership transition has left China with a complex distribution of formal and informal power centres. The aim of the IISS conference, held ‘off the record’, was to examine the implications of these developments across a wide range of policy areas.
In the opening presentations, two noted experts on domestic Chinese politics – Professor Richard Baum, director of the Centre for Chinese Studies at UCLA, and Professor Joseph Fewsmith of Boston University – analysed the extent to which the new configuration of power is likely to affect stability at the top of the political system. They also examined the new leadership’s appetite for political reform; how its decision-making process is likely to function; and how well-equipped it will be to manage any emerging domestic or foreign crises.
The presentation by Dr Bates Gill, Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, focused on the new military leadership and prospects for party–military relations, while also identifying key trends in the military modernization efforts of the People’s Liberation Army. Professor Shen Dingli of Fudan University in Shanghai addressed the likely future development of China's non-proliferation and arms control policy under the new leadership.
On the topic of US-China relations, Professor Aaron L. Friedberg, Director of the Centre for International Studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, traced the evolution of the bilateral relationship under the Bush administration, before looking ahead to potential flashpoints over the coming year. Professor Lanxin Xiang of the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva provided a critique of the framework of US policy towards China.
Andrew Yang, Secretary- General of the Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei assessed how domestic political developments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are affecting the prospects for dialogue, while Professor Michael Yahuda of the London School of Economics placed the cross-Strait dispute in its wider international context.
Addressing the immense economic challenges that confront the new leadership, Professor Edward Steinfeld of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Peter Nolan of the University of Cambridge discussed the future development of China's role in the international economy. Particular emphasis was placed on the macroeconomic, corporate sector and social adjustments that China's membership of the World Trade Organisation will entail.
In addition to these speakers, conference participants among others included representatives from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York; the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Peking University; National Chengchi University, Taiwan; the University of Oxford; the International Crisis Group in Brussels; the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Royal Institute for International Affairs; The Economist; and King’s College London.
