Opinion – Why China Parades Power as Peace

Opinion – Why China Parades Power as Peace

By an International Relations Analyst

The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s latest fleet review was a spectacle of calculated grandeur. Sleek destroyers, silent submarines, and the formidable silhouette of an aircraft carrier cut through the waves, a testament to decades of breakneck military modernization. Yet, the official commentary accompanying the images was not one of belligerence or threat. It was a steady, repeated drumbeat of “peace,” “development,” and “win-win cooperation.” To the casual observer, this may seem a paradoxical disconnect—a display of raw power framed in the language of harmony. However, for those of us who analyze the intricate dance of global politics, this is not a contradiction but a coherent and sophisticated strategy. China does not merely use its power; it performs it, meticulously crafting a narrative where its rise is an inevitable and benevolent force. This is the essence of why China parades power as peace: it is a strategic imperative rooted in history, theory, and a fundamental desire to reshape the international order without triggering the unified resistance that overt aggression would provoke.

Understanding the Landscape

To decode this strategy, one must first appreciate the dual legacy that shapes Beijing’s worldview: the Century of Humiliation and the Thucydides’s Trap.

The period from the mid-19th to mid-20th century, when foreign powers carved up a weak China, is a foundational trauma for the modern Chinese state, seared into the psyche of its leadership. It instilled an unwavering resolve that national weakness invites predation, and that true sovereignty is underpinned by incontestable strength. The Communist Party’s legitimacy is now inextricably linked to its promise to never let that humiliation recur.

Simultaneously, Beijing is acutely aware of the Thucydides’s Trap—the historical pattern where a rising power causes fear in an established hegemon (the United States), often leading to conflict. China’s leadership has studied the collapses of the Soviet Union and the fraught rise of Wilhelmine Germany. They understand that overt, chest-thumping militarism would unite the West, solidify containment alliances like NATO and the Quad, and potentially strangle their economic engine—global trade. Therefore, the primary strategic challenge is to accumulate and project sufficient power to secure core interests and eventually assume regional preeminence, while doing so in a manner that appears non-threatening enough to keep the international community divided and complacent.

Theoretical Analysis: The Power of Narrative

This is where theory meets practice. China’s actions are a masterclass in what political scientists call “sharp power” and narrative warfare. Unlike hard power (military coercion) or soft power (cultural attraction), sharp power seeks to pierce, penetrate, and manipulate the political environment within foreign countries. By relentlessly coupling military parades with messages of peace, China aims to achieve several objectives:

1. Domestic Legitimacy: For the domestic audience, these spectacles are a powerful affirmation of the Party’s success in restoring China’s greatness. The message is clear: under our leadership, China is strong, respected, and secure.

2. International Reassurance and Obfuscation: For external audiences, the peaceful rhetoric is a tool of strategic ambiguity. It creates a smokescreen, allowing Beijing to dismiss concerns over its militarization of the South China Sea or its coercion of Taiwan as “misunderstandings” or “Western fear-mongering.” It provides plausible deniability, making a coherent international response more difficult to orchestrate.

3. Setting the Terms of Debate: By controlling the vocabulary—insisting its actions are always “peaceful” and “defensive”—China seeks to shape how its rise is discussed in forums like the UN or in diplomatic communiqués. It forces others to argue on its terminological turf.

Case Studies: The Strategy in Action

This theory is vividly illustrated in two critical arenas.

1. The South China Sea:

China has undertaken the largest militarization of a maritime zone in modern history, building artificial islands fortified with runways, missile shelters, and radar systems. Yet, its official discourse never frames this as expansionism. Instead, it is consistently described as “upholding peace and stability,” “protecting sovereign rights,” and engaging in “freedom of navigation” (a term it redefines to suit its purposes). The warships and fighter jets are presented as guardians of this constructed peace, while any foreign naval presence, particularly American FONOPs (Freedom of Navigation Operations), is labeled as provocative and destabilizing. The power is real and tangible, but its purpose is rhetorically sanitized.

2. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI):

The BRI is perhaps the ultimate expression of parading power as peace. On the surface, it is a benevolent project of global connectivity—building infrastructure, fostering trade, and promoting “shared destiny.” However, its strategic underpinnings are profound. It creates deep economic dependencies, pulls nations into China’s geopolitical orbit, and can create leverage points for future political and military access. The ports, railways, and loans are instruments of power projection, but they are wrapped in the language of mutual development and peaceful cooperation, making them palatable and difficult to refuse for capital-starved nations.

The Role of International Organizations

China has become a master at leveraging multilateral institutions to launder its power projection. Unlike past revisionist powers that sought to tear down the international system, China seeks to dominate and reshape it from within. It actively participates in UN Peacekeeping Operations (PKOs), not out of pure altruism, but to gain operational experience, build goodwill, and position itself as a responsible stakeholder. It uses its weight in bodies like the World Trade Organization (WTO) to defend its economic model and challenge the rules others made. By working within these frameworks, it blunts criticism and lends a veneer of legitimacy to its actions, further blurring the line between assertive self-interest and contributions to global peace.

Implications and Consequences

This strategy presents a unique and insidious challenge to the West and the liberal international order.

• Alliance Dilution: By avoiding overtly Hitler- or Putin-like aggression, China makes it harder for the US to maintain a unified coalition of allies. Nations with deep economic ties to China, like Germany or South Korea, are often reluctant to jeopardize those relationships for what Beijing successfully frames as abstract or exaggerated concerns.

• Norm Erosion: The constant gaslighting—where aggressive acts are labeled peaceful—slowly erodes shared understandings of international law and norms. What constitutes “coercion” or “aggression” becomes fuzzy, leading to paralysis and indecision.

• The Risk of Miscalculation: The greatest danger lies in the potential for miscalculation. By embedding its power plays within a rhetoric of peace, China may believe it can push boundaries—around Taiwan, for instance—without triggering a forceful response. Conversely, the US and its allies, fatigued by the narrative warfare, might underestimate Beijing’s resolve, leading to a catastrophic clash neither side intended.

Strategies for a Response

Countering this requires a move beyond traditional statecraft. The response must be equally sophisticated and multifaceted:

1. Invest in Competing Narratives: The West must articulate a positive, compelling vision for the Indo-Pacific and the world that contrasts with China’s transactional model. This means following through on initiatives like the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) with real funding and execution.

2. Build Resilient Networks: Instead of demanding a “us-or-them” choice, focus on building resilient supply chains, tech standards, and security partnerships (like the AUKUS pact) that are so robust that nations can engage with China without becoming dependent.

3. Call the Play, Not the Player: Focus criticism on specific actions, not the country itself. Clearly and consistently document instances of coercion, intellectual property theft, and human rights abuses, tying them to the disconnect between China’s words and deeds. This deprives Beijing of its victimhood narrative.

4. Strengthen Deterrence: Unambiguous military strength and resolve remain the ultimate backstop. The US and its allies must maintain a credible deterrent force in the Asia-Pacific, ensuring that China’s peaceful parades of power never mistake restraint for weakness.

Conclusion and Summary

China’s practice of parading formidable power under the banner of peace is a deliberate, intelligent, and highly effective strategy. It is not a sign of confusion but of clarity of purpose. It is designed to achieve supremacy while soothing anxieties, to rewrite the rules of the international order while professing to uphold them, and to project influence in a way that divides opposition and ensures continued economic engagement.

For the international community, the task is to see this performance for what it is: a long-term, patient campaign for primacy. The response cannot be one of panic or containment alone. It must be a steady, strategic, and united effort that combines unwavering deterrence with a more attractive vision of cooperation, all while holding a mirror to the gap between China’s words and its actions. The goal is not to contain China’s development, but to ensure that the power it parades is ultimately channeled in a manner that is truly peaceful, stable, and consistent with the rules-based order it claims to support. The success of this endeavor will define the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.