PRC MEDIA DEBATE CHINA'S ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BEIJING 000218 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/27/2035 TAGS: PREL PGOV NATO ECON CH PK AF XD ZK SUBJECT: PRC MEDIA DEBATE CHINA'S ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Aubrey Carlson for reasons 1.4 (b,d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Following President Obama's December 1 announcement at West Point to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, Chinese Communist Party(CCP)-affiliated media and the PRC's official television network CCTV began airing disparate views on the proper PRC response to the situation in Afghanistan. With the exception of an MFA official who denied that the PRC media reflected government views, contacts at government-affiliated think tanks, Beijing University and the Afghan and UK Embassy separately concurred that media-based discussion mirrored behind-the-scenes debate within the PRC government on Afghanistan policy. Contacts offered differing explanations of the public debate, with some suggesting the debate reflected differences between "internationalists" and "conservative" elements in the PRC leadership, while other scholars suggested the media debate reflected a PRC leadership effort to shift the Afghanistan narrative focus from U.S. pressure on the PRC to assist in Afghanistan to the PRC protecting its national interests in South Asia. END SUMMARY. Contours of Media Debate -------------- ¶2. (C) On December 8, the Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao),a Chinese-language newspaper affiliated with the Communist Party mouthpiece Renmin Ribao, took the uncommon though not unprecedented step of publishing two competing articles on a single subject, in this case Afghanistan. One article advocated sending non-combat PLA peacekeepers to Afghanistan to protect China's economic interests and bolster China's international image; the other argued against sending PLA forces in order to avoid giving impetus to the "China threat theory" or attracting the ire of terrorists. Since December 8, the airing of differing views on the proper PRC response to the situation in Afghanistan has continued and spread to the official television network CCTV, the English-language edition of Global Times and Renmin Ribao. Public Debate Might Mirror Debate within Party -------------- - ¶3. (C) With the notable exception of an MFA official, Embassy contacts suggested that the media discourse on Afghanistan reflected a behind-the-scenes debate inside the PRC government over what role China should play in Afghanistan. MFA Asia Department Afghanistan Division First Secretary Chen Feng January 8 acknowledged a public discussion of China's proper role in Afghanistan, but stated that the PRC media did not represent the views of the PRC government. In contrast, MFA-affiliated China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) South Asia scholar and media commentator Rong Ying told PolOff January 12 that the CCP would not have allowed the public debate to proceed for over a month unless it reflected a divergence of views on the issue within the Party. Independently, a contact at Ministry of State Security-affiliated China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR),scholars at Beijing University, and counterparts at the Afghan and UK Embassy all expressed that same conclusion in separate meetings in January. Differing Explanations of Cause of Debate -------------- ¶4. (C) Our contacts offered three explanations for the emergence of the debate in the media. The Afghanistan debate, according to one view, was part of a larger ongoing and unresolved competition for influence over Chinese foreign policy decision-making between "internationalists" and "conservatives." Beijing University South Asia scholar Han Hua told PolOff January 5 that "internationalists" in recent months had privately urged PRC policymakers to take active measures to promote stability in Afghanistan in order to protect China's economic interests in that country and preserve China's ability to access Central Asia through Afghanistan. "Conservatives," including but not limited to the PLA, had countered that the PRC would not derive benefit from helping the United States out of its Afghan quagmire and suggested that a greater PRC role in Afghanistan would damage China's peaceful image and ignite speculation about PRC strategic intentions. While noting that the continued presence of a public debate signaled that there was a constituency within the Party in favor of an expanded PRC BEIJING 00000218 002 OF 002 role in Afghanistan, Han speculated without further elaboration that "conservatives" still held the upper hand. ¶5. (C) A related explanation suggests that the ongoing public arguments in favor of greater PRC participation in Afghanistan constituted an attempt to publicly challenge justifications that opponents of greater PRC involvement in Afghanistan used privately, according to Beijing University Associate Professor Wang Dong. Wang pointed out January 4 that recent media commentary had directly rebutted central arguments against greater PRC involvement, such as the proposition that increased PRC involvement in Afghanistan would incur the wrath of Muslim extremists, as well as the suggestion that the PRC should not support a U.S. strategy to encircle China. PRC commentators' focus on these "central issues" in discussions of Afghanistan suggested a coordination of efforts to build a case for greater PRC involvement in Afghanistan, according to Wang. (NOTE: Wang's comment accurately suggests that recent comments in favor of a greater PRC role have followed similar lines of reasoning; however, much of the recent PRC media commentary has not favored increased PRC involvement in Afghanistan, notably on the question of whether to send PLA forces to Afghanistan.) ¶6. (C) A third explanation held that the media debate was intended to shape PRC public opinion by highlighting Chinese interests in stability in Afghanistan, thereby marginalizing the United States as an element of discussion. CICIR Afghanistan scholar Wang Shida told PolOff January 19 that as long as the narrative on Afghanistan remained that the United States was pressuring the PRC to make a larger contribution to stability in Afghanistan while at the same time continuing to sell arms to Taiwan, then it would be impossible for any PRC leader privately or publicly to support increased PRC involvement in Afghanistan. If, however, the PRC public discourse minimized U.S. requests for assistance and instead highlighted the importance to the PRC of protecting its interests in Afghanistan, then there would be political space for PRC policymakers to consider an expanded role. CIIS South Asia scholar Lan Jianxue separately concurred, and added that major public rifts in U.S.-China relations would make it increasingly difficult for policymakers to de-link Afghanistan from the United States. HUNTSMAN