China’s Nuclear Taboo Isn’t as Strong as It Seems

China’s Nuclear Taboo Isn’t as Strong as It Seems

New research casts doubt on a long-standing theory.

The nuclear taboo, a term coined by political scientist Nina Tannenwald in the 1990s, has become one of the most influential ideas in contemporary international relations, appearing not only in the pages of major scholarly publications but also in statements from the United Nations secretary-general and lectures from Nobel winners. It holds that in the wake of World War II, the prospect of using nuclear weapons became so utterly and universally opprobrious that leaders will shy away from the option even when it would be strategically sensible.

The nuclear taboo thesis has been challenged by research in countries such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Israel. Yet, for many, one country is still seen as the standard-bearer for the taboo in the 21st century: China. While this may come as a surprise to hawks in Washington, numerous scholars of Chinese politics have argued that China’s distinctive cultural traditions predispose its leaders and citizens toward moderation in war. John Fairbank, the father of modern China studies in the United States, observed in 1974 that China’s Confucian culture encourages its leaders and people to prioritize the “downgrading of warfare,” writing, “The moral absolute is all on the side of peace.”

Such statements reflect an assumption that culturally informed preferences shape states’ strategic behavior. As political scientist Alastair Iain Johnston put it, if Chinese cultural traditions uniquely stress “nonviolent political or diplomatic means to deal with adversaries,” China’s strategy in wartime should have a “distinctive minimally violent character.” One might thus presume that the use of nuclear weapons, which would likely kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants, should be downright anathematic to adherents of such a culture.

Continue reading at foreignpolicy.com