Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
In recent decades China has become a far more active and effective player in, and contributor to, the United Nations. However, according to Dr Michael Fullilove, the limits of this enhanced engagement are becoming clear. Dr Fullilove emphasises that while the West might advocate that China become a ‘responsible stakeholder’ in the international system, China’s leadership may respond that the responsibilities – and prerogatives – of a stakeholder are open to interpretation.
The stakeholder spectrum: China and the United Nations
About the author
Michael Fullilove
Dr Michael Fullilove AM is the Executive Director of the Lowy Institute.
In this article for the prestigious journal The Washington Quarterly, Dr Michael Fullilove argues that China has become a far more active and effective contributor to the United Nations. However, he emphasises that this increased engagement with the UN has limits. While China has become a more active participant in UN forums, it has thus far refused to shoulder the responsibilities attached to its great-power status.
Dr Fullilove lays out China’s engagement with the UN on a ‘stakeholder spectrum’, which outlines the degree of engagement according to a variety of issues. At one end of the spectrum, China has increased its diplomatic engagement with the UN organisation in New York and has enhanced its contribution to UN peacekeeping. At the other end of the spectrum China has refused to engage over human rights issues and has used its Security Council veto to shield pariah states from international pressure.
Dr Fullilove argues that, as China assumes a global role in international affairs, pressure will be brought to bear on China to ‘move up the stakeholder spectrum’ and to intensify its engagement with the UN. However, Fullilove cautions that China’s notion of ‘stepping up’ and assuming a more active role may not be compliant with Western expectations. The West needs to consider carefully what it wishes for: while Washington or Canberra might press China to assume greater responsibility, growing Chinese assertiveness would arouse concern.