The mutual non-interference in each others internal affairs is a third guiding principle of Five Principles of Co-existence. The others are: Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty; Mutual non-aggression; Equality; and Mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence. The five principles of co-existence became the very tool of fostering and developing friendly relations with other countries. In addition, these principles are also part of China´s 1982 constitution.

The principles are founded by Chinese premier Zhou Enlai on discussing the Tibet issue with India in 1953. Nevertheless, the principles have roots in Buddhism. The principles have officially written in the preface of the Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India. Latter it becomes the part of “ten principles” of Afro-Asian Bandung Conference and gets recognition in international politics.

In this paper, I will only discuss the third principle, i.e. non-interference vis-à-vis China. In the first part, I will discuss the very nature of non-interference itself. The next section of the paper examines the Chinese culture and origins of the non-interference. The third section elaborates the historical background of the principles vis-à-vis China. Forth section is dealing with international law and non-interference. And last section of the paper explains China and non-interference in international relations.

There is no doubt that states influence other states in many ways. Thus, it is difficult to “distinguish between factual intervention and legal intervention that a particular intervention violates authoritative community expectations about permissible international conduct”(1). Moreover, general acceptance of intervention lays in the very fact that oppressive intervenes by a state in the internal affairs or external affairs of another state vis-à-vis threat or use of military force. I have taken the legal paradigm of intervention.

Cultural Norms and Non-Interference

There is a very famous saying in China that “does not do to others what you yourself not desire”(2). The concept of non-interference is originated by Zhou Enlai. Zhou had a sufficient familiarity with Chinese classics at an early age. Thus, he did not “completely endorse Confucianism at a time when many Chinese iconoclastic intellectuals turned against Chinese tradition and advocate China´s wholesale westernization as the best solution to China´s national salvation in response to the western encroachment on China”(3).

The Confucian thought echoed at the Afro-Asian conference in 1955, when Zhou Enlai asked the leaders that “we are against the outside interference. How could we want to interfere in internal affairs of others?”(4). This demonstrates that Zhou combined the Confucian thought and the Buddhist thought together and coined the five principles of co-existence. 

China has been practicing the concept of non-interference since 3rd century B.C., during the latter part of pre-imperial history, especially feudal states. These feudal sates evolved the precedent that “they had right to manage its own affairs and corresponding duty not to interference in affairs of other feudal states"(5). Ironically, they always try to violate the tradition in quest for the benefit. These traditions were continued and become core of  the “tributary system”. Nevertheless, the idea of tributary system was that China could intervene whenever and wherever she judged it necessary, because the Chinese emperor was responsible for the peoples under heaven and because their ruler were viewed as his appointed representative(6). Moreover, these relationships were not based on equal states. There were no doubts about Chinese supremacy. Therefore, it can be said that China was handling (not intervening) its own suzerainty rather than other states´. The century of humiliation provoked the Chinese leaders to restore the ancient practice of non-interference in international relations. Interestingly, after the PRC came into existence or in a nationalist era China was also very concerned about the liberation of other countries from imperialist countries. It can counter if and only non-interference gets recognition. 

A Necessity for Non-Interference

The PRC came into existence during cold war era. Thus, Chinese leaders were very aware of the fact that China had to sustain its sovereignty at any cost and the best policy was non-interference. Chairman Mao Zedong and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai intended to formulate independent foreign policy. Therefore, there was an urgent need of non-interference to restrain its sovereignty. Zhou Enlai formulated the concept with discussing with his Indian counterparts. The credibility and reliability of the concept got further recognition at the Bandung Conference. In addition, the newly independent states of Asia and Africa were too interested in having an independent foreign policy. They supported the principles but draw back was their economic condition. 

Moreover, the United Nations Charter also reinforces the principles and said “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”(7). UN included these as principles in her charter along with the purposes of UN itself. It goes further and clearly asks the country that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter”(8). China gave her full support and never violated the articles. Ironically, some countries have claimed that China had too violated the concepts. Although, Chinese leaders defended them by arguing that, in some cases, intervention cannot count as interference in other´s affairs(9). Despite all these, the then international environment was passing through the verge of cold war. The superpowers of the world were intended to maximize their interests. They could not be materialized without violating the very concept of non-interference. Korean War was the result of this interest clash. Korean War threatened the very existence of China. China had no option but to retaliate, but she was very concerned about the notion of non-interference. Therefore, she chose to participate in the war but as People´s Volunteers. It proved that China was not an aggressor, but a defensive state. Well again here, the culture of China influences the leader´s decisions to give “preferences to defensive over offences"(10). The Chinese classic military writing very beautifully explains the strategy of war. Sun Zi in his classic book The Art of War asks the ruler “not to fight, if not in danger”. Lao Zi also supported the policy and said that “I do not dare to be the aggressor, but rather take the defensive”. Cultural norms have formulated the Chinese policy vis-à-vis international relations. 

Overall it can be argued that China has been practicing the concept of non-interference since 3rd century B.C. She had meaningful purpose to bring it in international relations. Despite her “middle kingdom status in tributary system", China had used intervention minimally to deal with states(11). The impact of culture and norms on Chinese behavior in international politics gives China a valuable place in the world. 

Notes:
(1) Jerome Alan Cohen, “China and Intervention: Theory and Practice”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 121, No. 3. Jan., 1973; pp. 471. 2. (2) It has linkage with Confucian thoughts. There are two central concepts of Confucianism and are closely related. They are jen and li. Li is the external manifestation of jen and jen is the internalization of li. Confucius saw that men of jen should "not do to other as he would not wish done to himself". (3) Qingxin Wang “Culture Norms and the Conduct of Chinese Foreign Policy” in Weixing Hu, Gerald Chan and Daojiong Zhan, China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts, (New York: University Press of America), 2000, pp-152. (4) Zhou made this statement on the first afro-Asian conference at Bandung. (5) Cited in Cohen, Jerome Alan, pp-474. (6) Troung Buu Lam, Intervention versus Tribute in Sino-Vietnamese Relations,1788-1790, in J.K. Fairbank Ed.(1968), “The Chinese World Order” in Cohen.(7) Article 2 (4) of Charter of the UN. (8) Article 2(7) of Charter of the UN. (9) Mao described the four conditions where one state can interfere in other sates and it could not count as interference. These are: i) in an allied country; ii) providing aids and loans based on assistance; iii) based on religious, ethnic problems, etc.; iii) visiting academics and experts to other countries. (10) Weixing et all, pp.150. (11) China has used the intervention under Mao´s four conditions.