This is from the Journal, reporting on the recent deaths of Chinese peacekeepers in South Sudan:
Inside China’s government, differences have emerged about how to use the military overseas, said people familiar with the discussions. The prevailing view in the foreign ministry, they said, is that China should rapidly expand peacekeeping activities to show global leadership, as Mr. Xi demands.
Many military commanders, they said, by contrast want to move more slowly, conscious of their troops’ lack of experience and sensitive to domestic and international criticism.
China’s foreign ministry declined to comment. A senior defense official denied there were differences within the government.
The tragedy speaks to a pillar of Mr. Xi’s political agenda. Last year, he pledged to build an 8,000-strong standby peacekeeping force, adding to 2,600 Chinese deployed today. China is the second-biggest funder of U.N. peacekeeping after the U.S. and the biggest troop provider of the five permanent Security Council members. U.N. insiders said China is lobbying for one of its officials to head the U.N. peacekeeping office next year.
This is the all-important paragraph:
One of Mr. Xi’s goals is to protect the nation’s expanding global interests and citizens abroad. China’s leaders were “stunned” by the deaths in Juba, said one senior Western diplomat involved in discussions with China on South Sudan. “They’re fast realizing you cannot be a commercial giant without being an imperial power in some way.”
If China follows through on Xi’s dreams, will Chinese interventions and state-building efforts be any different than what the EU and the US are already doing? Does China really believe that an 8,000 strong standby force will be enough (even just for South Sudan)?
Also, this anecdote suggests that China will need to build a robust pension system before it can deploy large numbers of troops in dangerous hotspots abroad:
The cohort comprises mostly children raised under China’s one-child policy, so fatalities are likely to leave parents with no one to support them in old age.
To add to the pensions system comment in case of fatalities and lack of support system for the parents, the other repercussion is that there is likelihood of serious domestic backlash if 2 parents and 2 sets of grandparents essentially lose their only child in a conflict they can hardly identify with let alone understand. This would have consequences on the legitimacy of the CCP and be of national concern. Of course tangential from this is the questions of gender balance in the society and how that relates to male soldiers being involved in high-risk conflict zones…