Author Daniel Bell Applies Confucian Thinking to Chinese Invasion of Taiwan at Belfer Center Talk

Daniel A. Bell, a professor of political theory at the University of Hong Kong, discouraged a Chinese invasion of Taiwan through the lens of Confucianism at a Wednesday talk at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The event, hosted by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, was the second talk in a new speaker series called Thinking About China, meant to interpret China’s place in the world from varying political, philosophical, and economic perspectives.

Bell centered the talk around his book, “Why Ancient Chinese Political Thought Matters,” which he published last spring. He said that ancient Chinese philosophy maintains relevance during political conflicts, such as China’s relationship with Taiwan.

“Great debate between the Confucians and the Maoists is still very much alive in today’s China, and the debate we’re going to talk about today: when is warfare morally justified, or does morality matter in warfare?” Bell said.

According to Bell, Confucian debates have gained relevance in China’s schools over the past few decades. He said Chinese political leaders who were educated in the country may be thinking about whether war can be justified on those grounds.

During the talk, Bell framed the debate about Taiwan not just as a conflict between two rival powers, but as a moment that represents the tension between Legalism and Confucianism. While Legalists believe it is right to invade a nation for the sake of conquest, Confucians argue that it is better to win the hearts of citizens, Bell explained.

“The Marxist tradition has hardly anything to say about ‘just war.’ The liberal tradition does, but it’s not so influential in China. So what is influential? It’s these debates between the Confucians and the Legalists on just war,” Bell said.

To demonstrate this argument, Bell invited moderator and Kennedy School professor Rana Mitter to act out a section of his book, with Bell playing Confucianist Mencius and Mitter as Legalist Shang Yang.

Mitter, as Yang, claimed that war could be justified as part of conquest. But Bell, as Mencius, argued that war could only be justified as a means of self defense.

“If a territory is invaded by moral reprobates, wars and self-defense can be morally justified. People can and will and should defend themselves from unjust invaders, even if the invaded territory appears to be much weaker,” Bell read from his book.

Bell, arguing for Confucianism, said it would be more ethical to earn the favor of the nation that they want to conquer in the case of China and Taiwan.

“We have yet to gain the hearts of Taiwanese,” he said.

Bell, now out of character, said Legalism and Confucianism also disagree about the solutions for political corruption. Bell said that Confucian thought warns against the Legalist approach, which uses “harsh laws and punishment and makes public officials fearful of doing bad things.”

“If fear is implemented rigorously, at some point the public officials become averse to risk taking,” Bell said.

While Bell acknowledged the prominence of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, he said lesser-known work by Chinese philosophers are “equally outstanding” and offer value in modern political debate.

“This question of how the broader repertoire — that very rich ethical and political vocabulary from ancient China — might apply to contemporary international relations and society is now a very lively source of interest in China,” Bell said.