This seems to be the standard Shadia Drury interpretation of Carl Schmitt. Schmitt’s view of international relations was just a restatement of Machiavelli and Hobbes. It’s hardly extraordinary that Chinese geopolitical strategists would have an interest in him.
The most important aspects of Schmitt’s thought was his recognition that “international relations” is just glorified gang warfare and his recognition that the state is ultimately about who has the ability to use violence to advance their own interests, with the essence of the “political” being a Hobbesian war of contending interests.
By Chang Che, The Atlantic
When Hong Kong erupted into protest this summer against a national-security law imposed by Beijing, the fact that Chinese scholars leaped to the Communist Party’s defense was perhaps predictable. How they argued in favor of it, however, was not.
“Since Hong Kong’s handover,” Wang Zhenmin, a law professor at Tsinghua University, one of China’s most prestigious institutions, wrote in People’s Daily, “numerous incidents have posed serious threats to Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability.” The city, Wang was effectively arguing, was in no position to discuss civil liberties when its basic survival was on the line. Qi Pengfei, a specialist on Hong Kong at Renmin University, echoed those sentiments, insisting that the security law was meant to protect the island from the “infiltration of foreign forces.” In articles, interviews, and news conferences throughout the summer, scores of academics made a similar case.