The US has stepped up provocations in the South China Sea recently, with its military vessels operating within 12 nautical miles of the Yongshu Reef, and a navy aircraft carrier strike group taking part in joint military drills on the South China Sea, thus heightening tensions in the region. Furthermore, some US congressmen even asserted that the country would not be afraid to go to war with China over the South China Sea issue, and Admiral Harry Harris, US Pacific Fleet Commander, talked about how his forces must be “ready to fight tonight”. This is the very first time a serving high-ranking US military official makes a public threat of war against China since the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries.
The US apparently is trying to use the South China Sea as an outpost or lever to contain and counter China. Yet this is only part of an overarching strategy to contain China, which runs the whole gamut of policies– providing tacit or explicit support to separatist forces in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang; pivoting US military forces towards Asia with the aim of countering China; playing up the “China threat” theory, primarily to drive a wedge between China and its neighboring countries to justify US alliance-building in the form of an “eastern NATO” to contain China; lending support to countries who have territorial disputes with China, including illegal claims that jeopardize China’s territorial integrity. The US has long challenged China over its political system, human rights and religion policies, in order to obstruct or hinder China’s growth, so that the US will continue to be the unrivaled superpower in the world and ultimately fulfill its ambition of continuing its global leadership into the next century. History will prove otherwise.
In its overall political and strategic containment against China, the US practically pursues an indiscriminate “anything but China” policy, which stems from the cold war mentality and the entrenched bias against China, and is also driven by strategic miscalculation against China.
First, the US deems China as another Soviet Union in the making, aspiring to challenge or even dislodge the US as a global hegemonic power. This could not be further from the truth. China is not the Soviet Union, and has no intention to follow that path. Unlike the Soviet Union which was mired in a self-reinforcing cycle of a military race with the US for global supremacy, sphere of influence — sometimes even through military expansion and aggression, China’s strategy is peaceful development and a foreign policy of peaceful coexistence. China pursues a defensive national defense policy, and will never seek hegemony. In theory, policy and implementation, China has clearly drawn the line. As far as bilateral relations are concerned, the dynamics are profoundly different. The Soviet Union and the US had little converging interests or room for cooperation, while confrontation and irreconcilable rivalry dominated their bilateral ties. For China and the US, converging interests and cooperation far outweigh differences and confrontation. China-US economic and trade ties are particularly interconnected and intertwined, and any differences could be solved via non-confrontational and negotiated solutions. All in all, the Soviet Union followed a cul-de-sac, so to speak, which was one of many factors that contributed to its collapse. China will by no means go down that track.
Second, the US believes that socialism and capitalism are on opposite sides of a divide, and China, by pursuing socialism, is committed to triumph over capitalism, prompting a sense of threat. To put things into historic perspective, US was understandably concerned on that score. But times have changed, and the reform and opening up policy has effected changes in both mindset and actions in China. China believes that different civilizations and social systems can coexist in peace, striving for common and inclusive development through dialogues and cooperation. That notion has overridden the erstwhile theory of a “clash of civilizations”, or that one civilization or social system must develop to the exclusion of another. As for the ultimate question of which system will outlast the other, it would be tested by practice, and answered by history and people in due time. China will not constitute a threat to the US or any other country in the world, nor will it pose challenges to other systems.
Third, the US is wary that emulation of China’s development model will undercut the laisse-faire capitalist model that the US promotes globally to underpin its Westernization drive. This doesn’t reflect the real world. China believes that there is no one-size-fits-all political system or growth model in the world, and every country is entitled to choose a development path in light of its own circumstances. No country is in a position to impose a system, either political or economic, on others. China will not export revolution, nor does it export its development model. While there are countries who have chosen the “Beijing Consensus” over the “Washington Consensus” , that is a result of their own discretionary decisions based on reality on the ground, and has nothing to do with the so-called export of a Chinese development model.
Fourth, the US suspects China is maneuvering to drive the US presence of the Asian region, crystalized by President Obama’s claim that China is “using its sheer size and muscle to force countries into subordinate positions”. If anything, this is an arbitrary argument made by the US. In fact, China does not have the intention nor the capacity to do that. What’s more, China does not challenge US interests, standing and power in the region, nor has it done anything to undermine the US presence in the region — much less try to drive the US out of the region. China does not seek to dominate any other country, nor will it be subordinate to any other country.
Miscalculation and misprception are hazardous in inter-state relations. Negative dynamics in US policy and interaction with China derive from misconstruing China’s development strategies and policies. It is imperative that the two countries dispel misgivings and strengthen communication, deepen understanding and mutual trust, in order to build a new type of major-country relations featuring non-confrontation, non-conflict and win-win cooperation.
