Some people say that the current Sino-US relationship is “interdependence", but a kind of "uncomfortable interdependence". Such a remark is not entirely unjustified.
Well, then, how can this kind of “uncomfortable interdependence”become “relatively comfortable”or at least “not so uncomfortable”?
Along with the acceleration of the process of quantitative change of the times and the change in balance of international forces, there has appeared in many areas of Sino-US relationship such a pattern that “there is some of me in you and there is some of you in me”. In the fields of economy and geopolitics, particularly on major international security issues, China's cooperation is indispensable to the U.S. The U.S. cannot but take the China factor into consideration and its “dependence to some extent”on China is not to be denied. Likewise, in the fields of diplomacy and international politics, particularly in the economic field, the US factor and its influence on China are almost universal. China’s “dependence to some extent”on the U.S. is also self-evident.
Under normal circumstances, should the “interdependence”between two countries reach to a certain extent, their relationship should be fairly good and moving upward. However, Sino-US relationship is not so comfortable. Although the reasons are apparent, references to the reasons are perhaps conducive to the thinking and consideration of US new conservative idealists.
In the field of global governance and strategy, the U.S. wants to build a “Pax Americana”and is fond of a “relationship between the principal and the subordinate”, while China stands for “building a harmonious world” and adheres to an “equal partnership". The contradictions between the two are obvious, but not necessary a “zero-sum game”, still less “confrontation". The U.S. proclaims that it will absolutely not be “the No. Two”, while China has never claimed to be “the No. One". To tell the truth, China does not like such assertion of the U.S. but has no intention to challenge such assertion, still less to “seek hegemony”. Regarding how to shape the global governance of the 21 century, it would be determined neither by the U.S. alone, nor by China, nor by the two together. The U.S. likes to talk about its “smart strength”values, while China cherishes its “affinity” values. Why not leave all countries of the world themselves to respectively refer to and opt for selections and jointly explore the path of “global governance” in the spirit of “peace is of supreme value”. Should it be the case, it would be not difficult to relieve Sino-US relationship from one of the major anxieties.
Social systems and governing philosophies embody the core values of all countries. It is known to all that the U.S. does not like China's social system. People are also fully aware that China does not identify itself with the US social system either. In recent years, Chinese and US leaders have held talks on many occasions. The two countries have actually marched a big step forward on the basis of the three Sino-US joint communiqués and reached some new and important consensuses. Last year, President Hu Jintao and President Obama reached a consensus on the new identification of the relationship between the two countries, i.e., “mutual respect and win-win cooperative partnership”. President Obama himself also said to the effect that Sino-US relationship would shape the 21st century. Some of the US Secretaries made remarks even more pleasant to the ear, for instance: The U.S. and China should “seek common ground while reserving differences", “share weal and woe”and“cut paths through mountains and build bridges over rivers". Should these remarks were made not out of insincerity, and both China and the U.S. enforce in real earnest the three joint communiqués between the two countries as well as the new identification of their bilateral relationship, particularly the concept of “mutual respect”, the major hidden danger of structural contradictions between China and the U.S. would not be difficult to be relieved either.
The eastward shift of the center of gravity of US strategy has aroused extensive comments and tremendous shock waves in the international arena. Asian countries on this side of the Pacific seem to have different feelings: some filled with joy, some filled with anxiety. The most excited is Japan, the next are a few individual countries like the Philippines. They presume that a good opportunity has arrived for them to ally with the U.S. in containing China. Nevertheless, most of these countries do not identify themselves with such an approach. Indonesia, Singapore and India have successively and clearly stated that the policy of “containing China” will not succeed and will get no support in this region. They are opposed to being forced to “take sides”.
What is noteworthy is that President Obama recently clearly told the Japanese Prime Minister: “All our actions are not designed in any way to contain China”. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her lecture on US Asia-Pacific Strategy at the Naval Academy on April 10 also denied US attempt to “contain China” and stressed that China and the U.S. “are not on the brink of a new Cold War in Asia”. She stated that “We will only succeed in building a peaceful, prosperous Asia Pacific if we succeed in building an effective U.S.-China relationship". As China and the U.S. are already completely and unavoidably interdependent, “a thriving China is good for America and a thriving America is good for China, so long as we both thrive in a way that contributes to the regional and global good”.
In the view of some people, these remarks are unbelievable and one should not be hoodwinked. However, our times are changing, so is the balance of forces. Countries and people, sometimes helpless, should not remain unchanged. The U.S. is following a hedging strategy regarding China. The statements of Obama and Hillary show that the U.S. is placing more positive bets regarding China. The continuous Sino-US consultations on Asia-Pacific affairs this year have given expression to such a situation in a certain sense.
China has made no irresponsible remarks about the eastward shift of the gravity of US strategy. China has neither the intention nor the capability to compete for superiority with the U.S. in this region. China has done nothing to harm the core interests of the U.S. On the contrary, the U.S. has kept deploying chessmen along China’s periphery and placing more negative bets. This is the fundamental cause for the Chinese people's unease. China hopes that the U.S. would place more positive bets and gradually reduce its negative bets. Only in this way will Sino-US cooperation as described by Hillary “succeed in building a peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific”. And in this way only will “complete and unavoidable interdependence”between China and the U.S. come true.
As a matter of fact, Sino-US trade frictions constitute one of the “major anxieties”in the bilateral relationship. China is not a selfish country. It is a reasonable and sensible country. In this respect, so long as China and the U.S. firmly grasp “win-win cooperation”, this “major anxiety”can also be relieved step by step.
At present, on the question of Diaoyu Islands, Japan has not only encroached upon China's sovereignty but also negated the relevant provisions of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. It is in reality attempting to reverse the verdict on Japanese militarism. Should the U.S. continue to adopt an approach of overtly maintaining a neutral stand but covertly supporting the Japanese mischief, this would constitute a gross affront to both the victory of US anti-fascist war and the victory of WWII. The U.S. should attach great importance to the overall interests and take itself into consideration, work together with China to enable the Sino-US interdependence not so comfortable at present become somewhat comfortable, and jointly shape a new-type major power relationship in the new era.
Wang Yusheng is China former APEC senior official, Executive director, Strategy Study Center of China Foundation for International Studies
