The China-US standoff in the South China Sea has attracted more attention than the China-Philippines, China-Vietnam territorial disputes. China-US military interaction in the South China Sea has become a focus of public opinion as well as media limelight. But for those engaged in strategic studies and decision-making in both countries, a truly important subject for deliberation is the future orientation of China-US relations.
South China Sea and new pattern of China-US relations
It was a significant strategic decision for the US to openly, militarily intervene in the South China Sea issue. Even if we continue to consider American and Chinese military actions in the South China Sea as regional developments, their strategic connotations are beyond doubt: They reflect conspicuously consolidating momentum of competition (between the two) as strategic rivals in the Asia-Pacific. That’s a worrying development in the China-US relationship, in which competition and cooperation are interwoven.
The peculiar complexity of China-US relations derives from such a fact: They are two enormous countries that are dramatically different, yet have formulated very close interconnections. This is the macro background that should never be ignored in appreciating the China-US relationship in a transitional period, especially the significant divergences between them.
The so-called historical changes China-US relations are undergoing include changes in both the pattern of this particular relationship as well as those in the broader international order. Those pattern changes have two layers of connotations: One refers to changes in comparative strengths; another refers to those in the pattern of state-to-state ties. The present macro situation of China-US relations is the outcome of entanglement and interaction of changes on the two levels. China’s rise resulted in changes in the comparative strengths of China and the US; meanwhile, China’s rise has taken place as it deeply integrated with the rest of the world, and actively participated in the process of globalization. One of the most important consequences of that is the two countries have become each other’s most important stakeholders. China-US relations have been proceeding simultaneously in the dimensions of both competition and cooperation: On one hand they are each other’s main strategic rival, on the other hand they are important partners that need each other. Such a pattern of relationship between two major countries is unprecedented in history.
For decision-makers in Beijing and Washington, how to appreciate the complicated connotations of this new pattern is of vital importance to strategic China-US relations.
It goes without saying that the competitive aspect of China-US relations has grown prominent under the new pattern. In recent years, the momentum of China-US strategic competition has grown most conspicuous in East Asia. The aspect of containment in US China strategy keeps expanding, and its pace is accelerating, which is most obvious in US military moves in the South China Sea. This seems to indicate that implementation of the US pivot to the Asia-Pacific has entered a new phase, with an intention to conduct regional containment of China. At the same time, we have seen a dangerous tendency: The Pentagon has constantly escalated its moves in the South China Sea, and some senior military officials are increasingly provocative verbally. It takes further observation to judge whether this outstanding phenomenon means fresh changes in US China strategy.
However, some Washington insiders have stated in explicit terms that the US has decided to take more open, higher-pitched, and more targeted comprehensive measures to “counter” so-called Chinese moves to “change the status quo”. Evidently the so-called concern about “freedom of navigation” is only a high-sounding pretext, the true intention of US intervention is to take advantage of the South China Sea issue and reaffirm it is resolved to preserve US dominance in the Asia-Pacific.
The essence of the evolution of the South China Sea issue is the collision between US hegemony and Chinese interests in safeguarding its own security and development. The main reason for worsening China-US strategic competition in the Asia-Pacific is that the US sees itself as guardian of international order in the region, and the rise of China increasingly as an inevitable challenge that has to be pre-empted and contained. If US pivoting to the Asia-Pacific follows such a course, it will solidify the two countries’ structural contradictions, and bilateral relations may thus eventually slide into the “Thucydides’ trap”.
Structural contradictions
“Structural contradictions getting prominent” is an important judgment people have reached on the escalating tensions in China-US relations. The so-called “structural contradictions” are in fact basic contradictions.
Structural contradictions between China and the US include problems on two levels. On one level, the essential problems are those resulting from divergences in political systems and ideologies.
Basic contradictions originated from systematic differences had not become a dominant aspect of China-US relationship for a long period of time, but they have posed continuous and profound structural problems in bilateral ties, and from time to time came into play, creating political issues. On another level, a contradictory relationship as major strategic rivals has gradually taken shape between China and the US in recent years. The theoretical expression of China-US structural contradictions from the realistic perspective is: The power structure between a main rising power and a main incumbent power will inevitably lead to a relationship between two main rivals. Why is that? Because the rising power will inevitably take the place of the incumbent one, while the latter will desperately preserve its vested interests. Past experiences in history seem to have repeatedly confirmed this as a truth determined by the nature of international politics. There were exceptions. For instance, in the 20th century, the US took Britain’s place as the global hegemon in a peaceful manner, but it occurred between two countries of similar political systems and ideologies.
Therefore, China-US structural contradictions are twofold: there are both problems brought by significant divergences, and those created by major-country competitions. This is a basic reality for developing bilateral ties.
However, we must notice that there are fundamental defects in the analysis of structural contradictions on the basis of realistic theories: It failed to pay due attention to the significant development of economic interdependence between countries, neglected the obviously increasing functions of domestic factors in the new pattern of relations, therefore failed to interpret the new changes in China-US relations in a dynamic manner, not to mention to cover the multiple facets of the new pattern of China-US relations. Over-emphasis on structural contradictions, especially letting structural contradictions dictate policy deliberations, may amplify disagreements, worsen negative feelings, inspire inclinations for confrontation, and create bigger difficulties for improving China-US ties.
Danger of Mearsheimer theory
The core argument of John J. Mearsheimer’s classic The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is that a “security dilemma” is an unavoidable structural problem between great powers. He concludes that for great powers, vying for hegemony is the best choice in the pursuit of security. He further induces that this is an inevitable goal of China’s rise, therefore confrontation is inescapable between China and the US. On such a basis, he advocates that the US needs to carry out all-round containment against China in a Cold-War manner. In his interpretation of the Obama administration’s rebalancing to Asia, he claims Obama’s entire set of strategic measures centered on containing China, yet they have concealed realistic moves with liberalist rhetoric. Given his authoritative scholarly impacts in international studies, his theories have exerted considerable negative influences on academic and diplomatic circles in both countries. His own intentions aside, Mearsheimer’s theories and proposals are actually providing a foundation for the US to implement power politics and preserve its hegemony, which is why they have been favored by hardliners in the US. In fact, theories on international relations always serve a country’s foreign policies. Realistic theories have gained prominence precisely because they met the needs of the US as it became the No.1 world power in the 20th century, providing theoretical support for its implementation of power politics in international relations. This “tragedy factor” is a worrying influence on China-US relations.
The new pattern of relations between China and the US is a complex body of contradictions consisting of multiple dynamics. Simplistically diagramming China-US relations has been an outstanding problem in the past few years. Too many experts in both countries have resorted to the approaches adopted by Hollywood blockbusters and interpreted the disagreements and tensions between China and the US as rising structural contradictions that resulted from changes in their comparative strengths. This has led to cross-validation of corresponding “threat” theories in both countries. In the US, the mention of “China’s rise” is usually associated with “challenging US leadership”, “threatening US security interests”, or “stealing American jobs”, which has almost become synonymous with “China threat”. On the other hand, experts, scholars and think tanks constantly release theses and research reports, arguing that the US is not in decline, remains the strongest in economy, technology, military, education and innovation, and that the US should always maintain its position as No.1 world power and its dominance in Asia, never allowing China to succeed in its challenges.
In China, there is the popular assumption that decline of the US is already an obvious matter of fact, the US is increasingly bogged down in domestic and international difficulties; therefore, in order to prevent China from taking its place, the US is beginning to contain China’s development in an all-round manner, disseminating “China Threat” theories, instigating neighboring countries to make trouble for China, creating an Asian version of the NATO to hedge and contain China, plotting to create a financial crisis in China, thus a “new cold war” against China has begun.
It is thought-provoking that in the rhetorical context of “China threat” theories, the American side has displayed intensifying anxiety, while the Chinese side has demonstrated increasing self-confidence. In fact, the American anxiety derives mainly from the country’s own economic, political, social and diplomatic troubles, as well as confusion about the future and increasing sense of insecurity. The question is, how could such anxiety be correlated to China’s rise, assigning it the scapegoat’s role? Simplistic and one-sided causation in propaganda and political manipulation by interest groups can’t be underestimated here.
Those advocating containment of China are mainly counting on unrivalled US military superiority. This is also why the ghost of the Cold War keeps haunting us. Evidently preaching all-round containment of China on the pretext of preserving national security isn’t without political support in the US. We can imagine the following scenario: With domestic difficulties dramatically worsening in both countries, as the situation deteriorates to a certain degree, the two sides enter a conflict because of an unexpected incident, or an emergency leads to misjudgments, a scene of confrontation emerges, the US re-starts the Cold War, bilateral ties embark on the track of the self-fulfillment of “big power tragedy”. Of course, this remains hypothetical for the time being. But both China and the US must be aware that such a possibility does exist, and make joint efforts to prevent the “tragedy” factor in Mearsheimer’s theories and policy proposals from becoming a real hazard under certain conditions.
US military hegemony
Obviously there are significant divergences between Chinese and American understanding of the new pattern of their relations. This won’t change in the short term. What matters now is how the two countries can work together to make sure China-US relations don’t deviate from their due course, and avoid missing the goal of cooperation that conforms to both sides’ interests in the face of the complicated conditions brought about by changes.
Nowadays in America, it has been a trend and predominant way of strategic thinking to approach China-US relations from the perspective of those between a rising power and an incumbent power. Coping with the so-called challenges from China has become a popular political slogan on the campaign trail in present-day America. The US pivot to the Asia-Pacific is taking on an increasingly thick military coating.
With present conditions in the South China Sea, we should keep in mind the lessons from history. Both common sense and experience tell us just as absolute power brews dangers, strong, absolute military superiority is always accompanied by a danger – the temptation to use such power. One worrisome circumstance would be excessive confidence in one’s own strength, and simultaneous underestimation of the rival’s capabilities and resolve; the other is toxic combination of bigoted obsession with absolute security and political, strategic anxiety. Elements of both aspects exist in the present-day US. On the South China Sea issue, some in the military seem to believe they can take advantage of their military advantages and make China submit. That is an extremely dangerous idea. On the matter of territorial sovereignty, China has to resolutely defend its own interests — politically there is no room for concession in the face of US pressure. If the US military makes a reckless move, it will certainly sink itself into a costly confrontation. Neither China nor the US wants such a scenario.
New-type major-country relationship
Seeking common ground while shelving differences is an effective, important principle successive Chinese and US governments have followed over a long period. Even the present structural contradictions show some characteristics of competition between a rising power and an incumbent power, the principle remains a precious legacy that must not be abandoned. We have stridden into the 21st century, the changed pattern of China-US relations has actually included some favorable conditions, which makes it possible for us to take one step forward from the previous principle of seeking common ground while shelving differences. The Chinese proposal of jointly building a new type of major-country relationship signifies an effort in that very direction. The Chinese side has put forward three principled ideas, the US side has reservations regarding the practical issues they may involve. In the practical issues troubling China-US relations, the core interests China has identified may inevitably come into conflict with the vested interests the US wants to preserve, the principle of mutual respect China advocates may contradict US hegemony in certain circumstances. Instead of evading it, we should take a pragmatic attitude to such differences.
The mega trend of the development of international relations demonstrates that, actively or passively, the US will eventually change its policy of hegemony. Whether the US can retain its hegemony in the long term will rest on developments of factors in two aspects. One is the cost of retaining hegemony, the other is the benefit of forsaking it. The US has been withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Obama administration decided American ground troops are not to intervene in the war in Syria, because the price is deemed too high, and the gains too little compared with losses. As the world enters an era of multi-polarization, US hegemony faces challenges from multiple aspects, of which the China-US relationship is only one important component. However, as long as the benefits of maintaining hegemony outweigh the corresponding cost, the US won’t spontaneously give it up.
To China, adhering to the path of peaceful rise means it will co-exist peacefully with US hegemony under certain conditions. That is why, among the three principled ideas China proposed for building a new-type China-US major-country relationship, “no confrontation” has become a basic consensus between the two parties. Likewise, “win-win cooperation”, as another principled idea, calls on both sides to gradually explore the path and form of its implementation, while as a goal of the overall relationship, it is an ideal goal for the future.
At the latest Bo’ao Forum for Asia, Dr. Henry Kissinger reiterated that China-US relations are a special kind, which are only to a certain extent consistent with the characteristics of the relationship between the rising power and incumbent power the “Thucydides’ Trap” refers to. The international relations background the specific concept of the “Thucydides’ Trap” requires doesn’t exist in current China-US relations. China has no intention to take the US’ place to become the world’s superpower.
China-US cooperation is of vital significance for international political order. He further proposed that spirit of the Shanghai Communiqué may also apply to the South China Sea issue. He believes what needs to be done is to find some fields for cooperation between short-term specific tactics and long-term strategic goals. This is in conformity with the basic idea of new-type major-country relationship.
As a response to the claim that China-US relations face the “Thucydides’ Trap” thanks to the challenge from China’s rise, China’s proposal was meant to indicate that China is unswervingly committed to its path of peaceful development, and believes China and the US can cultivate a state-to-state relationship featuring long-term peaceful co-existence against a new historical background. The concept of “new-type major-country relationship” is a typical Chinese characteristic, and it was coined to manifest a sincere political will and tremendous determination.
The logic behind the proposal is: China unswervingly adheres to the path of building a rich and strong country through peaceful development, which has already been evidenced by its development over the past few decades. Chinese history and cultural traditions uphold the philosophical ideal of harmony without uniformity, and its contemporary diplomacy has always centered around the principle of peaceful co-existence; Chinese and US interests have increasingly been bound together deeply and broadly over time, confrontation doesn’t conform to their fundamental interests; China-US cooperation is indispensable for peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific, and coping with global challenges of the 21st century. This is utterly different from all the big-power confrontations that had occurred in history. As two major countries, China and the US should and could transcend the divergences resulted from structural contradictions and work together to build a new type of relationship aimed at peaceful co-existence under new historical conditions.
At present, the most prominent challenge in our face is how to deal with the unprecedented complexity and uncertainty brought by the evolution of international order and major-country relations in a time of historical transition. For China-US relations, determined, correct command of the overall situation is of critical importance. The handling of strategic, sensitive issues of the present must all be considered in the context of the long-term development of China-US relations.
The two parties need to apply a certain kind of “macro management” to their strategic competition in the new era. Besides enhancing risk management and control in the military field, there is now a more imperative need of a stable framework oriented at future development of bilateral ties. At the same time, China-US strategic competition has become a significant problem concerning regional order in the Asia-Pacific. The future framework of China-US relations must be linked to jointly building regional order in the area, i.e. politically, making the establishment of the goal of pursuing peaceful co-existence in the region an important content of the construction of new-type relations. This is a main aspect of the two countries’ pursuit of mutually beneficial development, as well as their historical responsibility for peace, stability and development of the Asia-pacific.
No doubt jointly building a future regional order must be based on existing, actual relations. However, at such a turning point in history, both China and the US need to demonstrate the capability to think outside the box and the political sense of responsibility in conformity with the spirit of our time.
