China’s Response to America’s Cyclical Policy

Even though the relations between the United States and China have experienced some low points since the end of 2009, China still let the American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, dock in Hong Kong, and the American government also sent a high ranking official to visit China. Some scholars think that today’s apprehensive situation is not going to influence the overall development of the relations between the two countries.

For a long time, though, we have kept a consistent policy, and many scholars are obsessed with the “cooperation and harmony” policy towards America, which under certain circumstances has obvious weak spots that can cause backfires. On the surface, America seems to be actively responsive, but it is really pursuing a “harmony and resistance” cyclical policy toward China. [That is, sometimes America cooperates with China’s interests, and other times it resists China’s interests.] This policy, which is performed to interfere with China’s regular development, is difficult for China to cope with on a basic level, but causes no substantial damage to America. If these two countries continue the “Conflict, Confront, Alleviate, Restore” cyclical relations, it will hurt China’s interests in the long run. Under certain circumstances, China should break the rules of the game and end America’s unilateral control and management. In this way, China could end America’s cyclical policy toward China.

I will outline tough cyclical policies towards the bilateral relations from four aspects. First, in terms of foreign policy towards America, China should not actively interfere with America’s core interests. At the same time, China should not let America harm China’s core interests. Both sides should guarantee the biggest central interests of the other side. Second, according to the agenda-setting priorities and considerations for contact with America, one should emphasize friendly relations and peaceful stability for economic, social and cultural issues. However, when it comes to sticking to the hard-line on issues of national security, territory and sovereignty, there is no point in not causing trouble and being afraid of consequences. Third, in terms of the gradual process of development of relations with America, when America is good to our country, we will keep stable relations, but when America puts up a tough stance, we will not show any weakness. Fourth, according to America’s domestic political circumstances and negative attitude towards Chinese influence, we welcome cooperation and friendship as we look past misunderstandings and prejudice, but we stand firm against malicious intimidation and blackmail.

There is a thought-provoking phenomenon that happens in Sino-American bilateral relations: Every time America challenges the core interests of China, American society works to alleviate tensions as soon as China dares to show its strength and put pressure back on America, and relations actually become better. On the other hand, if China worries about the outcome and remains hesitant, America becomes arrogant and aggressive, refusing to be satisfied with any small gains.

Therefore, it is totally reasonable for China to keep a cyclical tough stance towards America. The crux of the matter is whether we have enough political will and patience. Some worry that this will adversely influence the relations with America, but these people are absolutely wrong. The purpose of a cyclical tough stance is not to totally break relations with America, but to make America truly become aware that it needs to re-acknowledge and revise its relations with China. America needs to understand that the former vague and equivocal policy towards China is no longer appropriate. China already possesses substantial deterring capabilities that it can use against America; it will not swallow the bitter pill that America has prepared for it.