The US Is Reaping What It Has Sown in the South China Sea. Is There a Way Out?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 10 August 2016
by Wu Zurong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Alex Harper. Edited by Rachel Pott.
The U.S. and China are comfortable with the critical and influential roles they play in the international sphere, and domestic and international public opinion has always attached a large importance to the nature and positioning of their relationship; but opinions on this relationship vary widely. Recently, because the U.S. has been creating a tense situation in the South China Sea with its repeated actions and demonstrations of military strength, China has responded strongly against it. Though the situation is currently passive, both sides continue to toy with the thought of raising the stakes. When U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice visited China, she re-affirmed that “there is no more consequential bilateral relationship than the U.S.-China relationship.” Secretary of State John Kerry has stated that the U.S. does not hold a viewpoint on the South China Sea arbitration case (a false statement that no one believes). All of this makes it seem as if another layer of fog has been added to the already considerably complicated U.S.-China relationship. After all is said and done, how should one understand and characterize the U.S.-China relationship? Many people are pondering this question.

Some people think the U.S. and China are bound together for better or for worse, but those who agree with this viewpoint are few in number. On the day of the U.S.-China Track II Dialogues, the well-known U.S. expert, Harry Harding, said he feels the U.S.-China relationship is one of part enemies and part friends, or that we aren’t enemies but also aren’t friends. A few years ago, while speaking on the U.S.-China relationship, Robert Zoellick said China is “a stakeholder of great importance.”* The first time President Obama visited China, he said the U.S.-China relationship was the world’s “most important bilateral relationship.”** It seems as though these descriptions do not quite fit. Harding is much more pragmatic and has a clear opinion, but it appears he emphasizes the relationship between “enemies” and “friends” too much. Zoellick is a representative of the U.S. government and attaches importance to the U.S.-China relationship, but it seems he is downplaying the gravity of the situation. As for Obama, his words hold considerable weight, but the U.S. neoconservative school of thought perhaps does not approve of his viewpoint. Furthermore, perhaps, he has forgotten that China’s leader has said in the past that the U.S.-China relationship is “one of the world’s most important bilateral relationships.” A few years ago, the American strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski said the U.S.-China relationship is a “mutually dependent relationship,” but also that it is an “uncomfortable mutually dependent relationship.”** This statement is closer to reality and is still worth considering. He never explained why the relationship is “uncomfortable,” but everyone already knows why.

A well-known China expert, Mr. David Shambaugh, put it this way in one of his articles: “I have carefully studied and tracked the U.S.-China relationship through two centuries and found a repeating (unchanging) pattern: The U.S. has a missionary-like impulse to use its own image as a template to transform China, but each attempt always ends in failure.”** First of all, the U.S. doesn’t understand China’s current complex national condition. Furthermore, China refuses to comply with the aspirations of the United States. In my understanding, the blame for problems between the two countries should be put on the U.S. and its unrealistic hopes, not China.

What Mr. Shambaugh said merits the consideration of U.S. neoconservatives. I would like to add that not only is the U.S.-China relationship uncomfortable, it is also extremely unwell. The sticking point lies with America’s attitude: It simply cannot accept being number two and wants to lead the world forever. It ignores mighty historical currents that change with the times. These shifts do not occur as a result of people’s subjective willpower. Renowned expert David M. Lampton was correct in saying that after all is said and done, it is the U.S. that needs to reconsider the issue of its leadership role.

The author is a former Chinese APEC high official and former foreign ambassador.

* Editor’s Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be verified. A similar statement was made by Zoellick in 2011, when he said, “China is a vital but reluctant stakeholder.”

** Editor’s Note: These quotes, though accurately translated, could not be verified.


由于中美各自在国际上举足轻重的地位和影响,对中美关系的性质和定位,一直以来,国内外舆论都十分重视,但众说纷纭。近来,由于美国在南海制造紧张局势,动作频频,甚至耀武扬威,引起中国强力反制,处境被动,又继续玩弄“两面下注”把戏,派重臣赖斯访华,重申“美中关系是世界上最重要的双边关系”;克里国务卿还表示,美国在“仲裁案”问题上“不持立场”(鬼才相信!)。这一切,都使本已相当复杂的中美关系好像又多了一层“迷雾”。到底该如何认识和定位中美关系?很多人都在思考。

有人认为,中美早已是“一荣俱荣,一损俱损”的关系。这一观点应者寥寥。在中美日“二轨对话”期间,美国知名专家何汉理认为,中美关系可以说是 “亦敌亦友”,或 “非敌非友”。几年前,佐利克在谈到中美关系时曾说,中国是“利益攸关方” 。奥巴马总统第一次访华时还说,中美关系是当今世界“最重要的双边关系” 。这些,似乎都不太贴切。何汉理此人比较务实,也很有见地,但他似乎太强调 “敌”与“友”关系了;佐利克是美国官方代表,他重视中美关系,但似乎也太轻描淡写了。至于奥巴马,他的话很有分量,但美国新保守主义理想家們可能不会认同他的观点,另外,他好像忘记了中国领导人说的是:中美关系是当前“最重要的双边关系之一”。美国战略家布热津斯基几年前似乎说过,中美是“相互依存关系”,但这是“不舒服的相互依存关系”。此话好像比较接近实际,现在仍有参考价值。他没解释为什么“不舒服”,但众人皆知是“为什么”。

我注意到,美国知名专家沈大伟先生在一篇文章中是这么说的:我曾仔细研究并追踪两个世纪以来的中美关系,并发现了一个重复(不变)的规律:美国有一股如传教士般的冲动,希望以自己的形象为模板改变中国,但每次都以失败收场。首先,美国不了解中国复杂的国情,而中国也拒绝遵从美国的意愿。依我的见解,问题要归咎于美国本身和其不切实际的期望,而非中国。

沈大伟先生说的,值得美国新保守主义理想家們思考。我想补充的是:中美关系不舒服、甚至很不舒服,症结还在于,美国“决不做老二”和“还要领导世界一百年”的心态。他们忽视了时代变迁的历史潮流浩浩荡荡,是不以人们主观意志为转移的。知名专家蓝普顿说的没错:归根到底,还是美国需要重新考虑它的主导权问题。(作者是前中国APEC高官、前驻外大使)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

Taiwan: Taiwan’s Leverage in US Trade Talks

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Topics

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

Canada: Can We Still Trust American Intelligence?

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

Mexico: Traditional Terrorism vs the New Variety