Opposing Mutual Respect between China and US Is Classic Zero-Sum Thinking

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 21 March 2017
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yuzhi Yang. Edited by Christine Murrison.
When U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited China last week, he twice described the China-U.S. relationship as “non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation.” Because Beijing often uses this phrase to describe the new relationship between China and the U.S. as great powers, and because Tillerson was the first senior American official to seriously use this proposed [language], much attention was given to the occurrence.

Some scholars from Washington D.C. think tanks and the mainstream media have criticized Tillerson, claiming his speaking this way in China was a major “mistake,” that has allowed Beijing to gain a “diplomatic victory.” This reaction by some of the American elite is very surprising.

There are many differences between China and the U.S. Some Americans do not want to see mutual respect between the two countries; they believe America should not respect China’s core interests. It’s hard to prevent conflict between Beijing and Washington D.C. when it comes to core interests, but if “mutual respect” is not accepted as a fundamental principle, America is being very extremist.

If great countries refused to respect each other and only acted from their own interests, if they did not see non-conflict and non-confrontation as the bottom line, if they refused to consider win-win cooperation, and if they only maximized their interests, then how could anyone be in a relationship with such a country? Isn’t this classic zero-sum thinking?

Tillerson is not a lifelong politician, so he may have thought the words made a lot of sense when he first heard them. In fact, anyone not biased by preconceived notions would not be averse to this phrasing. Mutual respect and win-win cooperation have true universal value in this world. Someone who thinks there’s something aggressive behind this idea feels this way because they have diverged from the normal and common values of humankind. Their thinking has been alienated by the notion of “America First” so much that they do not know right from wrong.

When the Chinese heard Tillerson say this phrase, no one thought it equaled Washington D.C. making major diplomatic concessions. In fact, we have made thorough mental preparations for dealing with the Trump administration. It is gratifying to hear Tillerson’s speech and see how reasonable he seems; his expression is proactive for developing the two countries’ relationship and provides a better atmosphere for solving practical problems between the countries.

Beijing has never demanded that the China-U.S. relationship be the only medium for Washington D.C. to respect our core interests, and America should not fantasize about countries like China blindly obeying America. Mutual respect as a fundamental principle is inevitable; in fact, the two countries really need to discuss and adjust to each other so they can achieve mutual respect. The adjustment may include some friction, and ultimately any result will be mutually achieved and not unilaterally decided by Washington D.C. Whether or not America likes it, this is the reality.

China and the U.S. heading toward a new relationship between great powers may be predestined by history. If neither side could handle the fierce conflict and opposition and strayed from the path of mutual respect and win-win cooperation, what would happen to the two countries? What would happen to the world?

Some American elite are still so full of pride, and so terrified of any fairness between China and the U.S. Not only are they not following the shifting power trends between the two countries, they have also fallen behind the new age of globalization.

China is not purposely pursuing an equal relationship with America. China respects America’s advanced science and technology and its powerful combined strength. However, mutual respect is a principle we must insist upon. It would be wise for the American elite to try to walk in our shoes. If they were part of Chinese society, would they want to give up on asking America to respect China?

Taiwan, the South Sea, Northeastern Asia ... China and the U.S. have always left some room for the other over the years while trying to realize their own goals. We believe that this new relationship between great powers is already part of the reality between China and America. Some in America may not be accustomed to using someone else’s definition and want to insist on using their own language, but history will prove that developing this new kind of relationship between great powers is the only correct choice for China and the U.S. in the 21st century.


美国国务卿蒂勒森上周末在中国访问时,两次提出中美两国应当“不冲突不对抗、相互尊重、合作共赢”,由于北京在倡导发展中美新型大国关系时经常使用这一表述,蒂勒森是第一位也认真严肃表达这一主张的美国高官,这引起了广泛关注。

  华盛顿智库的一些学者和主流媒体这两天批评蒂勒森,称他在中国如此说话是犯了一个“大错误”,使北京赢得了“外交胜利”。美国部分精英的这一反弹非常令人吃惊。

  中美之间有诸多分歧,美国一些人不希望两国“相互尊重”,认为中国的核心利益美方不应予以尊重。涉及核心利益,北京与华盛顿难免有摩擦,但是连“相互尊重”作为一个原则都不予接受,这就很偏激了。

  大国之间,如果拒绝尊重彼此,一切以自我利益为中心,也不把不冲突不对抗当做底线,根本不考虑共赢,只想着自己单方赢得钵满盆盈,这样的话大国还能相处吗?这不是地地道道的零和思维吗?

  蒂勒森之前不是职业政客,他大概一接触到这14个字,会天然地觉得它们有道理。实际上,任何一个不被偏见先入为主的人,都不会对这14个字有所反感。相互尊重、合作共赢原则在这个世界上有着真正的普世价值,认为它们的背后藏着某种咄咄逼人的东西,这是因为批评者自己偏离了人类正常而普遍的价值观,他们的思维已经被美国中心主义异化到辨别不清是非曲直了。

  中国人在听到蒂勒森说这14字原则后,几乎没人认为这意味着华盛顿将做重大外交让步。我们对同特朗普政府打交道的艰难做了充分思想准备。但是蒂勒森这样说话所显示的通情达理还真的是让人欣慰,他的这一表达对发展两国关系是积极的,为两国解决具体问题营造了更好的氛围。

  北京从没有要求中美关系成为华盛顿单方面尊重我们核心利益的媒介,美方也不该幻想像中国这样的国家对它单方面“唯命是从”。中美相互尊重作为基本原则事实上越来越绕不开,双方需要探讨和磨合的恐怕是如何实现相互尊重。这样的磨合不排除包括一些摩擦,但结果一定是双方共同塑造的,而非华盛顿单方规定的。无论美方愿意不愿意,相信实际情形都将是这样。

  中美走向新型大国关系很可能是历史宿命,当中美各自都承受不了彼此激烈冲突和对抗的时候,不走相互尊重、合作共赢之路,两国又能怎么办,世界又如何是好?

  一些美国精英至今抱有严重的战略傲慢,生怕中美之间有一点“公平”,他们不仅没有跟上中美现实力量消长的趋势,也落后于这个全球化的时代。

  中国并不刻意追求与美国“平起平坐”,对美国科学技术的先进,以及对它综合力量的强大,我们都抱以尊重。但是相互尊重又是必须坚持的原则,美国精英们不妨换位思考一下,如果他们是中国社会的一部分,他们会放弃要求美国给予尊重的坚持吗?

  从台海到南海再到东北亚,这些年中美实际上都没有为实现自己的主张而不给对方留任何余地,我们认为,新型大国关系客观上已是中美之间的部分现实。美方一些人可能不习惯使用别人提出的定义,而喜欢坚持使用“自己的语言”。但历史终将会证明,发展新型大国关系是中美在21世纪的唯一正确选择。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

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

Topics

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Related Articles

Canada: Can We Still Trust American Intelligence?

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

Mexico: Traditional Terrorism vs the New Variety

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring