Sino-U.S. Quarrel: The Rocky Road Ahead

Published in Takungpao
(China) on 3 March 2010
by Zhao Lingbin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Crystal Jin. Edited by Alex Brewer.
To a certain extent, it was a historical inevitability that a Sino-US fight would become intense. But why did China take a tough stance in 2009 on its 60th anniversary? It needs to be explained. As Peng Dingkang asked in his article, is China showing off its strength too early? As for what this means in the broader scope of things, one can only guess. There isn’t enough information to make a judgement.

Growing Strength Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Hardball

China is growing in strength fast and couldn’t play tough otherwise. Although China needs strength to play tough, it does not need to act tough just because it has strength. Choosing the right moment to be tough is affected by consequences and strategy: For example, how fierce will the conflict be? How long will it last? What sort of method is necessary? etc. All of these questions cannot be answered until after the fact. Sino-U.S. relations will not be totally controlled by either side, as can be expected. The Cold War between America and the Soviet Union went on for half a century; a Sino-U.S. “war” could last longer. At the same time, most predictions are that a Sino-U.S. “war” would go on, but not really break out. Because of a close economic relationship, a Sino-U.S. relationship will not function like U.S.-Russia one. China would not compete with America for the global hegemony and ideology like the Soviet Union did.

Although a Sino-U.S. conflict would not cause a war to break out, there would be a change in the relationship. As for the strength, historically there has been a large gap between China and America, causing China to compromise in many ways as to maintain a relevant balance in the relationship. This balance is about to be broken and a new balance more suitable for the current climate will emerge. China refused a G2 relation with America where America calls the shots, but it may accept a new G2 relationship based more on equality. This could become a dialogue platform for the West and the newly emerging economic area. However, it is inevitable that there will be bumps along the road, but hopefully they will not be too bad.

Many critics, including Ferguson, a professor of history, warned that there has always been some sort of shakeup during significant historical turns. For example, a post-American world would change the world order from single-polar to multi-polar. There would be a rough transition as the new power, a country like China, assumed its new role. The most dangerous part of such a transition is that as America would be declining economically, it would still be the world’s strongest military power. America might carry out military activity to maintain its staggering hegemony. Soros once said that if America’s resuscitation failed, it might take military action.

Preventing America’s Military Suppression

Naturally, China has tried to protect itself from America. America’s suppression strategy toward China is highly military based: During recent years, America has been continuously strengthening its West Pacific military and has carried out new military construction coupled with an Air-Sea Battle Plan. Of course CCP believes that power grows from the barrel of the gun, so anti-military suppression is always met with strong resistance. For example, it has invested large sums of money in developing its new ace weapons in order to shock others and to prevent America from really carrying out its military suppression plans.


中美爭鬥不破中有破

趙令彬

2010-3-3

中美鬥爭強化有歷史發展階段的必然性(本欄3月2日),但中國為何在2009建國60周年時轉趨強硬則仍待解釋,正如彭定康文章所指:中國顯露實力是否早了點(本欄3月1日)?對於歷史大趨勢下的具體變動,乃必然性中的偶然性問題,因未有足夠信息來判斷,只能作推理猜測。

實力提升非必強硬

中國實力大幅提升是強硬的物質基礎,無此便硬不起來,但這只是強硬的必須而非足夠條件:無需要時有實力也不會強硬。時機的選擇也會受觸發性因素影響,這在日後或會漸趨明朗。此外,今後中美爭鬥的具體發展軌跡亦難預料:會有多激烈,時間多長,和採取什麼形式等,都要由歷史作答。軌跡也未必是中美各自可以完全控制者,情況或會出乎兩國意料之外。冷戰時美蘇鬥了約半個世紀,中美鬥爭或許也會有較長時間。同時,一般評論都認為中美兩國將鬥而不破:由於經濟及其他關係密切,故不可能走向美蘇對峙般的全面敵對狀態,特別是中國無意如蘇聯般與美國爭奪全球霸權,和在意識形態上一決高下。

但筆者認為鬥爭在不破中也有破,在新歷史形勢下不可能一成不變。過去中美實力對比強弱懸殊,中國在許多方面不得不忍讓一下,從而形成一種中美關係的相對平衡。但現時這種舊平衡將要被打破,新產生的平衡將要符合中美實力日益接近的新現實。中國拒絕了由美國說了算的G2,將來或許會形成能在中美間較平等協商的G2,而這還將成為西方與新興經濟兩大陣營間的對話平台。當然,在舊到新的平衡轉移過程中難免有震盪,只希望其烈度不會太強。

許多論者包括歷史學家弗格遜教授等,都警告在重大歷史轉折期如後美國時代開始時,全球在新舊秩序交替中會出現動盪,由單極走向多極時或會陷入無極時代,特別是當美國的掌控全球能力衰退時,而新興勢力尤其中國未有意願及能力接替。更為危險者是,當獨霸的美國眼看全球的經濟金融及政治霸權沒落,但仍保有全球最強的軍力時,或會進行軍事冒險,妄圖以此來挽救垂危的霸權。索羅斯便曾就此提出警告,指如美國復蘇不繼或會有鷹派搞事。

須防美國軍事遏制

中國對此自然亦早有警覺,並積極防範美國鋌而走險。美國的遏制中國政策早有軍事部署一環:近年不斷加強西太平洋軍力及基地(如關島)建設,最近還提出了新的海空戰力計劃。當然,中共領導深明「槍桿子出政權」的道理,故軍事反遏制從來都享受優先對待,如不惜大手投資於「撒手鐧」武器的研製,目的是要起震懾作用,防止美國藉故生事,把軍事遏制由部署變為行動。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Donald Is Disappointed in Vladimir

Austria: If This Is Madness, There is a Method to It

Canada: No, the Fed Was Not ‘Independent’ before Trump

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Germany: Donald Trump’s Failure

Topics

Austria: Donald Is Disappointed in Vladimir

Austria: If This Is Madness, There is a Method to It

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Germany: Donald Trump’s Failure

Canada: No, the Fed Was Not ‘Independent’ before Trump

Spain: State Capitalism in the US

Mexico: Urgent and Important

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Related Articles

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Spain: State Capitalism in the US

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands