Seeking the Path of Stabilization and Improvement in the Structural Pattern of Sino-US Relations

China and the U.S. have recently resolved the thorny Chen Guangcheng issue in a calm manner, displaying experience, stability and a spirit of magnanimity, thus preventing Beijing’s Strategic and Economic Dialogue from being held hostage by international interfering powers. Huanqiu [a Chinese news organization] published a commentary on May 3, the day that China and the U.S. began their dialogue, saying, “The U.S. needs to adjust its fundamental attitude towards China, and China has to understand the complex feelings of the Americans in the face of China’s rise.” This represented an attitude of arrogance and self-inflation.

On the same day, Renmin Ribao [“People’s Daily,” the newspaper published by the Communist Party] published an article written by a group of international commentators under the pseudonym of “Zhongsheng” (the sound of a bell) stressing “concrete cooperation.” The essay goes on to say, “The development of the Sino-U.S. relationship had never been smooth. There had been tumults in the midst of stability, conflicts arising while moving forward. This can even be said to be the normal state of the Sino-U.S. relationship.”

Such words reflected the inertia of fundamental realism and of a hope that peace would prevail between the two nations. This has no regard for the turbulence in the world today, as well as the fact that both China and the U.S. are speeding vehicles on the highway. I believe that the ideal development of the Sino-U.S. relationship should have the imposition of a harmonious co-existence in the multitude of affairs of the states. Conflicts, frictions and changes are normal matters in any developments. There is no need to be afraid of setbacks. It would be ideal if China and the U.S. were able to move in tandem.

The Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at Asia Society in New York, Orville Schell, believes that the two countries displayed a new kind of maturity in the Chen Guangcheng incident, untying a knot in a hard-nosed way. This expert on China likened China and the U.S. to a couple with differences in opinions, but unable to leave each other. We know that the typical American husband-wife relationship has always been progressing in conflicts and strengthening in setbacks. 　　

Stabilization and improvement within the structural pattern of the Sino-U.S. relationship must continually be sought to build an ideal Sino-U.S. relationship. This article shall explore this issue in three points. The first is to recognize that the reason why the Sino-U.S. relationship is complicated is basically because it has an opposing yet united structure, where there is an alignment of interests as well as differences in national affairs. There are two major aspects to this “alignment of interest.” First, both countries have their ideal civilizations. Second, both countries seek stability in global development. This is the basis of being able to move in tandem.

Third, the emphasis of “seeking commonality while allowing differences to exist” is on the “differences.” It is only by recognizing differences that one can work with them, and ultimately surpass and overcome these differences. The differences in national affairs between China and the U.S. have been shaped by history. The U.S. was born from the overthrowing of colonization through revolutions and wars, and global “refugees” have been political pillars before and after independence. The U.S. therefore has a tendency to be extroverted, to have compassion for sufferers in other countries and to like poking its nose in others’ affairs.

Since the 18th century, Britain and the U.S., two superpowers with the “same language and roots,” have been continually expanding the Anglosphere globally. The place of origin of its culture is in Europe, and it is the modern-day version of the nation-states induced by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

The so-called “nation-states” in Europe have nothing to do with ethnicities. They are simply an opposition to the rule of the Roman Catholic Pope and the consolidation of the generations of local authorities. The international relations of this “nation-states” world have only unending benefits and no unending friendships. On the one hand, Europe regards national boundaries as sacred. On the other hand, there had been endless border conflicts that culminated in the two World Wars.

The U.S., unqualified as it is to be called a “nation-state,” has ironically become the leader of the “nation-state” world. It has, however, advocated peace and development, as well as the balance of international powers. This has been described by Indian commentators as the secret U.S. hub-and-spokes regional security architecture of the “G-2” that is China and the U.S., with Asia as its hub.

China has always been uniting the world and did not extend its might outward. It had constantly been invaded from the outside but has maintained sustainable developments for thousands of years. After its rebirth in 1949, China entered the precarious world of “nation-states” without fear of anything.

As a united people that make up one-fifth of the world’s population, the Chinese have become a huge vault of modern economic dynamism that has caught up and surpassed the world’s only superpower within a short period of time. British scholar Martin Jacques predicted in his book, “When China Rules the World” that, China will become the world’s largest economy in 2027, but has said again in a recent article that this date may be brought forward to 2018. He praised China as a “civilized country” with a long history.

The U.S. is extroverted while China is introverted. The U.S. likes to mind others’ businesses while China likes peace and no troubles. Such a structure forms a yin-yang relationship. Only with the co-existence of yin and yang can there be a balanced world. Only when there are differences between the national affairs in China and the U.S. would the two nations strive for commonality.

Lastly, diplomatic initiative can be attained once a grasp on the structural pattern of the Sino-U.S. relationship has been achieved, where initiative can be taken to transform the structure of the Sino-U.S. relationship.

We should look at this issue dialectically. The Sino-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue is the Obama administration’s new invention. Not only was this dialogue absent in the past, no such mechanism existed between the U.S. and its allies, and therefore, it was natural that “the U.S. initiated the setting up of major agendas.” All these served to illustrate that when the U.S. had a request, China was happy to respond patiently.

When the news of the Chen Guangcheng incident got out, The New York Times said that people would pay more attention to Chen and nobody would be interested in the Sino-U.S. dialogue. The Chinese official quarters believed that such an incident was the main cause of the U.S.’s passivity. When Chen hid in the American embassy, the Obama administration was not able to make a stand, and its dialogue with China went awry. Leaving Chen alone would attract the chastising of the people. Obama would lose the presidential election if that were to happen.

Hillary Clinton arrived in Beijing ahead of schedule to get rid of this problem. After the U.S. ambassador to China, Gary Locke, had obtained the blind activist’s self-confession of “not seeking political asylum,” he sent Chen to the Chaoyang Hospital to continue his farce as if having sent away a god of plagues. (His words, “I want to see you,” to Hillary on the phone had been communicated erroneously as “I want to kiss you.”) This allows Obama to heave a sigh of relief.

Chinese pundits said that Locke’s “extra work beyond his duties” this time might have been a little superfluous. The entire incident had involved many “performers,” including those who had scrambled to be on American television, as well as the “dissidents” from mainland China who were seeking their own survival and development spaces in the narrow spaces that exist in the chasm between China and the U.S. This creates a “symphony” that involves both the Chinese at home and overseas.

Chen Guangcheng might be bringing his family along with him as he goes to New York University for his studies. The New York University Faculty of Law professor, Jerome Cohen (who had also been President Ma Ying-jeou’s teacher) had already known Chen. He said during a television interview that the fund for Chen’s scholarship came from the Chinese government. The benefit comes, after all, from a price one has paid.

With a careful study of the structure of the Sino-U.S. relationship to seek out its pattern, the many Cold War-style exchanges in public discourses could be avoided. With less of a Cold War atmosphere in the Chinese discourses, America would be able to enjoy a bit more warmth. The U.S. is a nation that disputes over trifles, and when its politicians are not able to hold on to power, they would become “dissidents.” This should not disrupt China’s sleep. In fact, a little more noise and tit-for-tat would imbue more liveliness into the imposition of a harmonious co-existence in the multitude of affairs in the relationship of the two states.