A 'New Type of Great Power Relationship'?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 16 July 2013
by Pei Yuanying (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Leonard Fung. Edited by .

Edited by Lydia Dallett

 

The widely observed fifth round of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue concluded a few days ago. This round of talks reveals that although some progress has been made toward establishing a mutual understanding on a new type of great power relationship, significant differences between the two nations have yet to be overcome.

What does "a new type of great power relationship" mean? The basic meaning is no conflict and no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. "New" refers to no conflict and no confrontation; it calls to mind the concept's main goal of avoiding the conflict, confrontation and wars that characterized traditional great power relationships. "Mutual respect" refers to respect for each other's territorial sovereignty and other core interests as a necessary precondition for the idea to succeed. "Win-win cooperation" refers to mutually beneficial interaction based on mutual trust, which is the optimal path for developing and maintaining a new type of great power relationship.

Based on the latest round of dialogue, it appears that the U.S. understands but does not completely accept this concept. At a prior leadership summit, Obama had expressed that although the U.S. and China are very important countries, the concept of a "new type of great power relationship" has not been used. It can be said then, that Obama's formal affirmation of the formulation during this round of talks represents a measure of progress. In addition, 91 agreements were concluded on matters of strategic security, energy and environment, economy and trade, military exchanges and eight other areas. Although most of these were only declarations of intent, their significance to bilateral relations going forward should not be underestimated. China and the U.S. have many shared economic interests and interdependencies, which gives the nations a shared language and has enabled discussions to visibly bear fruit in areas such as energy, climate cooperation and investment agreements.

However, America's lack of trust toward China is still apparent, for example in its stance on high-tech exports, where it is showing less flexibility than before. There is also ambiguity and a feeling of disrespect in America's attitude toward China's core interests. On the matter of cybersecurity, it continues to make groundless accusations toward China; on the Snowden affair, not only has it not provided the required explanations, it has falsely accused China of letting Snowden escape.

The dual nature of America's attitude is not incidental, but rather consistent with the current nature of Sino-U.S. relations and the United States’ basic policy on China. The first aspect of this is the contradiction between China's peaceful development and America's hegemony. Although America understands that China has neither the power nor the political intention to threaten it, the rapid rise in China's strength will inevitably pose a challenge to its hegemony (at this stage, primarily in the western Pacific region). America sees China as its primary rival, whose rise must be contained in order to mitigate the risk of having its hegemony challenged. This is the basis of America's containment policy and Sino-American competition.

The other aspect of America's attitude is the high degree of mutual interdependency, which stands in contrast to U.S.-Soviet relations during the Cold War, and is not only limited to economic matters. If contradictions are allowed to fester and frictions escalate to direct conflict, not only would the gains from mutual interdependency fail to materialize, the losses to both sides would be something no one wishes to see. Since both countries are in the same boat in this regard, America too has been calling for increased cooperation. This is the basis of America's engagement policy and Sino-American cooperation. In the face of this duality, the optimal path is to manage our differences and step up win-win cooperation. Such is also the foundation for the new type of great power relationship between China and America.

It should be noted that there is an overbearing attitude of "I'm the boss" and an exclusive consideration of U.S. interests that lingers, [indicating that] a kind of Cold War logic still occupies an important place in U.S. policy. This constitutes the biggest obstacle to the new type of great power relationship. It should also be recognized that reaching consensus and implementing it in practice are not the same thing. Building a new type of great power relationship between China and the U.S. will be a long process, one that will require plenty of strategic patience, deep political wisdom and excellence in the art of struggle and courage.

The author is the former Chinese ambassador to India and former Director of Policy Research at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


裴远颖:中美“新型大国关系”的最大障碍

为世界舆论广为关注的第五轮中美战略与经济对话,已于日前结束。回顾这轮对话可以看出,落实两国首脑达成的关于建立新型大国关系共识固然取得了一定程度的进展,但两国分歧依旧,要真正确立这种关系还有很长的路要走,可谓任重道远。

  何谓新型大国关系?其基本含义是:不冲突不对抗,互相尊重,合作共赢。“不冲突、不对抗”是新型大国关系的“新”之所在,是新型大国关系同传统 大国关系本质区别,是指前者不会像后者那样走向冲突、对抗、冷战甚至热战,这是建立新型大国关系的主要目标。“互相尊重”,即尊重对方的领土主权等核心利益,这是确立新型大国关系的前提和必要条件。“合作共赢”,即在互信基础上互利互动,这是维系和发展新型大国关系的最佳途径。

  从这轮对话的过程看,美方对这一认识并没有完全认可。奥巴马在首脑会晤时曾表示,美中两国非常重要,但并没有使用过“新型大国关系”这个概念。 这次对话中,美方正式肯定“新型大国关系”这个提法,可说是一个进步。在双边关系方面,双方就战略安全、能源环保、经济贸易、军事交往等8个方面达成91项成果,虽然大部分是意向性的,但其对于今后两国关系发展的意义不可小觑。中美之间经济利益交汇之点甚多,相互依赖的程度也高,因此共同语言最多,对话成果也最为明显,如能源、气候合作、商讨启动双边投资协定谈判等。但美方对于中国缺乏信任的态度仍相当明显。如在高科技产品出口问题上,同以前比较没有实质性的松动。对中国核心利益的态度,有的模糊,有的照搬原来的说法,有的没有表现出“尊重”之意。在网络安全问题上,继续对中国进行无根据的攻击:关于斯诺登事件,美方不仅没有作出必要的解释,反而倒打一耙,蛮横无理地指责中国放走斯诺登。

  美方这种两面性态度不是偶然的,而是同中美关系现状及美国对华基本政策相一致的。中美关系有两重性。一方面,中美之间存在一个难以调和的矛盾, 即中国的和平发展与美国霸权的矛盾。无论从中国的实力还是从中国的政策看,中国不可能威胁美国,这一点美国自己也很清楚,但是,在美国看来,中国实力的迅速提升势必会对美国的霸权(现阶段主要是在西太平洋区域的霸权)构成挑战。美国认为,中国是主要对手,必须遏制中国的崛起,降低霸权受到挑战的风险。这是美国“遏制”政策的来由,也是中美“竞争关系”的依据。另一方面,与冷战时期的美苏关系不同,中国与美国之间,相互依存度很高,而且不仅限于经济领域。如果听任矛盾的发展,摩擦升级,甚至发生冲突,那么双方不但不能从相互依存中获利,而且会导致大家都不愿见到的两败俱伤的后果。因此,美国也呼吁加强合作, “同舟共济”。这是“接触”政策的来由,也是中美”合作关系”的依据。面对这种两重性,只有管控分歧、扩大合作、互利共赢,才是最好的出路。这是中美两国达成建立新型大国关系、争取合作共赢的基础。

  应该看到,“以我为主”的霸道逻辑、以美国单方面的利益为判断是非标准、挥之不去的冷战思维,仍然在美国外交政策中占有重要地位,这是建立新型大国关系的最大障碍。应当认识到,达成共识与付诸实施不是一回事,建立、确立和发展两国新型大国关系是一个长过程,这里需要的是足够的战略耐心, 深邃的政治智慧、高超的斗争艺术和勇气。(作者是我国前驻印大使、前外交部政研室主任)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Cuba: The First Casualty

Germany: Horror Show in Oval Office at Meeting of Merz and Trump

Hong Kong: From Harvard to West Point — The Underlying Logic of Trump’s Regulation of University Education

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Topics

Germany: Horror Show in Oval Office at Meeting of Merz and Trump

Hong Kong: From Harvard to West Point — The Underlying Logic of Trump’s Regulation of University Education

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Germany: US Sanctions against the EU

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Previous article
Next article