The Paradox of Sino-US Relations

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 28 January 2016
by Yang Xiyu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Fiona McAllister. Edited by Matthew Boyer.
One of the main goals of United States Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to China is believed to be focused around the pressure on China regarding sanctions on North Korea. A difference of opinion between China and the United States regarding the North Korean nuclear problem has been magnified recently, and the North Korean nuclear weapons test has given further rise to the impression that the two countries hold conflicting views. In reality, however, both countries are alike in their shared, firm opposition toward North Korea developing nuclear weapons — it is merely the method and tactics of sanctioning North Korea that has caused differences of opinion.

This situation could be regarded as a microcosm of the overall “paradox” of Sino-U.S. relations in recent years. Both countries are highly pragmatic, but in reality, when dealing with each other, both sides often forget their pragmatism and instead sink into philosophical arguments to such an extent that the more important issues get ignored. For example, China suggested that both countries respect each other's core interests, but the United States never mentions the words, "China's core interests”; just mentioning these words would be a recognition of China's request in this respect. The United States even intends to demonize every one of China's ideas. This is an immature way to handle relations with other powers — the U.S. is not focused on reality. Instead it is driven by, and even restricted by, its own concepts.

Despite this, there is still progress being made toward maturing Sino-U.S. relations. What does this mean? This means not allowing individual disagreements to sway overall Sino-U.S. relations. The stability of Sino-U.S. relations is not dictated by whether or not both sides agree or disagree, or by the number of disagreements between the countries; rather, it depends on how adept both sides are at compromising with each other, or at controlling their differences. The increasing maturity and pragmatism within Sino-U.S. relations is driven by both active and passive factors. The active factors are obvious: ever increasing cooperation between the United States and China; whether it pertains to bilateral trade, climate change, counterterrorism, etc., both sides are increasingly dependent on one another. But the passive factors are mainly issues to do with costs. To be frank, it is an argument that neither side can afford to lose.

Currently, the biggest problem within Sino-U.S. relations is that each other's interests are not observed. Neither side is used to acknowledging or considering each other’s interests. The United States has long been said to be in the “leading position” globally, but it never habitually considers the interests of other countries. On the other hand, the key point of China's proposition of “mutual consideration of each other's core interests” lies in the “mutual” aspect thereof; while we are busy complaining about America, we might want to acknowledge and consider the United States’ interests as well.

The essence of considering each other’s interests is sharing mutual interests from an equal level, and with an acceptance of limits. Sharing interests is just showing consideration for the other side; respect for the other side is at least required when interests are not shared. Sharing mutual interests is a necessary trend in the current wave of globalization, such as in the process of worldwide economic integration. More and more countries are habitually “sharing sovereignty” in order to push for even greater levels of integration. In this respect, the establishment and effective running of the Eurozone could be said to be the highest degree of international relations attained so far, and the most mature way of sharing mutual sovereignty and interests. By extension, the fates of communities all around the world are interdependent, and sharing the benefits of political security also appears to be increasingly both necessary and inevitable as each day passes. The “conservative power” of the United States and the “new power” of China ought to avoid the “Thucydides trap” — they should work together to achieve new levels of dedication to the establishment of a “new kind of power relations,” but they must strive to explore and generate the new concept of “sharing interests.” The greater the risk of potential conflict and sensitive situations occurring, the more we need to learn to responsibly respect each other's interests.

The world is ever more rapidly becoming a “global village,” this requires China and the United States to build a foundation of mutual respect and consideration for each other's core interests to allow for a new way to share common goals. Building the new kind of power relations is our strategic vision for Sino-U.S. relations, and it is worth great investment in order to achieve this goal. Neither China nor the United States can afford to linger around. Instead, both need to work even harder to build a pragmatic foundation.


杨希雨:中美关系的悖论

美国国务卿克里昨日访华,就对朝制裁问题向中国“施压”被认为是其主要目的之一。客观而言,目前中美在朝核问题上的分歧被放大了,形成一种朝鲜核试直接挑起了中美矛盾的观感。但事实上,两国在坚决反对朝鲜发展核武器问题上立场一致,只是在对朝制裁手段和策略方面有不同意见。
  这在很大程度上可以看成是过去中美关系“悖论”的一个缩影。两国各自文化都很务实,但在实际互动中很多时候却丢掉了务实的目标而陷入理念之争,以致对更重要的东西视而不见。例如中国提出中美相互尊重各自核心利益,但美国从来不提“中国核心利益”这个词汇,觉得一提就是承认中国的要求了。出于这个理由,美国甚至有意把中国所提概念妖魔化。这是一种处理大国关系不成熟的表现,美国并未完全从实际情况甚至自身利益出发,而是被其自己的概念驱使甚至束缚了。
  尽管如此,国际局势的现实发展还是推动中美关系逐渐迈向成熟。何谓成熟?就是不让个别分歧晃动中美关系全局。中美关系稳定与否不取决于双方分歧、矛盾的多寡,而取决于双方是否善于互做妥协或管控这些分歧。中美关系更加务实和成熟,基本动因既有积极因素也有消极因素。积极因素显而易见,那就是中美之间合作越来越多,无论在双边范畴的经贸领域还是应对气候变化、反恐等多边范畴的新增领域,双方相互依存度都在不断提升。而消极因素则主要是代价问题,说白了就是真闹翻了谁都输不起。
  目前中美关系中最大的问题是双方尚未形成成熟的相互让渡的利益观,双方对于对方利益的认知以及照顾对方利益的习惯远未形成。美国久居“领导地位”,从未形成照顾他国利益的习惯。另一方面,中国提出“相互照顾各自核心利益”的重点在于“相互”,当我们抱怨美国时,也要考虑认知和对等照顾到美国的利益。
  两个国家之间相互照顾核心利益,实质就是利益的相互让渡,即在平等基础上和可接受范围内,为换取对方照顾自己的利益而向对方让渡一定利益。让渡的部分就是照顾对方,没让渡的部分则需对方予以尊重。
  相互让渡利益是全球化历史潮流中各国和平共处的必然趋势。如在全球各地区的经济一体化进程中,许多国家越来越习惯于“主权让渡”,以便推动更高程度的一体化。在这方面,欧元区的创立和有效运行可以说是迄今国际关系中最高层次、最成熟的主权和利益的相互让渡模式。推而广之,在相互依存的世界命运共同体中,政治安全方面的利益相互让渡也日益显现出必然性和必要性。“新型大国”和“守成大国”的中美之间要想避免重蹈“修昔底德陷阱”,要想共同为人类做出前无古人的贡献而建立“新型大国关系”,就不能不探索和努力生成“相互利益让渡”的新观念,越是在敏感和存在冲突风险的问题上,越是要学会负责任地实现相互让渡利益。
  世界越来越迈向“地球村”,人类命运共同体已成为时代趋势,这需要中美在相互尊重和照顾对方核心利益的基础上创造两个大国间的新型利益让渡模式。建设新型大国关系是我们对中美关系的战略愿景,也是值得为之付出巨大努力的目标。为了实现这一目标,中美都不能只停留在表面,而应在更加务实的基础上作出努力。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Indonesia: Trump’s 19% Tariffs: How Should We Respond?

Thailand: Donald Trump Buys Time with Weapons for Kyiv

Australia: Donald Trump Made MAGA a Promise on the Epstein Files. They Are Holding Him to It

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Germany: Tariffs? Terrific!

Topics

Russia: The Issue of Weapons Has Come to the Forefront*

Colombia: How Much Longer?

Germany: Tariffs? Terrific!

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Related Articles

Poland: Putin’s Biggest Mistake — Will Trump Force Him to the Negotiating Table?*

France: Trump and the African Presidents: The Weight of Words, Shock of the Image

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future