Sino-U.S. Relationship Not Necessarily “Mature”

Published in Global Times
(China) on 26 July 2010
by Ni Lexiong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Qu Xiao. Edited by Sam Carter.
The Global Times has published two reports in which the authors debated whether the Sino-U.S. relationship has reached maturity. In fact, the two reports just talked about the same thing from different perspectives and treated the word “maturity” with different connotations, so in fact there are no conflicts in viewpoint between them. Yan Xuetong, the author of one of the reports, saw the inequality and the harm to the national interest from the “maturity” of the Sino-U.S. relationship, and Sun Peisong, the author of the other report, speculated that both parties would make compromises based on their own national strength for the greater good.

If we take the word “maturity” to have many different connotations, the word is just a hodgepodge that may mean anything, and the future of the Sino-U.S. relationship will be unpredictable, mixed with hope and despair. Therefore, to say that there is a crisis lurking underneath the “maturity” of the Sino-U.S. relationship is not an overstatement.

To solve the potential crisis, we need first to understand it. Granted, the pursuit of the national interest depends on the national strength, but it’s not the only definitive factor, as the self-recognition of the national identity, to a certain extent, also plays an important role. China is rising up at an amazing speed, and her national identity is changing fast. Consequently, the pursuit of its national interest is changing and expanding correspondingly. Will America face China's change and adapt to her new identity in time? Will America satisfy China’s pursuit of national interest, which is changing and growing continuously?
  
The self-recognition of the national identity sometimes can be dangerous. If a country makes a false self-recognition, its efforts in pursuing the national interest will be in vain — whether by setting the goal at an unattainable level or by turning a blind eye on the easy ones — and when this happens, danger will be right behind. Earlier, an organization ranked China’s military power as second in the world. This false recognition pushed China to the edge of a dangerous situation. Take, for example, the South China Sea issue, which had been shelved in the past decade, but now, with all the talk about China’s national strength soaring and rising up quickly, China has to keep an accordingly high profile and make her stand clear to the outside world: The South China Sea concerns the core interest of China. Why? Because the recognition of the national identity decides which interests will be pursued. Rising up means that I have a say, more or less, in what happens to territories not belonging to me, and of course, I have the right to claim my own territory. Therefore, China has put high pressure on herself due to the overly fast change of identity, and like China, the U.S. will be slow to respond to these changes.

Thus, with issues like the South China Sea, there are potential military crises behind the bright perspective of the “more mature” relations between China and America. Why hold military exercises from time to time? A military exercise needs an imaginary enemy. Regular and repetitious military exercises are used to revise established battle plans, from macro-level strategic control to micro-level tactical details. Before World War I, the General Staff Headquarters of Germany had been brewing the Schlieffen Plan since 1891. By 1914, the war broke out, and there had been numerous military exercises in which the Germans had worked their battle plan to perfection. Thus, going from an imaginary enemy to an actual one is an important step toward a real war, and the continuous military exercises, as opportunities to revise the battle plan, are also an indispensable link in the process toward war.

Of course, there's no need to be too pessimistic. The tendency to start wars between the two countries has been held back by the restrictions posed by nuclear weapons and the global economic integration, which is considered to be an unprecedented factor to boost world peace. On one hand, China and America are busy preparing for the potential war in case one of them finally crosses the line; on the other hand, they keep developing a highly dependent relationship with each other, with each being serious about its future directions toward war and peace. This, I’m afraid, is the situation of the Sino-U.S. relationship at present. Whether the two countries will walk toward conflict or confrontation will depend on cooperation between the two powers.



《环球时报》接连刊出两篇文章,各自表达了对中美关系是否成熟的不同看法。其实是各自谈各自的问题,并不构成观点上的冲突,因为大家各自给“成熟”一词预设了各自的内涵、各自的视角。阎学通先生在“成熟”里看出了不平等和国家利益受损;孙培松先生在“成熟”里看到双方会根据实力情况,容忍退让,力求和谐。


  如果不预设内涵,形容中美关系的“成熟”一词就 成了无所不包的大杂烩,内容远远超过阎、孙所提供的, 从这种现实发展出来的前景也是希望和绝望相互绑架,难以预测。所以说 “成熟”中潜伏着危机并非耸人听闻。


  要想化解潜在危机就需先认识危机。诚然权力决定利益诉求,但利益诉求不仅仅由权力来决定,很大程度上由身份的自我认同来决定。中国正在迅速崛起,身份处于快速变化中,由于身份认同的不断变化,利益诉求也处于不断变化和扩大中,美国会及时承认和适应中国的身份变化吗?会及时满足中国不断变化和扩大的利益诉求吗?


  国家身份的自我认同本身就充满了风险。一旦认同失误,要么会追求能力无法达到的目标,要么忽略能够到手的利益,危机就会不期而至。早些时候,权威单位评估中国军事实力位居世界第二,这就十分危险。举个例子,过去十年里,南海问题被搁置起来,但眼下中国国力大增、崛起之声不绝于耳,于是现在对外表示:南海是国家核心利益。为什么要这么做呢?因为“身份认同界定国家利益”,崛起意味着原来不是我的地方都要去,何况原来是我的地方怎能放弃?因此,身份变化过快的中国会日益感到压抑,反应迟钝的美国同样会日益感到压抑。


  因此,中美关系越来越“成熟”的前景中还包含潜在的军事危机。为何要定期军事演习呢?有军事演习就一定有确定的假想敌。 定期的、反复的军演就是对已经制订的作战计划、从宏观战略统筹到微观战术细节进行不断的校验。第一次世界大战前,德国总参谋部的“施里芬计划”从1891年开始制定,到1914年战争爆发,20年期间德军举行了无数次大小军演,最终完善之日也是德国开战之时。所以,从没有假想敌到有假想敌是走向战争过程的一个重要环节,而不断的军演又是对作战计划的不断修正和完善,也是走向战争不可缺少的环节。


  当然也不用太悲观,“成熟”的 内涵里还有核武器的制约、世界经济一体化趋势等和平力量史无前例地出现了,一定程度上对支配中美关系中战争的传统惯性力量有很大遏制。一方面为对方万一突破自己容忍底线的战争做准备,一方面进行高度相互依赖关系的建设,而且在战争与和平两个方向上都是认真的。这恐怕就是中美两国目前的现状,中美走向冲突还是合作取决于两股力量的对决.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

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

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Israel: Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias: Congress Opens Investigation into Wikipedia

Poland: Marek Kutarba: Donald Trump Makes Promises to Karol Nawrocki. But Did He Run Them by Putin?

Austria: The US Courts Are the Last Bastion of Resistance

       

Topics

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Guatemala: Fanaticism and Intolerance

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

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