Misgivings in Sino-US Relations … the Source of Deadlock?

The Correct Understanding of Sino-U.S. Relations Should Come Through the Looking Glass of Global Trends

Have Sino-U.S. relations reached a breaking point? China expert David W. Lampton put forth this very issue in May. It’s a question that has drawn white-hot attention from strategists, and one that many have attempted to answer. The general consensus marks 2010 as the year that tensions between the two sides suddenly and sharply began to mount. Even if Sino-U.S. relations don’t collapse, essential American policy has become increasingly slanted toward viewing China as a threat to America’s leadership role, while elite circles within China, as well as the people at large, view America as the primary obstruction to China’s rise to prominence on the world stage. The positive elements within Sino-U.S. relations have begun to erode, leading to the very real possibility that a head-on confrontation between the two powers may be drawing near.

Judging from the aforementioned, American strategists seemingly have severe misgivings about the development of Sino-U.S. relations, which means, basically, that they’ve taken a turn for the worse. Those who are truly China-savvy may be small in number, but their opinions should count for much, and their suggestions taken more seriously at the policymaking level. Of course, tall tales hyped by wild embellishment in the media are unavoidable, and much of it finds its roots in The Wall Street Journal, for example, the very telling title of David Shambaugh’s article, “The Coming Chinese Crackup.”

One must admit, American strategists’ worries are not unfounded. Starting from at least the beginning of this year, America has made gradual adjustments to its position of neutrality regarding sovereignty disputes made by China and its surrounding states, and incorporating the Diaoyu Islands into the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty clearly indicate a change in stance, not to mention its interference in the South China Sea dispute. Actually, some American officials have chosen not to go through the media, instead letting their actions speak for them; for example, dispatching additional troops, naval warships and aircraft to China’s border region. Important American think tanks have published reports advocating a change in policy toward China, and new strategies directed at China have been launched that are designed from the ground up to contain China’s burgeoning influence and to no longer help her rise. These actions speak volumes about how the American side has indeed changed its China policy.

Let’s face facts: America’s change in policy really began with the implementation of the “pivot to Asia.” All the recent discourse and action coming from the American side has just been about the actual implementation of the steps involved in this enormous strategic project. American strategist circles and China experts’ worries are simply a true reflection of the current state of affairs and future trends inherent in China-U.S. relations. Now that the winds of global trends are blowing, and the banners of American interests are waving, the hearts and minds of China experts are naturally moving right along with them. Writers are familiar with David Lampton and David Shambaugh, have read their works and respect the level of their personal achievements; however, they feel that even the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err, as it were. With regard to such a complicated animal as Sino-U.S. relations, now is not the time to use linear thinking and make any anchoring type judgments. Because if one wants to correctly familiarize oneself with China-U.S. relations and the trends in their development, it’s imperative to free one’s mind from the box of traditional bilateral Sino-U.S. relations and understand them from the perspective of worldwide developmental trends.

America’s “Two Ocean” Strategy; the Formation of an Economic Cartel

Why should we look at this from a worldwide perspective? In short, it’s because we are quickly marching into a pluralized world. For the past 100 years, America was the primary driving force behind a global system, represented by an advanced economy, with an ideological and political system that was very complete, possessing the largest scale financial resources, the strongest military force and the largest number of allies as well. It has wielded the U.S. dollar system and its ability to innovate technologically in the construction and maintenance of a global order, in addition to its wealth of power and experience in administering worldwide affairs.

Entering the 21st century, especially after the global financial crisis, America has entered the early stages of a period of regression and decline. No longer is it the heroic postwar champion of the world, America, or the global hegemon America that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The America of today is showing signs that its power is waning, like an old tiger that is feeble and decrepit but not completely used up. America is exhausting itself trying to prop up its position as the sole global authority, yet simultaneously facing an ever more pluralized world, whose code of conduct calls for the sharing of responsibility and diversification of power. It’s obvious that America hasn’t adapted yet.

Under a “supreme authority” structure that is difficult to sustain, America’s answer is a “two oceans” strategy, which makes North America the center of free trade, through the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, dubbed the TPP, as its two wings; respectively dominating the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. America envisions itself setting up a so-called “high-level economic partnership,” excluding the main bulk of emerging powers and the majority of developing nations, which can only indicate an end to the traditional global system and the acceleration toward pluralism.

Contradictions in American strategy stem from its wish to take on the two great oceans in its drive to devour Asia, in addition to the fact that in its desire to maximize its own interests — leaving no room for sharing — no one will partner with it, thereby making the “two oceans” strategy difficult to realize. Even if it were implemented, it would be unsustainable. Directing a country in the pursuit of maximizing its own interests is the core contradiction inherent within a capitalist world system, and it has led directly to America’s strategic paradox. A system that does not accommodate a pluralized world cannot possibly adapt to a world of plural systems. The “two oceans” strategy marginalizes Russia, China, India, Brazil and most of the developing world. Regardless of how strong America is, the “two oceans” scheme will, at most, become merely the prelude to a transitional period marking the development of pluralism.

The Deadlock in Sino-U.S. Relations: America’s Insistence on a World that Excludes Pluralism

For an America that has developed from the “supreme hegemon” to the “two oceans” strategy to admit, but not yet truly realize, pluralism, and to acknowledge the equal footing of other nations is indeed difficult to get used to. Having long held onto its supremacy, it is quite natural to feel reluctant to part with it, and America is obviously not prepared emotionally to see other nations as partners of equal status, and as a result, it is apt to regard rapidly developing nations as threats. In spite of the fact that China’s development does not threaten America per se, China’s rise is advancing the course of worldwide plurality, which has shaken up the world order that puts America in a position of dominance. Thus, regardless of how China explains that its development poses no threat, it is difficult not to be seen by America as a direct rival.

Once one is clear on this point, then the source of the deadlock in Sino-U.S. relations is located: Its own admission, yet rejection, of the world’s trend toward pluralism. If America acknowledged the existence of a plural world, only then could it truly accept China’s resurgence, only then could China and the U.S. have an equal foundation for association. Otherwise, the two will be forever locked into conflict and gradually drift apart. The recent provocation by an American spy plane in the South China Sea, along with CNN’s reporting of the matter, clearly indicate both America’s anxieties and arrogance toward China’s rise. The more America tries to exert military pressure on China, the more it will strengthen China’s resolve to resist this threat to her security, and quicken China’s and even the entire East Asian region’s economic, political and security “de-Americanization.”

It’s difficult to swim against the tide; China needs a concentration of strategy if it is to sit by and wait patiently for America to adapt to the trend toward pluralism that is transforming the world. To a China still recovering from the dizzying effects of her rapid industrialization, it’s best not to overestimate her own strength and to define her goal as a member of a pluralist world. Just like Lampton anticipates, America needs to reassess its leadership position in postwar Asia, while China needs to reassess the understanding of her own strength. In this manner it’s quite possible for America and China to achieve long-term harmony in the Asian region. It seems that if Sino-American relations were to follow emerging trends, only then would it be possible to dispel misgivings, reduce antagonism and maintain tranquility.

The author is a professor at Beihang University and is the director of the Center for Strategic Studies