US Pursues Decoupling; China Should Do the Opposite

Mao Zedong said, “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports,” and “We will not attack unless we are attacked; if we are attacked, we will certainly counter-attack.” Mao’s remarks are highly relevant in the current game between China and the U.S. (including cross-strait relations.)

A century of change has seen growing turmoil and conflict that continue to grow more complex and intense in the international arena. For a variety of reasons, the United States, in particular, is now tending toward polarization and confrontation in both its domestic and foreign policies, directed not only at China, but as an issue of “cultural decoupling.”

There has been considerable recent research into pathological behavior by the United States, especially its decoupling from China in various fields (or “de-Sinicization”) as well as the complex background and root causes of these actions. Here, I want to share some basic thoughts on how China should respond to “decoupling” (especially “cultural decoupling”) by the United States.

First, both sides need to adjust their basic strategic perception. As the largest developing and developed countries in the world today, China and the United States are also the largest socialist and capitalist countries, and they are also the largest representative countries of Eastern and Western civilization. China and the U.S. inevitably have cultural differences, contradictions and disagreements. Recently, America’s misconceptions about China have exacerbated these complexities, making “cultural” decoupling more likely than decoupling in trade, science and technology because it is more likely to be susceptible to political, institutional, ideological and other factors. Although you can divide these issues into non-negotiable “principled elements” like fundamental structures, and “non-principled elements” like common cultural and educational exchanges, the United States’ overly politicized outlook has conflated these issues. Donald Trump’s reelection would make this even worse.

But if both China and the United States agree that even here they can stick to the idea of “harmony despite differences,” enforcing a “friend not foe” relationship and taking the idea that “harmony is precious, stability is critical and trust is the foundation” as their guide, then the countries can resolve such contradictions fairly easily. Because China and the United States are both in a new era of peace and development, both stand to gain the most. The balance of power between the two, the close interdependence of interests and the high degree of shared risks between the U.S. and China mean cooperation is the only correct choice. Therefore, we can only accept and respect each other despite any differences. This is the only way forward for China-U.S. relations, and it is the first principle that both sides have to face in this game of decoupling or cooperation.

Second, how should China respond when the U.S. makes excessive or provocative moves to decouple? At this point, there are generally two options: One is to “do unto others as they would do to unto you,” or adhere to the principle of “an eye for an eye.” The other is to do the opposite.

Here, I would recommend two excerpts from Mao’s 1939 conversation with reporters from the Central News Agency, Sao Tang Pao and Xin Min Bao. “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports,” he said. Mao was citing General Zhu Fu of the Eastern Han Dynasty in a letter to the governor of Yuyang, Peng Chong, which was meant to say, “Whatever you do, you must be sure that you do not sadden your friends and gladden your enemies.” He emphasized that the “words express a clear-cut political principle which we must never forget.” This famous language not only clearly sets out the political principle of “do the opposite” but also embodies the message of “don’t cause pain to friends and delight to enemies.”

However, Mao also said something else. “If anyone persists in using violence against us, tries to bully us and resorts to repression … [we] will have to take a firm stand.” Our attitude is that we will not attack unless we are attacked; if we are attacked, we will certainly counter-attack. He added that we should not “go beyond the principle of self-defense.” This famous language articulates the consistent bottom-line mindset of the Chinese people.

In my view, Mao’s words are part of an approach that reconciles opposites and complements each other. They are appropriate for the current state of play between China and the United States (including cross-strait relations).

Specifically, while the United States is clamoring to decouple, we are determined to cooperate. The same applies to cross-strait relations. This is because decoupling would cause pain to friends and delight to enemies, while cooperation is in everyone’s interest.

Our enemies want to promote the destruction of friendly relations and in-depth exchange between Chinese and American people and interfere with the integration and development of the two sides of the [Taiwan] Strait as well as the spiritual harmony of its people; to oppose whatever the enemy supports. Sometimes if things go too far, we have to take a firm stand and react sternly; use hard and soft measures to put them back on the right track.

Today, China stands taller, sees further and has greater strength, resolve and a broader vision than in the past. The Chinese government recently integrated domestic and foreign affairs into its broad development program of building a common destiny for humanity. The sea accepts all rivers and there is harmony because of such tolerance. This is not only what we can historically conclude from China’s endurance through thick and thin over the past several thousand years. It is also the clarion call of the current trend for peaceful development and cooperation and for the welfare and common interest of all peaceful people. We should therefore have enough strength and self-confidence to overcome all kinds of obstacles and interference, including decoupling and move toward our objectives.

The author is a current affairs commentator for Shenzhen Media Group.