The Peaceful Coexistence of the US and China: A Cultural Perspective

After the United States announced its “return” to Asia, relations between China and the United States have entered an unusually tense phase. Many have questioned whether these two powerful countries could potentially have a conflict, or even war. Looking at it from the nature of Chinese culture, the answer is no.

Culture, as a way of thinking, is important in international affairs and it also influences foreign policy. Modes of thinking are not the causes of conflict, but the interaction of two different patterns of thought is very likely to cause conflict. Culture can also be utilized as a force to influence foreign policy. Once utilized, the power of culture is limitless.

Then why is it that China and the United States will not wage war? We should understand how to distinguish between small-scale conflicts and large-scale war. Whatever the conflict, such as the inevitable trade disputes and the debate regarding the ideology of human rights, the result of a major war arising is unlikely.

From the perspective of culture, thousands of years of uninterrupted history gives China the uncommon concept of “Big History.” China can look at long-term issues from a long-term perspective. China is slow in dealing with international issues, therefore Americans sometimes become impatient. China’s usual way of dealing with problems is to first investigate the best solution before taking action. China regards the existence of many problems in their own development process as inevitable, and believes that as time passes the solution will eventually emerge. We can use traditional Chinese medicine as a metaphor. The treatment process in traditional Chinese medicine is slow, but it is considered the better choice for completely curing the disease. America’s method is similar to the fast-acting cures of Western medicine.

The cultural differences are also apparent in the different ways China and the United States understand the strategies involved. The West believes that China’s strategy of keeping a “low profile” is temporary, and that China is waiting for a better opportunity to rise up. It is obvious that keeping a low profile has been the passive and defensive foreign policy of China over the last few centuries. The best example of defensive foreign policy is the establishment of the Great Wall, which was for the purpose of defense against aggression. Although this defensive strategy was not very successful in Chinese history, it is deeply rooted in Chinese culture.

Defensive culture is also very common in China’s military development. China’s military philosophy that military forces are to be used only for the maintenance of peace and order — basically meaning that the development of weapons is to stop the use of weapons. For the West it is deterrence; for China it is defense. China’s plan of developing a certain weapon or military plan is only meant for confronting weapons or military plans aimed at them. China rarely gains the initiative by striking the first blow like America does. That is why China has repeatedly emphasized that its nuclear policy is focused on minimal deterrence and no-first-use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, China’s defense policy is very different than the policies of the Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan before World War II. These countries all had the intention and plan to seek domination.

These passive elements reflect upon how China’s foreign policy’s day-to-day operations are like that of a fire truck. This can be seen from the game of Chinese Chess that foreign policy is not considered important. In his new book “On China,” Henry Kissinger uses Chinese Chess as a metaphor to describe the differences in Western and Chinese strategic culture. Western strategic culture is often a zero-sum game of international chess, but Chinese Chess is not a zero-sum game because both sides can have a positive outcome.

In the West, whether it is a presidential system or a cabinet system, the post of the highest ranking foreign affairs official is a significant and influential position. In contrast, the philosophy of Chinese Chess emphasizes relative gains. China’s foreign policy can be compared to doing business: You may gain some profit today, but tomorrow it might be me who is making money. Because of this type of thinking, foreign affairs has never been an urgent matter. Unlike the West, the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs is a very low administrative position, and the position’s influence is also limited.

The secular nature of Chinese culture also makes it unique. It doesn’t have the mission of converting others. In international affairs, this is reflected in the Chinese people’s understanding of sovereignty. Sovereignty means integration and convergence in the West, while China emphasizes a diverse range of harmony. Western countries have the tendency to change other countries’ forms of government to align with their own standards. China is strongly opposed to such practices, and values the coexistence of different countries.

In a few stages of its long history, China has indeed become aggressive — for example, during the Yuan and Qing Dynasties. However during these times, China was ruled by so-called “barbarians.” Aggressive Maoist foreign policy is mainly influenced by a foreign ideology: communism. Today, China is again at a crossroads. The strength of two concepts influences its foreign affairs: Return to noble Chinese traditions or Americanize. There is no doubt that Americanization will lead to an aggressive China, and returning to noble Chinese traditions means a peaceful China, whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy.