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

Published in Zaobao
(Singapore) on 16 March 2012
by Zheng Yongnian (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Brian Delsandro. Edited by Casey J. Skeens.
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.


美国宣布“重返”亚洲后,中国和美国的关系进入了一个不寻常的紧张阶段。许多人提出这两大强国会不会发生冲突,甚至战争这个问题。从中国文化的本质来看,答案是否定的。

  文化在国际事务上是重要的,作为一种思考方式,它也影响了外交政策。思考的模式不是造成冲突的原因,但两种不同思考模式的互动却很可能引起冲突。文化也可以被动用来做为左右外交政策的力量。一旦被动用,文化的力量是无限的。

  那为什么中美之间是不可能发生战争的呢?我们应该懂得区分小规模冲突和大规模战争。任何冲突,比如贸易争端和受意识形态左右的关于人权的辩论是不可避免的;但出现重大战争的结果却是不太可能的。

  从文化视角来看,数千年不间断的历史,赋予中国一种不常见的“大历史”观念。中国能够从长期的角度来看待长期的课题。中国在处理国际课题上动作慢,美国人因此有时变得不耐烦。中国处理问题的一般方式,是先探讨最好的解决方案后才采取行动。中国视许多问题为发展过程中必然存在的,并相信随着时间的流逝,解决方案最终会出现。我们可以用中药来比喻。中药治病的过程慢,但在完全治好病情上却被认为是较好的选择。美国的方式类似可以提供快速疗效的西医。

  文化上的差异也显现在对战略的不同理解。西方 认为中国的“韬光养晦”策略是暂时的,并相信中国是在等待更好的时机崛起。韬光养晦在中国过去数世纪的被动和防御性外交政策上显而易见。防御性外交的最好例子,是为了防御侵略而建立的万里长城。这样的防御战略在中国历史上虽然并不是很成功,在中国文化里却是根深蒂固。

  防御性文化在中国的军事发展上也很普遍。中国的“止戈为武”军事哲学,意思基本上是说发展武器的目的,是用它们来停止武器的使用。对西方来说是威慑,对中国却是防卫。中国发展某种武器或军事计划,只是为了对抗针对它的武器和军事计划。中国很少像美国一样先发制人。这也就是为什么中国反复强调,其核政策着重于最低限度威慑和不首先使用核武器。因此,中国的国防政策同二战前的苏联、德国及日本的政策非常不同,它们都有称霸的决心和计划。

  这个被动的因素,也反映在中国外交政策像救火车般的日常运作。对外交政策的不注重可以从中国围棋看出来。基辛格在他的新书《论中国》(On China)中,便用中国围棋做比喻来描述西方和中国战略文化的差异。西方战略文化就像经常是零和游戏的国际象棋,中国围棋却不是个零和游戏,双方相对的各有所获是可能的。

  在西方,不论是总统制或内阁制,外交部长都是个显著和具影响力的职位。相比之下,中国围棋的哲学强调相对获益。中国式的外交政策可以比作做生意:你今天可能获得一些利润,但明天赚钱的可能就是我了。因为这样的思维,外交从来不是紧急的事务。和西方不一样,中国外交部长在行政级别上位置非常低,影响力也有限。

  中国文化的世俗本质也是其独特的地方。它没有改变他人的使命。在国际事务上,这反映在中国人对主权的理解。主权在西方意味着同质性和趋同,中国则强调多元化的和谐。西方国家有改变其他国家政体来符合它们标准的倾向,中国强力反对这样的做法,并重视不同国家的共存。

  在其漫长历史的一些阶段,中国的确是变得具侵略性,例如在元朝和清朝。但在这些时期,中国是被中国人所说的“野蛮人”统治。毛泽东式的气势凌人外交政策,主要是受到外来的意识形态,即共产主义的影响。今天,中国再次处在十字路口。两种观念的力量影响着它的外交:回归其自身的崇高传统或美国化。毫无疑问的,美国化将造成一个具侵略性的中国,回归其崇高传统意味着和平的中国,不论它是独裁还是民主。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: NATO Secretary-General Showers Trump with Praise: Seems Rutte Wanted To Keep the Emperor Happy

Canada: New York Swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

Malta: The Arrogance of Power

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Topics

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War To Trump

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Related Articles

Singapore: Trump’s America Brings More Chaos, but Not Necessarily More Danger

Singapore: No Ukraine Cease-fire – Putin Has Called Trump’s Bluff

Singapore: Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy Meltdown – for Friends and Foes

Singapore: In Trump and Musk’s America, Echoes of China’s Past Emerge