China Rises Most Mildly, America Still Restricts

What happens when a world power aiming to maintain its past success meets a rising world power? At an estate in California, Xi Jinping and Obama will search for new answers to this age-old question of humanity.

China’s total economic output could very well surpass that of America’s within Xi Jinping’s term. This rather widespread prediction increases the need for China and the U.S. to earnestly smooth relations, guarding against a sense of urgency out of misread or misjudged strategy.

How have things been done between China and the U.S. up until now? Perhaps assessments of the countries’ past relations can predict the basis for their future dealings.

Mutual doubts and mutual complaints over Sino-U.S. strategy are all on the rise, but if one compares this to former U.S.-Soviet conditions, or to even earlier circumstances with the European powers, one discovers that China and the U.S. are much more “polite” toward each other. Whether it’s “restriction” from this “hegemonic power” America or a “challenge” from this “rising power” China, everything shows a certain degree of moderation and restraint. Is this merely the appearance, or is it a substantive reveal?

Perhaps it is neither, but instead a very complex transition and exploration of paths. Sino-U.S. relations connect all kinds of possibilities — both without the nightmare of a clean break between world powers in conflict and also striding forward in the direction of establishing a special world power relationship such as humanity has never seen before.

So far, Sino-U.S. dealings have more than passed with a high score. As a rising power, China has drawn from the numerous lessons of former rising powers, adopting the mildest tactics of any rising world power in human history. China’s low-key approach is all-encompassing. When there is friction with surrounding small nations, it always behaves very carefully. China has never actively provoked America; when a fight is inevitable, the strategy is always “fight without breaking.”

It should be said that likewise, America has not “crossed” China and has adopted a flexible attitude toward China’s development, leaving it some space. This isn’t necessarily done completely out of America’s strategic goodwill, but with times in progress, open and uncivilized restriction of China is already unfeasible. Even America’s influential position in human society does not have the strength to be in opposition.

The U.S. goes to great lengths to maintain leadership over the formulation of international regulations, taking the shape of an institutional hegemony. China has entered this system once dominated exclusively by Western countries and, through accumulation and development, has gradually changed the structure of global power distribution while refraining from a collision with the West. China will, to the best of its ability, not become a challenger but will earnestly make use of regulations approved by the West. Traditional Western politics and historical experience have no way to clearly describe the global scale of China’s growth.

The international political arena is far from being able to use universal morals in place of national interests, so the Sino-U.S. game of strategy is difficult to avoid. But world power politics already form a trend — from the “hot wars” of Europe to the U.S.-Soviet Cold War and again to Sino-U.S. “wariness and cooperation,” China and the United States continue to move in the direction of cooperation — and although it is very difficult, in reality there is a huge history of finding peace along convenient routes. It is easy to move from wariness to a repeat of the Cold War in the short term, but in the expanse of history, those who go against the trend must accept the consequences of their actions.

In America’s and China’s own eyes, the other side has a somewhat “malicious” strength. However, there is a possibility that humanity’s political progression to date, as well as substantive Sino-U.S. relations against the backdrop of globalization, will contribute to a stronger binding force, making these two world powers unable to ever again behave as wantonly as in traditional imperial times. Both nations should try to establish such confidence. They should stop themselves from endlessly imagining “what if” situations. They especially should not take the inferences of a minority as either side’s widespread social fantasy.

For public opinion on either side to actively take responsibility for promoting friendliness is unrealistic, especially under the American system — Congress and the media as well as various nongovernmental organizations all will act in their own short-term interests, constantly magnifying specific conflicts between China and the United States. The key is for the two countries’ executive authorities to earnestly undertake the mission of upholding a cooperative and mutually trusting Sino-U.S. relationship — by laying the groundwork during peacetime, they will be able to move mountains at the critical moment.

Xi Jinping and Obama bear not only the will of two nations’ people. The fruits of their meeting will also affect the interests of mankind. Not only is the media fully interested; history also will remember Xi Jinping and Obama’s California talks.