PREAMBLE
There are three major schools of thought underlying American international relations theory: realism, liberalism and constructivism, each of which essentially, and basically, not only serves U.S. preconceived leadership role, but also within an entrenched intent of hegemonic hubris.
Today's piece is by Yang Jiemian (杨洁勉) - a veteran Chinese think-tanker - whose brother is a former top diplomat, Yang Jiechi (杨洁篪).
Yang’s piece was published much earlier this year and has since circulated widely among China’s top think-tanks and other specialised outlets.
Yang’s views should not be taken as representative of China’s elite thinkings because there are likely some who disagree with at least certain aspects of his main argument.
A summary of his view is presented today, while an expanded version may be available by this weekend.
Summary
America’s increasingly entrenched view of China as its “main security threat” relies on a number of problematic cultural, ideological, and theoretical ideas.
The U.S. is determined to maintain its global hegemony and sees suppressing China as key to preserving its current international position. However, this very pursuit is set to accelerate America’s decline.
Deeply rooted ideas such as “American Exceptionalism,” “Manifest Destiny,” and “Anglo-Saxon Superiority” have misled Americans into a profoundly self-centred view of history that fails to account for the historical and cultural complexity of other global actors.
America consistently fails to look beyond its own narrowly defined interests as it continues to rely on the “Law of the Jungle” and militarism in its foreign policy.
Since the U.S. refuses to share any aspect of international political, economic, or military leadership, it is unwilling to accommodate or even tolerate China’s rise.
Washington’s belief in the inevitability of great power conflict and zero-sum games has led to the “paranoid” construction of "imaginary enemies” like China.
Despite their occasional academic value, the core theories of American International Relations scholarship: realism, liberalism, and constructivism, have all been co-opted by Washington as ideational tools to maintain American hegemony and suppress China. In particular, realism has led the U.S. security state to prioritise the accumulation of power and to accept confrontation between great powers as inevitable. Liberalism has given the U.S. the supposed moral high ground in interfering with the affairs of other nations. And finally, constructivism has provided the U.S. with a discursive strategy to manipulate international perceptions. In particular, America has used the power of international discourse to construct an image of China as a “threat” to Taiwan, Xinjiang, and more broadly, global peace.
A dysfunctional political environment in Washington has created conditions where it is politically beneficial to demonise China and reject more benign approaches towards Beijing that could lead to “win-win” outcomes.
Americans are accustomed to thinking in binaries, e.g. good vs. evil, democracy vs. autocracy, individualism vs. collectivism. They are therefore unwilling to recognise the potential merit of political cultures different from their own. Meanwhile, culturally rich ideas from China such as “unity in diversity [和而不同]” and “harmonious coexistence [和合共生]” could lead to the reconciliation of seemingly opposed concepts, if only the U.S. were open to considering them.
10. By proactively constructing its own theories of international relations, continuing its economic development, and deepening its cultural self-confidence, China’s approach could serve as a corrective to American arrogance. In the context of heightened China-U.S. tensions, China should maintain a bottom line of “peaceful coexistence, non-conflict, and non-confrontation,” as it seeks to build a better future under the framework of its “Community of Common Destiny for Humanity” that includes the U.S., even if the U.S. may not realise it. No matter how difficult the task may be, China should remain steadfast in its commitment to putting relations with the U.S. on a more constructive path.
The Author
Name: Yang Jiemian (杨洁勉)
Year of birth: 1951 (age: 71)
Position: Senior fellow, doctoral supervisor and chairman of the Academic Committee, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS)
Formerly: President of SIIS
Research focus: China’s international relations; US-China relations
Education: BA Shanghai Normal University (now, East China Normal University); MA Shanghai Institutes for International Studies; MA Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University); PhD Shanghai International Studies University (SISU)
Other: Member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee of the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Vice president of China National Association for International Studies (CNAIS); Brother of China’s former top diplomat Yang Jiechi (杨洁篪)
an extract from