US-China relations heading to deeper turmoil
The constructivist approach to international relations best explains the US-China relation and the impact that the rise of China is having on the international system. The primary reason for the preference of this approach over other institutions (neorealism and neoliberalism) is that contemporary world politics is not just focused on hegemony, survival or mutual interests as the other two approaches identify. Political and social identity of nation-states, commitment to human rights, aggressive/defensive stance over relation with another nation, guiding ideas and rules of individual nation-states all construct an environment of complex structure of the international system.
As constructivist Alexander Wendt said in his book, association or alliances in the international system are determined primarily by shared ideas which constitute power and interest, not material forces and the identities of the actors are constructed by these shared ideas. Interpretation of these ideas by the actors shape their stance in relationship with each other. Capitalism and communism are the guiding ideas of the US and China respectively which construct their identities. The US has repeatedly condemned the Chinese ideology claiming that the middle kingdom restricts the rights of its citizens and is promoting communism in its neighbors and strategic partners. US President Eisenhower was one of the first to emphasize on this influencing effect in alliances as the domino effect.
Another idea accepted by US leadership and its citizenry is their role as the saviors of the free world. The Pax Americana concept developed after World War II catalyzes US intervention in world and regional politics issues as the torchbearer of “freedom and prosperity.” After the 9/11 incident, the US found its enemy in terror announcing a war against it but after the assassination of Bin Laden in 2011, US found no nemesis to strengthen its position in global politics. Enter China, an emerging economic and military power which was a threat to the world order.
Another popular constructivist Onuf projected a phenomenon of speech acts in the 2013 book Making Sense, Making World. It is the act of speaking in a form that gets someone else to act. Looking into US government documents in the early 2010s show that the US had already started to frame China as its foe calling the international community to monitor China’s action. And as leadership after leadership in the US (especially Donald Trump) continues to say that China is a competitor or enemy, the speech has constructed the very situation of animosity. Furthermore the US is considered the current dominating power in the international system while China is a newcomer. Naturally, the US observes this as a threat to the status quo it has built over the years in the international system. It is taunting China through the speeches from the officials, compelling the sleeping dragon to act.
To further understand the US-China ties, we need to observe and analyze the interaction between the two nations. The ideas and norms expressed in these interactions need to be translated into language. As Weldes said, “before state officials can act for the state, they need to engage in a process of interpretation in order to understand both what situation the state faces and how they should respond to it.” The linguistics items are embedded in a system of practices, which include chains of connotation. A recent exchange of dialogue between the two nations in late July when the US decided to close Chinese Consulate in Houston citing “intellectual theft.” The Secretary of State Mike Pompeo portrayed the US as the savior of the free world by attacking China, calling it “authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else” before claiming “free world must triumph.” While he took such a hostile stance, the base of the argument which lied in intellectual theft was never proven. The linguistic use and the misinformation cited solidified the US’ identity and interest to be the dominating world power or to establish hegemony.
In retaliation, China shuttered the US consulate in Chengdu, a move which in itself could be interpreted as its disapproval of US hegemony. Foreign Minister Wang Yi condemned the move as a malicious attack on the CCP, claiming that their retaliation was a “legitimate and necessary response” to the actions taken by the US. He further expressed that China did not wish for the situation to unfold as such and the US bears all responsibility for it. As compared to the US, the linguistic use from the Chinese foreign minister is more neutral and based on facts. He neither attacks the US, nor expresses hegemonic relation with the rest of the world. The somewhat peaceful stance and courage to not remain silent against the hegemonic “America First” mentality of the US constructs an identity of China which is likeable by most nations, hence, its growing popularity.
However, it is not entirely true that China is opposed to hegemony and it does not practice it, neither can it be said that its identity clash with the US is the sole reason for its growing popularity. The geopolitical strategies China employs — placing itself as a member of a new regional and world order — and its interaction with other nations constructs another identity which assists in the push to be a world power. As the Chinese foreign minister said in 2016, China sees itself as a contributor to global order and President Xi Jinping described the role of China in 2017 as a major and responsible nation to impart its knowledge and strength to the world order. One common style in their language is the affirmation that China is currently shaping a new world order and sees itself as an integral part of the order.
China’s strategies are clarified by its decision influencing role in several global International Organizations (IOs) including the United Nations and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, leadership in regional IOs Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and through roles as member and observer of a pantheon of IOs. The aftermath of some of its interactions with other nations has shown its tendency towards hegemony. The constant tussle with Taiwan, border dispute and crossfire with India, and capture of a port in Sri Lanka leveraging a debt to the government show how China has been inclining towards hegemony.
China and the US have mutual interests but their identity clash has set them up with an inevitable power tussle. The ideas that make the nations are opposing. Their contrasting approach to human rights and intervention in world order make them unfriendly towards each other. The US dominates the current world order which is its identity while China contends to topple America to be the new world leader. In such circumstances, conflict is certain. And the present tension between the nations could be expected to last long, even escalate.
