Towards a Bleak or Bright Future: Prospects on US-China Relations

This brief essay deals with a specific aspect of the rise of China in the context of the current global order. In particular, this paper probes into the various theories that revolve around the relationship of China’s rise to American hegemony within the framework of Power Transition Theory. Two important literatures will be reviewed here: Jia Qingguo’s “Learning to Live with the Hegemon: Evolution of China’s policy toward the US since the Cold War”, and Steve Chan’s ‘Is There a Power Transition between the US and China? The Different faces of National Power.” I argue that the constructivist agenda of continuous engagement and dialogue between the US and China are imperative and crucial in preventing the outbreak of any violent episode between the hegemonic and the rising power. Regardless of the increasing uncertainties, insecurities, and prognostications – unsubstantiated or not – there is a need for constant and productive cooperation and close collaboration between the two countries to prevent the devastating effect of war. I would further argue that although the history of the world bears witness to the violent upswing of power of Germany and Japan, there was also the peaceful and smooth overtaking of US over Great Britain – hence, even history itself proves that the rising power of a state does not immediately equate to the rise of threat it poses.

Learning to Live with the Hegemon: Possible or Not?

                One of the assigned readings that caught my attention is Jia Qingguo’s journal article entitled “Learning to Live with the Hegemon: Evolution of China’s policy toward the US since the end of the Cold War.” It deals with the transformations of strategies employed by the Chinese government in engaging and dealing with the US following the end of the Cold War – the precise year of China’s slow attempt to recover its economic losses and gain stable development path. Jia argues that the adaptation process that was utilized by the Chinese government toward the US has been momentous but definitely difficult. Jia further asserts that China’s exposure to the international system in fact informs the country’s policy makers in the manner by which it deals with the process of adaptation. Finally, the author contends that should there be a sustained effort from the US to continuously appease and engage peacefully with China, there would be no threat or danger in the disruption of the global peace.

                The article explains, albeit briefly, how there are in fact persistent attempts from the American government to maintain a friendly and cordial stance with China. The Bush Administration, according to Jia, has noted the positive changes in Chinese foreign policy; there has been more close cooperation and discussion between the officials, scholars, and general populace of the two countries, up until the present these for a for dialogue are ongoing. Jia also explains that China’s process of adaptation has underwent three distinct phases: the first phase was from 1989 to 1994 when China sought to restore its official relations with the US government; the second phase began in 1994 to 2001 when the renewed relationship has been sustained, maintained, and strengthened, and then finally from 2002 up to the present when China was been asserting great efforts in creating new opportunities for collaboration, engagement, and cordial relationship. In each of this phase, Jia firmly asserts that compared to the previous regimes of Mao and Deng Zioping, the efforts from 1989 onwards have been eventful but like any other relationship, this association not matter how it was nourished by both sides was hampered by several difficulties.

                Nonetheless, Jia believes that the continued adaptation of China towards the US has been a product of several factors. The author mentions the gradual acceptance of the power reality among the members of the Chinese government. Interestingly, they, according to the author, acknowledge that it is not in the interest of China to challenge the US or to cause a major conflict with any of the world’s big powers. Their main concern is political survival and as the author implies, engaging with the US is a means by which China can secure its survival. Another factor that sets the tone for US engagement is located inside the backyard of China – the rapid phenomenon of modernization, the unveiling of a market driven economy, and the rise of power of the technocrats. The basic premise is that China, in order for them to survive and respond adequately to the pressing domestic problems at home, a peaceful and encouraging neighborhood is a prerequisite. As such, the author asserts that China engages with the US because it cannot afford to tip the balance and create havoc owing to the havoc that runs inside its territory.

Another factor is the growing awareness of the implications of the rise of China – after a few years of persistently fighting for loans and working hard to secure their economy well-being, it is a t this point that the Chinese themselves that realized the implications of their growing strength. In fact, Jin believes that China was belated in realizing that they are in fact gaining power because their primary agenda was to restore wealth and prosperity in the country. Now that they realize the perceptions and speculations about their development, Jin states that China sought to secure its survival by cooperating and adapting with the US – hence, the need for China to pacify the growing insecurities and fears that arise from their rise. In the end, the author leaves the future open: but maintains that since the three factors that makes engagement and collaboration more appealing are unlikely to change soon, then it is likely that the process of adaptation will persist.

Is there a Power Transition between the US and China?: The Problematique

                Steve Chan’s article entitled “Is There a Power Transition between the US and China? The Different faces of National Power” is very interesting and engaging for me as it deals with a basic question: Is China about to overtake the United States? The main argument of the article is that despite the escalation of China’s traditional measures of national power, there are still poor aspects particularly in the performance of their information technology and human capital – these are indubitably crucial in ensuring that the kind of development and upsurge that China is experiencing right now is in fact able to be sustained and maintained in the long run. The sustainability of the positive economic, social, political, and cultural changes that are transpiring in China are crucial indicators of whether China will be able to pose itself as a power that equals the United States.

                Chan includes in his analysis the validity of Organski and Kugler’s assumption on the outbreak of wars between and among states. The core principle is when there is dissatisfaction on the part of either the rising power or the hegemonic power; war is likely to occur as one tends to balance the power of the other. What the author carefully asserts is that as the name of theory implies – the validity of the assumption lies on the reality of a power transition happening. What exactly is a power transition in this sense? The author maintains that a power transition is a process where the rising power achieves more power while at the same time the dominant power is decreasing in its capabilities and power.

                Chan argues that many scholars who use the power transition theory to explain the relationship between the US and China fails to consider whether or not the US is actually being dislodged from its traditional measures of power by the arrival of China in the international scene. He gives substantial evidence based from various studies and research projects that establish that the US still holds the top among the world’s super powers but China is rapidly closing the gap. The article also mentions the crucial element of understanding the soft power indicators of the US and China. The notion of soft power implies the capacity of a state to influence other states not through force or coercion but through persuasion and psychological manipulation. The author fundamentally establishes the crucial analytical fact: that difference indicators of power in fact reveal different results and interpretations.

                This final finding is for me a very relevant one. Simply because, it broadens the lens by which the application of power transition theory is scrutinized. As explained by the author, China ranks high in measure which puts high regard on the quantity of the industrial output while the US overrides China in terms of human capital and technological assets. Although Chan did not explicitly chose a particular method of framing how power should be measured and defined within the context of US and China relations, he gave two crucial points that results from his assertions. One, if national power is to be defined by a large population, military power, and smokestack industries, then, he claims there has been a transition already. Second, if national power rests on the mastery and creation of innovative technologies and the quality of human capital in a state, then there is little hope that a transition of power is likely to occur in the future. For me, the main significance of Steve Chan’s article is that it breaks away from the either or scenario that pervades the study of US-China relations. Instead of limiting the box of analysis, Chan firmly challenges the notion of power and the faults and loop holes of the power transition theory. In this manner, scholars like us who are keen in understanding China and the US will be more challenged to understand the “embeddedness” as well as the validity of western international relations theories.

Problems in Theorizing on China

                At this junction, I would like to connect one book I read on the rise of China in Asia and its security implications. In the introduction, Carolyn Pumphery explains that analyzing China has been very difficult owing to several factors. Foremost of all is the basic fact that the Chinese government has always been very careful and stringent in making available to the public key documents and sources that are vital to an outsider’s understanding of the processes of decision making that consumes the alrge bureaucracy of China. A large part of their foreign policy documents and domestic policies are placed in secret and are controlled by the regime. This crucial problem certainly acts like a curtain that prevents a deeper understanding of China, its considerations on power, and its intents for the future. Another factor that proves relevant or perhaps an impediment in theorizing about China is the inevitable characteristic of how dynamic and how diverse Asia is – well, also how dynamic and how complicated China is. This assumption is deeply grounded in the frame of cultural relativity that dominates the analysis of the constructivists.

For political scientists and international relations experts, somehow, cultural relatively is easily downplayed – believing and having strong faith on the basis of realism or neo-realism. However, this theoretical consideration can be very misleading as every civilization even in their conduct of governance and foreign affairs are consciously or unconsciously affected by the strains in their culture. As such, when we talk about the rise of China, it is crucial to understand what that really means for China or when we talk about power transition between the US and China, it is crucial to understand what power is for China. Sure, there are various definitions and sources of power – but unless power is defined with a profound awareness of the cultural foundation of China – then I can argue that the validity of the meaning is flawed. Simply put, even the concepts and notions that are predominant in the study of political science had to be securely placed within the context of a of the country’s social, cultural, and political background. Or else, we are risking in failing to analyze the whole subject itself.

Some Concluding Remarks

                Various theories dealing with great power transitions assert that the change in the balance of power can result to the disruption of peace and order in the international system. The basic premise is that states in fact enter into violent conflicts against each other to maintain the balance of power as well the international structure to maintain a favorable context for them. Such that, if the hegemon perceives that it is losing control of a particular region of interest, then the hegemon might try to assert its power, challenge the contending power, and in the end initiate a war to secure its dominant position. However, based on the articles reviewed in this essay, there seems to be no exact and definite link between rise of power and rise of threat. In fact, different theories propose different ways to look at the power transition between the US and China or whether in fact what is happening in the international setting is indeed a power transition – which implies a zero-sum game; wherein the increase in power of a country corresponds directly to a decrease in the power of another. It is crucial to point out that in understanding the power of US and China, it is imperative that an in-depth investigation on the notion of power should be conducted. This is easier said than done – because despite the fact that the concept of power has been widely used not only in political science but in the wider area of social sciences, there has been no easy and simple way to define it. In some cases, the description of power is largely attributed and embedded in culture and as culture is relative, and so is power.

                In the context of China’s rise and America’s response – it is most valuable to consider how power is conceptualized in both sides and whether there could be points of positive convergence in their conceptions of power – this is important before arguing that a war between the two is inevitable. Personally, I am not a fan of those scholars who narrowly and stringently insist that war is possible – simply because such a prediction merely adds to the fear and insecurity of both sides. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, they might actually come true not because the power transition theory is infallible but because it added fuel to a fire that should have been easy to quell.