U.S. Hostility Towards China and American Exceptionalism According to Yang Jiemian

"There are three major schools of thought within American international relations theory: realism, liberalism and constructivism, each of which essentially serves U.S. hegemony and leadership."

---

Welcome back to Sinification. Distrust of, if not paranoia about, the United States has long been widespread in China. Today’s piece is fairly typical of this, mixing oft-held criticisms of America with a heavy dose of political correctness. Its author, Yang Jiemian (杨洁勉), is a veteran Chinese think-tanker and brother of China’s former top diplomat, Yang Jiechi (杨洁篪).

Yang Jiemian has had a rich enough career without my needing to mention his famous sibling, but this connection does make his views (however performative some of these may be) that little bit more interesting. After all, one of the aims of this newsletter is to try to convey the different lenses through which China’s opaque leadership may be looking at the world.

Yang’s piece was published earlier this year and has since been relayed multiple times by some of China’s top think tanks and other specialised outlets. Anti-US rhetoric may be pervasive in China (and often de rigueur), but Yang’s views should not be taken as fully representative of “what the Chinese elite think”. There are, of course, also those within these circles who would disagree with at least some of Yang’s arguments.

Today’s post was put together by Daniel Crain, who has done yeoman’s work in providing both a translation of these lengthy excerpts and the following summary of Yang’s article. The subtitles were added to help structure this post and are not the author’s. Given the length of today’s edition, you may not be able to read it in full from your inbox. Click here to view it in a new window.

1. America’s increasingly entrenched view of China as its “main security threat” relies on a number of problematic cultural, ideological, and theoretical ideas.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Despite their occasional academic value, the core theories of American IR 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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)

---

THE IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS AND THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE UNITED STATES' PERCEPTION OF CHINA AS A "MAJOR THREAT" (EXCERPTS)
Yang Jiemian (杨洁勉)
Source: International Outlook (国际展望) Vol. 1 – January 2023

“In December 2017, the Trump administration produced a series of strategic documents which publicly established China as 'the biggest threat to the United States' and its 'number one adversary.' In January of 2021, the Biden administration not only failed to make a fresh start [改弦更张] on the issue of China, but actually worsened relations by accelerating its policy of encirclement and suppression. America’s stubborn commitment to this erroneous path, has led to the ongoing deterioration of China-U.S. relations and has increased the risks faced by the world [arising from] great power competition. For these reasons, we should not only clarify the specific issues facing China-U.S. relations, but also trace back their roots [追根溯源] to [differences in] philosophical thought, views of history, worldviews and strategic thinking, [thereby] analysing their causes at a deeper level. In doing so, [China will be able to] respond to challenges [more] effectively and take the initiative in guiding the development of relations between the two countries.”

Sources of American Arrogance: Manifest Destiny, Anglo-Saxon Superiority, and Political Exceptionalism

“In international relations, the United States is a major power with the shortest history of statehood but a comparatively long history of hegemony. As a relatively young power, the United States does not have too much historical baggage and is full of creative spirit. However, its lack of historical depth, especially its attachment to ‘American exceptionalism [美国例外论]’, makes it more difficult for the U.S. to learn from the historical experiences and lessons of other countries.”

"The sense of superiority derived from the doctrine of Manifest Destiny [天命论] [remains important in understanding American worldviews]. The U.S. proclaims itself to be [made up of] 'God's chosen people' who have created American history. Since the first European immigrants arrived in North America, they have conceived of themselves as shouldering 'God's mission' to realise a 'city on the hill.' This idealistic consciousness has since become deeply rooted in the soul of Americans. As America grew in size and strength, its people became more and more convinced that their country possessed an unmatched natural endowment.”

“‘The Anglo-Saxon superiority complex’ exists widely across American society. Driven by this sense of superiority, Americans believe that they and the United Kingdom, another country of the same blood, should work together to promote advanced civilisation and assume leadership in world affairs.”

“Since its founding, the United States has proudly believed that its own political system is distinct from the 'backward despotism [落后专制体制]’ of the European 'Old World'. They are so extraordinarily confident in this [view], that they conceive of their system as the most perfect of all systems. This sense of superiority reached its peak at the end of the Cold War, when Francis Fukuyama argued that Western liberal democracy was possibly the end of humanity’s social evolution and mankind’s ultimate form of a political system.”

“Americans have a deep-rooted sense that their values are superior to those of others. They firmly believe in the unparalleled superiority of a liberal democratic system based on the principles of freedom, democracy, openness, and the rule of law. [So much so] that they have vowed to spread these values to the rest of the world. This American 'theory of democratic freedom [民主自由论]' and the series of corollaries derived from it easily place China in opposition to the United States.”

“Due to the limitations of its ideology and theories, the United States has found it difficult to form a more objective and scientific view of history based on lessons from other countries and from its own experience.”

The American Belief in the 'Law of the Jungle,' and the Instrumental Value of War

“The influence of the law of the jungle [丛林法则] on America’s strategic community manifests itself concretely in the following ways. First, there is a lack of political thought [in the U.S.] on how the 'world belongs to all [天下为公] [Here, Yang uses the Chinese concept of, 天下为公 a phrase found in Confucius’s description of 大同, sometimes translated as the ‘Great Harmony’ or the ideal world]. Since its founding, the United States has placed national interests above international interests. In a letter to [his fellow American] founding father Henry Laurens, George Washington wrote bluntly, 'it is a maxim founded on the universal experience of Mankind, that no Nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interest, and no prudent Statesman or politician will venture to depart from it.' Hans J. Morgenthau, the founder of realist [international relations] theory, also believed that diplomatic interactions between countries is essentially a tussle involving interests and power. He argued that U.S. diplomacy should adhere to the principle that puts strength above all else, because 'diplomacy that is not backed by strength is weak and ineffective.”

“Shortly after its founding, the United States began to take the road of foreign expansion. This began with the 'Monroe Doctrine' that depicted the Americas as the U.S.’s sphere of influence, [followed by] Washington’s constant use of negotiations, purchases, and even war to expand its territory and colonial plunder. Since 1803, the U.S. has seized large swathes of land and overseas colonies from the hands of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, and other countries. John O'Sullivan also put forward the infamous [臭名昭著] theory of 'Manifest Destiny', which has become the 'scientific basis' of America’s foreign aggression. When traced back to their roots [追根溯源], American values have been guided by the concept of winning or losing. This cultural gene has continuously exerted a profound impact on America’s domestic and foreign affairs. In the process of expanding its territory and seeking regional and even global hegemony, the United States has fully demonstrated its willingness to secure interests by any means necessary, fair or foul [不择手段].”

“Since the end of WWII, the United States has launched or participated in wars of considerable scale in almost every decade. These include the Korean War of the 1950s, the Vietnam War of the 1960s, the Indochina Wars of the 1970s, the Gulf War and the Kosovo War in the 1990s, and the wars in Iraq and Libya after entering the twenty-first century. These conflicts have their roots in the American fallacy of 'waging wars for peace [用战争换和平]'. This kind of logic of rationalising war in the name of 'justice' is deeply rooted in American strategic culture. President Theodore Roosevelt, a widely recognized 'progressivist,' believed that the expansion of the civilised races was essential to world peace, or else the belligerent barbarians would [end up] sparking endless conflicts. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, [Roosevelt] believed that the decline in international wars was entirely due to the strength of the civilised races, whose fighting abilities gradually brought peace to the world. In discussing why the U.S. became involved in the Vietnam War, President Johnson said that his experience of WWI, WWII, and the Korean War [showed that] the U.S. was always fighting for freedom. After paying a huge price [for this, he stated], 'we have learned at a terrible and a brutal cost that retreat does not bring safety and weakness does not bring peace.' It is not difficult to see that the United States' view of the omnipotence of warfare is essentially a tool to embellish its wars and invasions.”

America’s Stubborn Commitment to Hegemony

“The 20th century was a century of rapidly ascending American power. In its confidence as the 'victor' of WWI, WWII and the Cold War, the U.S. ignored the general trends and tendencies of global development in the post-war era. [Instead], it formed a view of contemporary history which would allow for the preservation of its hegemony.”

“The Charter of the United Nations emphasises the belief in the 'equal rights of nations large and small'. However, the United States, as one of the main authors of the Charter, has objected to this [不以为然]. A perusal of American documents from the post-war period shows extensive [emphasis on] 'American leadership of the world'. From President Truman to President Biden, [this trend] has held without exception. Truman viewed the Korean War as a communist provocation towards and a test for the 'free world.' As the leader of the 'free world,' the U.S. felt obliged to counter [this threat] resolutely. Truman then used this as an excuse to order the extension of its military intervention to Taiwan in order to guard what he regarded as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier’. President Eisenhower then used the ‘domino’ theory as a pretext for intervention in national liberation movements throughout Asia. [The domino theory] has since become a major guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy. The Biden administration's National Security Strategy, released in October 2022, is filled with words emphasising ‘global leadership’, [thus] clearly indicating America’s intention to continue to assume the leadership of the international community.”

 “The United States has been attempting to maintain its hegemonic position by checking and restraining China. As American leadership gradually shrinks in various fields, instead of facing up to their own problems, U.S. strategists and politicians have attempted to encircle and suppress China. [In doing so], they have sought to relieve their feelings of loss and anxiety by shifting their attention and [internal] contradictions [onto China]. On May 26, 2022, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a speech on the Biden administration's China policy. He stated that China, due to its growing economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power, is the only country with both ‘the intention to reshape the international order' and 'the ability to do so'. Therefore, the U.S. views China as 'the most serious long-term challenge' to the [current] international order.”

How Mainstream Theories of International Relations Serve U.S. Hegemony

“America’s academic community emphasises the 'search for universal laws or values in the world.' Mainstream theoretical schools focus on searching through history to find common mechanisms or directions of development. In analysing problems and guiding policy, some theories have had a positive impact. On the whole, however, [American scholars] have failed to escape the constraints of a Western-centric view of history. When examining history, they often consciously or unconsciously take for granted that Western history lies at the center of the history of global development. As such, objective research on the history of other parts of the world is lacking [in American academia].”

“American theories of international relations have aspects that are correct, or [at least] relatively correct, and it is these theories that have guided the U.S. in its active struggles and continuous progress [积极奋斗和不断进步]. However, in other contexts, these same theories are actually accelerating America’s decline. Furthermore, they have enabled the U.S. to push the mainstay of China-U.S. relations from cooperation towards competition, and even towards confrontation.”

“There are three major schools of thought within American international relations theory: realism, liberalism and constructivism, each of which essentially serves U.S. hegemony and leadership. [Each theory] also provides a theoretical basis and operational guidelines in support of America’s view of China being an adversary.”

“Realism provides the theoretical legitimacy and guiding principles for the United States’ pursuit and defense of its hegemony. Hans Morgenthau, the founder of realist IR theory, proposed that international politics is a struggle for power, and that no matter what the ultimate objective of international politics may be, power is always its immediate goal.”

“After the end of World War II, the U.S. became the strongest country in the world by virtue of its huge military and economic strength as well as its dominant position within the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system. Realism aptly catered to the United States' pursuit of world hegemony and became an important guiding theory in U.S. foreign policy. Since the end of World War II, all American foreign policymakers have been influenced by realism, believing that the world needs hegemony, and that only American hegemony is acceptable for the present and the future. [Furthermore, they believe] that any country with the strength or intention to weaken its hegemony is either an enemy or a rival of the United States.”

“Offensive realism is even more direct, positing that the pursuit of hegemony is the best way for a great power to guarantee its own security. [According to offensive realism,] as China becomes a superpower, it will vie with the United States at the international level. The United States must [thus] unite with other Asian countries and move early to contain China's rise. At present, the U.S. regards China as its greatest 'strategic rival’ and 'the only country capable of challenging the hegemony of the United States'. It therefore spares no effort in mobilising domestic resources, uniting with other countries, and taking comprehensive measures to suppress China. [This demonstrates that,] the ‘offensively realist’ nature of its China policy is becoming increasingly pronounced.”

“Liberalism attempts to provide the United States with the appropriate moral backing for the consolidation and expansion of its global leadership in the face of the changing [global] landscape. First of all, the ideas of modern American liberalism were reflected in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen-Point Plan, which seized the international moral high ground [and paved the way] for the United States to assume world leadership.”

“Its belief in liberalism has provided the United States with great zeal and motivation to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries and to [seek] regime changes. Liberalism emphasises that in order to safeguard the rights of non-nationals from being trampled upon, it is acceptable to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, and the best way to do so is by establishing liberal democratic regimes in these countries. [Liberalism posits] that the establishment of a world made up of democratic states is an important way of achieving world peace, eliminating wars, and reducing nuclear proliferation as well as terrorism. It also provides an ideal way to protect liberalism within the United States.”

“Under the influence of liberal ideology, the United States has been criticising, and interfering in, China’s domestic affairs under the sloganeering of what they call the 'universal values of freedom and democracy', the 'protection of human rights' and the 'defence of the rules-based international order.' However, this behaviour is essentially aimed at safeguarding the hegemony of the United States rather than promoting a liberal system and moral [values].”

“Constructivism posits that concepts such as nationalities, sovereignty and borders are not absolute and permanent, but socially constructed. This provides theoretical support for the U.S. to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, such as those pertaining to ethnic issues and border-related problems.”

“The United States has also made continuous attempts to use public opinion and other international mechanisms to create and disseminate false perceptions [about certain countries]. [This has] exacerbated ethnic and domestic governance problems in these countries as well as border issues with their neighbours. Furthermore, constructivism believes that the identity of a ‘threatening actor' is socially constructed. Accordingly, the United States, both at home and abroad, has played up how some other countries [supposedly] pose a threat to the U.S. and the world. [This has been done by] stamping labels on them like 'axis of evil', 'rogue states' and 'revisionist states'.”

“In recent years, the U.S. has frequently interfered in China's domestic affairs on issues related to Xinjiang and Taiwan. It has [also] trumpeted the 'China Threat theory [中国威胁论']' in regard to the PRC’s border issues with its neighbours, and has used the discursive power it holds internationally to defame China. These examples all demonstrate how constructivism has also provided theoretical support for America’s moves to contain China.”

Exporting Democracy and the 'China Threat’

“In terms of strategic thinking, whether it is the Trump administration's 'America First' and ‘decoupling' strategies, or the Biden administration's 'comprehensive strategic competition with China', their core goal has been to contain China by portraying it as a 'common threat'. In terms of the mechanisms [used], the U.S. is continuing to strengthen the breadth and depth of its cooperation with allies and partners. [It is also seeking] to promote the construction of institutions that can maximise the constraints on China's activities and influence in the Asia-Pacific region.”

 “At the theoretical level, American scholars have used the 'Hegemonic Stability Theory,' the 'Democratic Peace Theory,' and the 'End of History' to further theorise the 'legitimacy' of the U.S. exportation of democracy. At the strategic level, the Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations respectively put forward [what critics and analysts have labelled as] the 'Beyond Containment Strategy', the 'Participation and Expansion Strategy' and the 'New Empire Strategy' to guide the U.S. in its efforts to disseminate democracy globally. By promoting ‘Colour Revolutions’ and waging foreign wars, the United States created a series of regime changes. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. pursued a ‘Smart Power’ strategy and encouraged the Middle East’s Arab Spring through ideological infiltration and [its use of] NGOs. Soon after, they used a similar strategy to export [their version of] so-called democracy to Ukraine, Myanmar and Central Asian countries.”

“The United States has never given up exporting democracy to China – the world's largest socialist and developing country. From time to time, the U.S. has interfered in China's domestic affairs under the banners of 'democracy' and 'human rights', but all of its attempts have ended in failure. Moreover, China has always insisted that each country [should] have the right and freedom to choose a political system, economic system, and development path that suit its national conditions. China opposes the United States' arbitrary interference in the domestic affairs of other countries on the grounds of 'democracy'. Thus, in the eyes of the U.S., China is both a 'stubborn target [顽固对象]' that refuses to accept American-style democracy and a 'stumbling block [绊脚石]' that hinders America’s export of democracy.”

“In regard to the deployment of [military] forces, the U.S. has been strengthening its investment in the Asia-Pacific region since the Obama administration. The importance of the Asia-Pacific region in America’s security strategy has risen to an unprecedented level as the U.S. has readjusted its deployment of military forces via a strategic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Middle East and other regions, and roped in its allies and quasi-allies in the Asia-Pacific. According to the [anonymous] essay [published by the Atlantic Council], 'The Longer Telegram: Toward a New American China Strategy', America’s [China] strategy can be summarised in five points: 1. rebuilding American economic and military power; 2. deterring and preventing China from crossing American ‘red lines’; 3. engaging openly in strategic competition with China in specific areas; 4. continuing to cooperate with China in certain areas; and 5. intensifying ideological struggles against China. In the US-China relationship, both the Trump and Biden administrations have opposed 'win-win' outcomes for both countries. They have also opposed the mutual exchange of interests typically pursued in international relations. [Instead], their approach has been characterised by zero-sum games and arbitrary [decision making] [独断专行].”

The Domestic Drivers of U.S. Hostility Towards China

“Winning elections and gaining political power have become the primary goals of governance in the United States. Furthermore, America’s long-established way of thinking about election-driven [emphasis added] governance has become taken for granted and considered to be a right and an unalterable fact of life [天经地义]. In regard to relations with China, China scepticism and anti-China [behaviour] are consistently used both to gain votes and to reach consensus between Republicans and Democrats, government and Congress as well as between those in power and the general public. This has become a deep-seated problem in the United States and one that will prove hard to change [积重难返]. Playing the 'China card' to demonstrate one’s determination to safeguard American interests has become the norm in U.S. electoral politics.”

“As a result, in an environment marked by frequent elections in the United States, China-U.S. relations have long been subjected to constraints and attacks. In terms of America’s strategy and policies towards China, stubborn conservative attitudes and practices [因循守旧] have become the political norm [因循守旧]. Meanwhile, [potential] strategic breakthroughs have been met with heavy resistance. In the current U.S. political arena, those who oppose China talk big [唱高调], while those who wish to cooperate keep quiet out of fear [噤若寒蝉]. Anti-China legislators, led by Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, have been 'opposing China no matter what [逢中必反]' in recent years. In 2022 alone, they introduced a number of high-profile congressional bills targeting China, including an oil export ban (China Oil Export Prohibition Act), restrictions on business procurements (Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act), restrictions on corporate investment (Turn Off the Tap Act), and many others. However, many Republicans and Democrats, and many government officials and members of congress in the U.S., are in cahoots with one another. Few are those who are fair-minded.”

“The United States' malicious attempts to seize political capital without regard for ethical boundaries and the principles governing international exchanges have made matters even worse for the already troubled China-U.S. relationship. The search for strategic breakthroughs has been subjected to many constraints. In addition, the U.S. uses its political system to serve its immoral and disingenuous strategy and policies towards China. For example, changes in U.S. administrations have often led to a lack of stability and continuity in [Washington’s] China policy. This is most obvious in the areas of climate change, epidemic control, military disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, food security, energy security, and so on.”

The Superiority of the Chinese Worldview

“Dichotomous thinking, emphasising either/or thinking like black or white, right or wrong, and good or evil, is so deeply rooted in Western countries that it has long since become a feature of their Western mindset.”

“The United States, for example, uses a broad brush [一刀切] to portray the relationship between Western and non-Western [countries] as one between ‘democracies and autocracies’. [Indeed,] after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, Joe Biden proclaimed that 'we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy[, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force].’”

“In reality, it is not for the United States to define the core meaning of democracy.  [Furthermore], equating the word 'democracy' with the representative system of the Western ruling-class is in and of itself a subjective and undemocratic act. The United States and its allies must realise that 'democracy is not the monopoly of any one country, but the right of all peoples' [Here, Yang is using a quote from Xi Jinping excerpted from a speech delivered to the UN General Assembly in 2021].”

“Harmonious coexistence [和合共生]’ is one of the most important features of, and basic values found in, Chinese culture. A dialectical approach to understanding the world can eliminate either/or dichotomies, zero-sum thinking, and worldviews based on 'conflict and conquest [冲突—征服]’. It can also enable actors to play more dynamic and positive roles. As President Xi Jinping stated at the 50th anniversary of the restoration of the PRC’s rightful seat in the United Nations, 'humanity should overcome difficulties in solidarity and pursue common development in harmony. We should keep moving toward a Community of Common Destiny for Humanity, and jointly create a better future. Building a Community of Common Destiny is not to replace one system or civilisation with another. Instead, it is about countries with different social systems, ideologies, histories, cultures and levels of development coming together for shared interests, shared rights and shared responsibilities in global affairs, and creating the greatest synergy for building a better world.’”

“Different ways of thinking will continue to persist for a long time to come. It takes time for the mindsets of different ethnic groups and nations to take shape. It typically takes even longer for relatively correct or incorrect mindsets to be identified, tested, and iterated before they can be finally accepted or discarded. [Indeed], some of our [most] fundamental patterns of thought have been fought over for thousands of years and will continue to be so. The same holds true for the basic philosophies and patterns of thought upheld by China and the United States. Without the great changes brought about by modernisation and globalisation, as well as the support provided by hard power, it will be difficult for the idea of 'unity in diversity [和而不同]' advocated in [texts like] the 'Doctrine of the Mean [中庸]' and the 'Book of Changes [周易]’ to completely change the United States' mindset. This will require strategic patience and persistent efforts.”

Conclusion: Putting China-U.S. Relations Back on Track

“In the face of its historical decline, in order to maintain its hegemony or at least slow down its downward trajectory, the U.S. has identified China as its 'main rival' and 'main security threat.' [As such], it is adopting an 'all-out' approach to its strategy and policies towards China. [This includes implementing a strategy of] “integrated deterrence” [综合威慑]. In this context, China’s response must be all-encompassing. In the political, economic, and security spheres, there is a need for effective communication, convergence, and cross-fertilisation of ideas and theories. The 20th Party Congress has proposed a framework and a set of standards for managing contemporary great power relations using a broader perspective. [It favours] 'promoting coordination and positive interactions between great powers, and facilitating the construction of a pattern of great power relations based on peaceful coexistence, overall stability and balanced development.' On November 14, 2022, during his meeting with President Joe Biden in Bali, Indonesia, Chairman Xi Jinping took one step further in proposing that 'China and the United States need to have a sense of responsibility for history, for the world and for the people. [We must] explore the right way to get along with each other in this new era. [We must] put the relationship between our two countries on the right course and promote the healthy and stable development of our relationship for the benefit of our two countries as well as the world as a whole.’"

“China-U.S. relations are affecting the world’s future trajectory. China cannot just act passively. It needs to be more proactive in shaping [this future] and must work hard[er] when it comes to ideology, ideas, and theories.”

“First, the world is material. The economy is the foundation of [our] comprehensive national strength. Development is a hard truth and it is our upmost priority. It is also the best guarantee to ultimately change America’s enmity towards, and suppression of, us. China needs to maintain its focus on development, bolster its economic and technological foundations and continuously upgrade its quality [of development]. [We must] accelerate the process of Chinese-style modernisation, and either drive or force the United States to recognise the reality of China-U.S. ties and return to reason.”

“Second, the world is also spiritual. In this historical process of approaching and entering the centre of the world stage, China needs to improve its institutional, theoretical and cultural self-confidence continuously. To this end, and in regard to its struggle against and cooperation with the United States, China needs to strengthen its study and understanding of Xi Jinping thought on diplomacy. [China must] strengthen the construction of a theoretical system for international relations with Chinese characteristics. [Finally, China must] step up its efforts in building independent academic and discursive systems in order to achieve greater ideological and theoretical consensus in the world.”

“Third, competition in international relations must be identified and managed both correctly and accurately. Competition in international relations is normal, such as economic competition, competition for scientific and technological talent, competition with regards to overall national power, ideological competition and strategic competition. Therefore, China certainly does not deny the existence of competition in its relationship with the United States. For example, [as] Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian pointed out, 'we do not deny that there is a certain amount of competition between China and the U.S. in the economic field. However, we refuse to define China-U.S. relations in terms of ‘competition.’ We should not engage in cut-throat ‘you lose, I win’ competition, and even less in great power confrontation under the guise of competition.’”

“Fourth, peaceful coexistence should be the basis of interactions between China and the U.S. In the Shanghai Communiqué of February 1972, China and the U.S. reached a consensus on the principle of peaceful coexistence. However, half a century later, this consensus only exists on paper and has yet to be transformed into a consensus of thought and action. This shows the difficulty of combining words with deeds. Under the new circumstances, 'no conflict and no confrontation' have been recast by Xi Jinping as defining 'peaceful coexistence' – one of the three principles that should be respected in China-U.S. relations. Xi has placed [peaceful coexistence] ahead of [the other two principles] of 'mutual respect' and 'win-win cooperation'. He [also] noted that 'no conflict, no confrontation and peaceful coexistence between China and the U.S. are the most basic interests shared by both countries.’”

“Fifth, China-U.S. relations are currently guided by the long-term goal of building a Community of Common Destiny for Humanity. With a responsible attitude towards history, China is looking at such fundamental questions as where human society has come from and where it is going. It is [thereby] leading all countries in the world, especially major powers, to think strategically about international relations and global affairs, and is gradually establishing an awareness around the concept of a Community of Common Destiny for Humanity at the bilateral, regional and global levels. Furthermore, the Community of Common Destiny advocated by China includes the United States. Although America’s current awareness [of this] does not reach such a level and depth, China should not abandon its efforts. On the contrary, China must maintain its strategic self-confidence and resolve. It should engage constructively with the United States both materially and spiritually, through practice and theory, though strategy and policy, and persevere resolutely [锲而不舍] in promoting the development of China-U.S. relations.”

---

---