Beyond Realism:“A New Type of Great Power Relations”as China's Strategy towards the U.S.

Da Wei[1]

The 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was held in Beijing in November 2012, a new generation of central leadership was elected and Xi Jinping was elected as the General Secretary of CPC.In the spring of 2013, the leadership transition of the Chinese government was completed.On the other side of the Pacific, the American President Obama won his re-election in November 2012 and inaugurated his second term in January 2013.As to the spring of 2013, the members of the second national security and diplomacy team of the Obama administration were also confirmed.Thus the U.S.and China, the largest and the second largest economy in the world, achieved the recombinants of their leaderships simultaneously, the relations between the U.S.and China are at a new beginning.

What are the strategies of the U.S.and China to each other? It is a question that brings worldwide concern.From the Chinese aspect, the answer has been given before the new leader of China took power.In February 2012, when Xi Jinping, who was the Vice-President of China at that time, was visiting the U.S.and proposed that China and the U.S.should build a “new type of major countries' relationship”, which “has no precedent before, but will benefit the posterities”.[2]In November 2012, the Communiqué of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC pointed out that,“We will improve and grow our relations with developed countries by expanding areas of cooperation and properly addressing differences with them; and we will strive to establish a new type of relations of long-term stability and sound growth with other major countries.”[3]It implied that the “new type of major countries' relationship”has already become an important part of China's foreign strategy.The Chinese President Xi Jinping and American President Obama held a “Rancho Mirage Meeting”in “Sunnylands”, California in May 2013.It is the first time that President Xi illustrated the connotations of the “new type of major countries' relationship”, that is“no conflict or confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”.[4]When the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was visiting the U.S.in September 2013, he elaborated it in detail.“No conflict or confrontation”is the prerequisite for the new type of major countries' relationship, “mutual respect”is a basic principle for it, and “win-win cooperation”is the only way to turn the vision into a reality.[5]

The U.S.also gradually accepted this concept.The former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a positive response to the “new type of major countries' relationship”in March 2012.She appealed that the U.S.and China should build “a competitive and cooperative balancing model which can be accepted by both countries”.[6]In March 2013, when the former National Security Adviser Donilon made a speech on the policy of the second Administration of Obama on Asia, he used the concept of the “new type of major countries' relationship”[7]formally, which was interpreted as the sign of the acceptance of this concept by U.S.officials.But in most occasions except the one above, the officials in the American government hierarchy still use concepts such as “a new kind of corporation model”and “a new kind of relations”, which have similarity with the “new type of major countries' relationship”but cannot be mutually replaced.There are two reasons why the Americans use the similar concepts cautiously.On one hand, the Americans do not want to harm the enthusiasm of the Chinese, otherwise they might lose opportunities; on the other hand, the Americans are unwilling to be led by the nose by a concept that was put forward by Chinese.Since the spring of 2013, the U.S.has gradually formed a concept that whatever the intentions of China put forward with such a concept, the U.S.could put its agenda into the concept of the “new type of major countries' relationship”on their issues, such as the North Korea's nuclear issue and the cyber theft issue, which can be used as “touchstones”for the “new type of major countries' relationship”.If China can behave in accordance with the willingness of the U.S., it implies that China really wishes to construct a new type of relations between great powers; otherwise, it means that China has no sincerity.Susan Rise, the U.S.National Security Adviser, said that the U.S.would collaborate with China to “implement the new type of major countries' relationship”in her first speech on the policy to Asia in November 20th 2013.[8]That is the most positive response from the U.S.to the “new type of major countries' relationship”ever since.

Although the concept of the “new type of major countries' relationship”is very popular now, there is still a fact which cannot be avoided, in that this concept hasn't been interpreted fully in the theoretical level.First, since academia hasn't found a proper position for this concept in the international relations (IR) theoretical level, the academic foundation of this concept is fragile.Second, academia also hasn't made a detailed and internally consistent interpretation in policy level, which means what the U.S.and China really want in foreign policy level? Third, is the concept of the “new type of major countries' relationship”just a slogan for propaganda or is it a real Chinese strategy for the U.S.?

The author argues that, the “new type of major countries' relationship”is not deceptive, and its theoretical basis is the character of contemporary international regime and the deeper interdependence between the U.S.and China.The “old type of major countries' relationship”is mainly based on realism, especially the prospects of the offensive realism on international relations.Not only IR theories challenged such judgments, but also the reality of international relations.Thus, the “new type of major countries' relationship”would come true in the future, besides, it should be a Chinese strategy for the major powers in the next few decades.The main aim of this strategy is to build a stable structure for the bilateral relationships between China and the other major powers, such as the U.S.and Russia, so as to make sure the prescribed minimum of bilateral relationships when they meet conflict and the prescribed maximum of bilateral relationships when they cooperate, they should achieve a statue of cooperation without alliance, conflict without war.

Have Sino-U.S.Relations Already Become a New Type?

In large part, the discussions of the “new type of major countries' relationship”by both officials and academics from China and the U.S.are based on the “Thucydides Trap”.[9]Hilary Clinton said,“What will happen when a quo-power encounters a rising power? We need to find new answers to this old question,”[10]which comes from her speech at Brookings in March 2013.In September 2013, the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi gave a speech at Brookings, in it he mentioned that “According to some study of history, there have been about 15 cases of the rise of emerging powers.In 11 cases, confrontation and war broke out between the emerging and the established powers.”[11]The proposition of “no conflict or confrontation”put forward by China is largely based on the historical fate that the quo-power and the rising power will inevitably go towards war.

So, how to get rid of the “Thucydides Trap”and form the situation of “no conflict or confrontation”for a long-term purpose?

In the history of international relations in the past century, the U.S., Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union became great powers one after another.The rising processes of these countries always accompanied conflicts and confrontations.The rises of Germany and Japan before World War II lead to the war coming true; after World War II, the rise of the Soviet Union led to the Cold War, which lasted 40 years between the U.S.and the Soviet Union.The only country who rose peacefully in the last century is the U.S., which took place in the first half of the 20th century.The ideology, political and economic system of the U.S., were very similar to Britain, who was the hegemony power at that time.Besides, they are both English-speaking countries.But in the meanwhile, Germany was trapped into the “Thucydides Trap”.If it were not Germany's rise and aggravation of tensions with Britain, it is hard to predict whether relations between the U.S.and Britain would have remained peaceful.According to these historical experiences, on one hand, if the rising power wants to keep a positive relationship with the hegemony power, it should share some similarities in basic institution, ideology, and even culture with the hegemony power; on the other hand, some special historical conditions are also necessary.If these two conditions do not exist simultaneously, conflict and confrontation seem to be a historical fate.Germany and Japan before World War II and the Soviet Union after World War II are all examples.

But since the 1970s, Sino-U.S.relations seem to have gotten rid of that fate to some extent.After the “6·4”in 1989, and the following revulsion of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the differences in ideology, basic institution, and culture between China and the U.S.became more conspicuous; after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no country or actor in the international system which could be seen as a “shield”for China, which means a country acts as a role of the principle international contradiction or the common enemy of China and the U.S..Meanwhile, since the mid-late 1990s, China began to rise, and as in the first ten years of the 21st century, China has risen more rapidly.The Sino-U.S.relationship has already become a typical relationship of a quo-power and a rising power.According to the former logic, the U.S.and China would inevitably head to confrontation.In fact, however, since 1989, it has already been 24 years, a quarter century, no confrontation or war has happened between China and the U.S.and both countries closely cooperate with each other in many fields.During the period of 24 years since 1989, China and the U.S.achieve the long-term peaceful coexistence of the quo-power and the rising power firstly and they collaborate as well as compete.Isn't it a “new type of major countries' relationship”with the character of “no conflict or confrontation”? In the sight of macro-history, of course, a quarter century is just a short period of time, and “no conflict or confrontation”is also not the whole of the new type of major countries' relationship.But at least we can say, the practice of the Sino-U.S.relationship in the recent 20 years shows that the relations between China and the U.S.have already been an embryonic form of the new type of countries' relationship, a kind of relationship with “no conflict or confrontation”at the lower level.

In fact, it is not only the U.S.and China that breaks the historical fate.The relations of the U.S.and the Soviet Union were once a “life-or-death struggle”in the era of the Cold War.Even so, in the 40 years' antagonism after World War II, they also successfully avoided direct military conflict.Although they confronted each other, they had no conflict.This is unprecedented in the modern history of international relations.It can be said that the “no conflict or confrontation”of contemporary Sino-U.S.relations has the continuity of logic with “confrontation but no conflict”character of the relations between the U.S.and the Soviet Union.

It is very difficult for a quo-power and a rising power to build up a high level of strategic trust if they have different ideologies.The strategic trust between countries is based upon the characters (whether credible or not), intentions, and emotional recognition of the other countries.The ideologies and political systems of China and the U.S.are different, their mutual credibility and predictable assessment are both in low condition; besides, the strategic decision-making circles in these two countries have a low emotional recognition to each other.Thus, it should be realized that the new kind of major countries' relationship with the character of “no conflict or confrontation”at the low level is acceptable at least, although it is not satisfactory.Under this structure, neither could the U.S.contain the rise of China from the external, nor could China challenge the hegemony of the U.S..The total economic size of China is one eighth of the U.S.'s 10 years ago, which is half of the U.S.'s nowadays.The U.S.and China should put their effort into building confidence in the future, rather than only building trust.It is better to improve Sino-U.S.relations to a more positive new kind of major countries' relationship at a high level, but what is more urgent is to maintain the confidence of the new kind of major countries' relationship at the lower level.

The existing practice of the new kind of major countries' relationship provides a foundation of theoretical thinking and further practice for us.The reason why the U.S.and China could achieve the embryonic form of a new type of countries' relationship or the situation of “confrontation but no conflict”between the U.S.and the Soviet Union, is not because the U.S.likes to see or trust the rise of China (the Soviet Union) nor China (the Soviet Union) is totally satisfied with or trusts the hegemony of the U.S..It is because the “strategic interdependence”between China and the U.S.(the U.S.and the Soviet Union).The decision-makers in China are also quite clear about it.As discussing the character of “no conflict or confrontation”in the speech by the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in the U.S.in September 2013, he pointed out that,“We now live in a different world.China and the United States and in fact all countries in the world are part of a community of shared interests.Countries are increasingly interconnected.Neither of us will benefit from confrontation.War will get us nowhere.”[12]That is to say，the Chinese officials also believe that the community of interest based on the interdependence is helpful to form the situation of “no conflict or confrontation”.Some scholars pointed out that although the European countries formed close interdependent relations before World War I, it failed to prevent the outbreak of the war.What should we pay special attention to is the nature of interdependences between China and the U.S.and other major countries is different from those relations in the first half of the 20th century.The interdependence between China and the U.S.is a strategic interdependence, which means the interests of both parts in such interdependence are enormous so that the survival of both will be threatened if the interdependence breaks down.Both sides of the interdependence cannot bear the cost of the break of the interdependence.The restricting force of such strategic interdependence is much stronger than the normal economic interdependence, concepts such as sensitivity and vulnerability in interdependence are no more important.At least, there are three pillars to support the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S..

The first pillar is the interdependence of nuclear power between China and the U.S..During the Cold War era, the main reason for “no conflict”between the U.S.and the Soviet Union was the mutual deterrence by their nuclear powers, which means “Mutually Assured Destruction”.It is not only that the nuclear powers of the U.S.and the Soviet Union were Mutually Assured Destruction, but also could protect their own nuclear powers when they suffered from the first round nuclear strike and then destroy the rivals with their residual nuclear powers.The nature of such “Mutually Assured Destruction”is also a kind of interdependence.The most critical pillar of the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S.is still the nuclear deterrence.Although the nuclear arsenal of China cannot be competent with the Soviet Union's, China has already had the minimum capability of nuclear deterrence.

The second pillar of the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S.is their economic interdependence, which could not be found in the U.S.and the Soviet Union in the Cold War era.This kind of interdependence both includes the interdependence of the national development path and the interdependence of the macro economy.From the perspective of the interdependence of the national development path, after the Cold War, with the expansion of economic globalization, western countries are leading the world in economy, and the emerging countries, such as China and India, achieve their economic rise due to the open door reform of the world and marketization.The major countries, including China and the U.S., gradually formed a consensus that it was necessary to integrate into the interconnected world economy for the economic development of their own countries.It means that the major countries are not willing to bear the expensive cost of quitting the interconnected world economy.From the macroeconomic level, the degree of interdependence between China and the U.S.has already arrived at a degree that is similar to the “Mutually Assured Destruction”by nuclear power.The volume of trade between China and the U.S.has been 500 billion dollars and China obtains the trade surplus through bilateral trade.China also purchases 1.2 trillion dollar U.S.Treasuries by foreign exchange reserves.With such a macroeconomic “chain”, the U.S.could maintain its low price, low interest rate and vigorous market demand before the financial crisis, which means to go on importing Chinese goods.Such “Chimerica”phenomenon has been criticized after the financial crisis in 2008.[13]At present, both governments are devoted to changing their economic structures, but it is very difficult to change the economic structure in a short time and the change of economic structure does not equal to the disappearance of “the financial balance of terror”.In the fifth year after the financial crisis, the economies of China and the U.S., which are seen as two engines of the world economy, still reflect the relations of “be bound together for good or ill”.As the economic interdependence between China and the U.S.is not only large in size and interest, but also tight in connection, thus, both China and the U.S.cannot bear the cost of cutting off the macroeconomic “chain”, no matter if the economy of China or the U.S.ranking is No.1, No.2, or No.3, because such a system-level factor has tightly “bound”these two countries together.

The third pillar of the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S.is the common global threat.Some new security problems, such as climate change, energy, terrorism, and infectious disease, are all global, regional or transnational threats and so on.Because of the interconnected character of the countries, these problems cannot be resolved by only one country.As China and the U.S.are both major countries, these important global problems cannot be solved without the corporation between these two.And if these global problems cannot be solved, the securities and interests of China, the U.S., and even the whole world will be threatened.For example, as the two countries with the most carbon emissions in the world, the Sino-U.S.cooperation will be almost the prerequisite to solve the global climate problem.China and the U.S.also form a strategic interdependence in this sense.

These three pillars cannot only guarantee “no conflict”, as the former the U.S.-Soviet relations, between China and the U.S.in the past 20 years, but also first achieve “no confrontation”.Just as the Chinese idiom “tongzhou gongji”(pull together in times of trouble) repeatedly used by the American senior officials in recent years implies that[14], the strategic interdependence is like the soldiers from hostile countries are on the same ferryboat to cross the river, the danger that the ferryboat capsized determined though their interests are different, that they must constrain their own behaviors and collaborate to cross the river.No matter how the balance of power between great powers changed, even the transposals occurred on the size of economies and the balance of power between China and the U.S., the “bounding”factor comes from the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S., and other great powers would still be exerting influence.

The nature of the so-called “Thucydides Trap”reflects the opinion of realism, especially the offensive realism in IR theory.According to such opinion, the great powers are the only actors in international relations and they are endlessly struggling for power.Thus, the great powers would inevitably go towards conflict.It is certain that the realism in IR theory is very explanatory and flourishing, but contemporary IR theory has already gone beyond realism.Even from the most macro level, realism is just parallel with liberal institutionalism and constructivism.It is not sufficient to interpret contemporary international relations simply by realism, especially not the offensive realism.From the theoretical level, the interdependence belongs to the liberal institutionalism.The theoretical implications given by the fact that the relations between China and the U.S.have already been an embryonic form of the new type of major countries' relationship, the contemporary international relations or the Sino-U.S.relations have already moved beyond the viewpoint of realism, there is no necessity for us to overly worry about the “Thucydides Trap”from the realists.The path of the Sino-U.S.new type of major countries' relationship at a high level in the future will not be only based on realism, but also beyond it, it should mix different theoretical perspectives including realism so as to build a more complex and profound international vision that is more in line with the current realities of international relations.

After the basic idea of “based on the realism but also beyond it”is clear, we can make a deeper and detailed discussion on the realization route and basic policy implications of the new type of major countries' relationship.According to the connotations of the new type of major countries' relationship put forward by China at three levels, there are three methods for China and the U.S.to construct the new type of major countries' relationship, that is to maintain the strategic interdependence to guarantee no confrontation or conflict through the gradualism approach to achieve mutual respect and take the maintenance, the construction and the reform of international regime as the core to promote win-win cooperation.

No Conflict or Confrontation: Maintain the Strategic Interdependence

The basic goal of no conflict or confrontation is to achieve no hot or cold war between China and the U.S..As mentioned earlier, the existence of strategic interdependence between China and the U.S.is a considerable foundation for both sides to achieve that goal.The basic idea to maintain or deepen the no conflict or confrontation situation is to deepen the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S..

Firstly, it is necessary to maintain the military capabilities of China and the U.S., especially the mutual deterrence of nuclear power.Since the wide gap of military power between China and the U.S.is still very obvious, what is more important is to ensure the minimum deterrent capability of China against the U.S..From a wide aspect, the military forces of China and the U.S.are in competition.When new military theories, plans, and doctrines are put forward by both sides, they must take the balance of Sino-U.S.military power, maintain mutual deterrence and the acceptance of “mutual vulnerability”into account, which is to say they cannot pursue absolute security.We can expect that with the growing size of the Chinese economy, it will invest more on defense research and development and it is more likely for China to obtain more advanced weapons.The Americans are very vigilant on it in a short time.But from the mid-long term, a more balancing military power between China and the U.S.is helpful for China to enhance self-confidence and develop a deeper discussion on the intention and capability of both sides.Thus, from the perspective of China, it should insist on the military modernization in a long period, pursue balance through power, pursue peace through balance.Of course, the deterrence of China against the U.S.is mainly asymmetric deterrence.From the perspective of the U.S., it should accept the fact that the military modernization of China would eventually come true with the growing of its economic size.In the meanwhile, the militaries of both sides should gradually establish the Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), strengthen military transparency and gradually take the bilateral or multilateral arms control measures.The relevant experience of the U.S.and the Soviet Union in the 1970s to 1980s deserves to be studied and referred by the academics and militaries both in China and the U.S..The decision about promoting the notification regime of important military action and the discussion on the code of conduct of air and sea made by President Xi Jinping and Obama in their meeting in California are important steps of the CBMs between China and the U.S..

Compared with the break of nuclear deterrence, a more realistic danger in military security is China and the U.S.may be involved into a military conflict due to a third-party.The possibility of direct military conflict between China and the U.S.is very small because the existence of mutual deterrence between them.However, the Taiwan issue is still unsolved for China and there are some contents about “help Taiwan to defend”in American domestic law.In the meantime, China has territorial disputes with Japan and Philippines who have alliances with the U.S.and the U.S.promises to defend them.To implement this promise is related to the global credibility of the U.S., which is a foundation of the U.S.hegemony and thus, it still has the possibility that although the U.S.is unwilling, it is dragged into a conflict with China.In short, the possibility of military conflict between China and the U.S.cannot be excluded since the existence of the Taiwan issue, the East China Sea issue and the South China Sea issue.The reality of the strategic interdependence between China and the U.S.can only reduce the likelihood of the U.S.involvement into a military conflict, but the likelihood cannot be fully eliminated.In order to avoid such situations occurring, China should adhere to the peaceful and non-military manners to deal with these related issues first.Second, the U.S.should release the right signals on the Taiwan issue, which means to go on opposing the independence of Taiwan, or at least do not support it.Recently, the U.S.should release the right signals on the disputes between China and Japan, and the disputes between China and Philippines, restrict the behaviors of its alliances and avoid being dragged into a conflict with China.Third, the U.S.deliberately keeps a “ambiguity of strategy”on its security promise to its alliances, which is helpful to maximize its strategic utility but easily leads to misjudgments of China and the U.S..In order to maintain the maximum deterrent effect on China, the U.S.has always been ambiguous on when it would intervene in conflicts between China and its allies, and the possible extent and manner of its interventions.It is understandable from the standpoint of strategic necessity.Because a clear “red line”would restrict the freedom of action of the U.S.(it means that once past the “red line”the U.S.must respond), and it would also give China more freedom outside the “red line”(which implies that the U.S.promises that it will not intervene those outside the “red line”).However, the “ambiguity of strategy”would increase the possibility of misjudgment, both China and the U.S.are unwilling to bear the cost of misjudgment.Therefore, only China and the U.S., by strengthening dialogue can the two parts have a more accurate understanding of each other's intentions at the bottom lines, so as to narrow the strategic ambiguous zone, and form a tacit agreement on the “red line”.

In addition, China and the U.S.should deepen their dialogue on the network security issue.As the network space is a new military and security arena, the relevant strategies, laws, and rules are all very vague.The mutual recognitions of China and the U.S.in capability and strategy are also very vague.Since the Obama administration took office, on one hand it pays a lot of attention to network security issues, on the other hand, it also attaches great importance to the cyber warfare capability of the U.S..Since 2012, the United States began to set the commercial cyber espionage behaviors apart from other network security issues, and concentrated on so-called “Chinese commercial cyber espionage”acts and exerted pressure on China.However, just as what the U.S.“Prism”incident has revealed recently, the United States is implementing the surveillance and monitoring of the networks of many countries for a long period of time, including China.The world's leading network hardware and software companies are almost American companies and other countries have no choices.The “Prism”incident shows that these companies are in extensive cooperation with the U.S.intelligence agency.Therefore, the ability of China and the U.S.in cyberspace is completely asymmetric, which will account for serious uncertainties for Sino-U.S.security relations.On one hand, the issues such as how do China and the U.S.react and how to communicate with each other when the unexpected events occur in cyberspace, how to make other countries, including China, feel relatively safe in cyberspace are all needed to be discussed in the Sino-U.S.dialogue.If we want to form a kind of interdependence in this field, the United States should come up with some credible “strategic reassurance”measures so that the other countries including China would “feel at ease”, or let China and the U.S.also form a clear and effective mutual deterrence in cyberspace.

Secondly, from the perspective of macroeconomic interdependence, China is gradually converting its economic development type from an external-driven to domestic-driven economy at present.Meanwhile, the U.S.is trying to improve the manufacturing and exporting to promote its economic growth.That is to say, the economic structures of China and the U.S.are all transforming towards different directions compared with the past decade.Once the transitions come true, these two countries should make sure that the Sino-U.S.strategic economic interdependence will not be weakened.The basic economic elements of China and the U.S.are fundamentally different, the results of economic transitions should achieve their own economic balance from internal and external, consumption and production, but the differences between China and the U.S.in the standards of living, in the industrial structure and so on will not disappear in a long time, the foundation of the Sino-U.S.strategic macroeconomic interdependence will still exist.Additionally, the new potentials in Sino-U.S.economic relations can be found in the transforming process of two countries' economic structure.The urbanization strategy, the improvement of market consumption capacity, and the internationalization of the RMB of China are all new impetus for Sino-U.S.interdependence; while the strengthening construction of infrastructure, the exploitation of unconventional energy, and the demand for Chinese investment of the U.S.are providing new opportunities to deepen the economic corporation between China and the U.S..From a recent aspect, China and the U.S.should promote the current round of Strategic and Economic Dialogue as soon as possible so as to accelerate the negotiation on bilateral investment treaties.China can combine with the economic reform agenda put forward by the new session of government, take effective action in financial reform, market access, the protection of intellectual property, and the reform of state-owned enterprises.the U.S.should come up with some specific measures on high-tech export controls, and fair treatment on Chinese enterprises to invest in the U.S..In the meantime, China and the U.S.should carefully consider their relations with the international or regional economic systems, such as TPP, RCEP, TiSA and so on.

The third is the cooperation between China and the U.S.on global issues.As the two largest economies, the first and the third largest in population, and the two economies that consume most energy in the world, the role of China and the U.S.in energy, climate, international commons (at the sea, in the networks, in space, in polar) and other global issues are extremely important.These two countries not only have their obligations on these issues, but are also in line with their own interests.The relationship between China and the U.S.can be divided into three levels: bilateral level, regional level and global level.In fact, the cooperation on the global level is the field that has the lowest sensitivity and the cooperation can be expanded a little easier.A stable and reliable global environment is necessary for the success of economy and society of both China and the U.S., these two countries should cooperate on these issues together.But from another perspective, most of the global issues are long-term problems, they are important but not urgent; and the “tragedy of the commons”are easily occurred on these issues, which means that the individual country is not willing to contribute to the global “public issues”according to its own narrow national interest.In addition, the Sino-U.S.cooperation on global issues is also easily affected by their bilateral issues.The bilateral problems between these two countries and the mutual trust of them at low level will also affect the depth of cooperation on global issues.In general, China seems more passive on global issues.One reason for this phenomenon is that China is a developing country whose national power is not strong enough, China has more domestic problems and more pressing problems.Another reason is the strategic suspicion of China to the U.S., which would harm the enthusiasm of China to cooperate with the U.S.on global issues.As the economy of China continues growing and the international status of China goes on increasing in the future, it can be expected that the Sino-U.S.cooperation on global issues will be deeper.According to the report spirit of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC that “expanding areas of cooperation and properly addressing differences”, the cooperation and the divergence are different but they also have linkage.The differences between China and the U.S.will exist for a long period of time, but this should not be an obstacle to the Sino-U.S.cooperation on global issues, these two parts should be separated.China should avoid regarding that the cooperation on global issues is its “reward”to the U.S..But for a long run on the other hand, the cooperation on global issues should serve the establishment of mutual strategic trust and the solution of bilateral divergences.

Mutual Respect: Through the Gradualism Approach to Narrow the Divergence

The second implication of the Sino-U.S.new type of major countries' relationship is the mutual respect to each other's core interests and major concerns.

The former State Councilor Dai Bingguo made a definition on China's core interests at the end of the first round of Sino-U.S.Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July 2009, he said that,“the first core interests of China is to protect its fundamental system and national security, the second is the state sovereignty and the territorial integrity, the third is the sustained and steady economic and social development.”[15]The Chinese suspicions can be summarized as: whether the U.S.would subvert China's basic political system led by the Communist Party of China through “peaceful evolution”or other ways? Whether the U.S.would damage China's interest by intervening in the issues concerning China's sovereignty and territorial integrity (such as the issues related with Taiwan, Tibet, East China Sea, South China Sea, etc.)? Whether the U.S.would undermine the economic development of China in some way?

the U.S.“National Security Strategy”issued by the Obama Administration in 2010 defines the national interests of the U.S.as the following: The first is the security of the U.S., The U.S.citizens, The U.S.allies and its partners; second is an open international economic system in which the U.S.economy will be strong, innovative and growing; third is the respect for universal values both in the U.S.and around the whole world; fourth is through strong cooperation to cope with the global challenges in the international order led by the U.S..[16]As the possibility of military attack from China on the U.S.and its people or the possibility of China exporting a kind of ideology that is in competition with the U.S.'s are nearly zero, thus in the context of Sino-U.S.relations, what the U.S.fears most about China are the following: the first is China challenges the global system led by the U.S.; the second challenge is the political and economic relations of China and the relations between government and enterprise on the international economic system; the third is the relationship between China and the U.S.'s allies in Asia-Pacific.In other words, whether China will undermine to overthrow the U.S.'s leadership and the international order led by the U.S.in a destructive way? Whether China will attempt to push the U.S.out of Asia?

In this respect, China and the U.S.should establish mutual trust measures at the strategic level.The former Under Secretary of State James Steinberg proposed the conception of “strategic reassurance”between China and the U.S.in his speech at the New American Security Center in September 24th 2009.[17]This concept caused a huge controversy in the United States and with the departure of Steinberg it soon wilted.But looking back on the core concerns of these two countries, it is indeed that China and the U.S.should take some actions to “let the other at ease.”Steinberg said that,“strategic reassurance rests on a core, if tacit, bargain.Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China's ‘arrival’, as you all have so nicely put it, as a prosperous and successful power, China must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of security and the well-being of others.”[18]

Specifically, the United States should assure China that it will not seek to undermine the stability of China's basic political system led by the Chinese Communist Party; it will not seek to break off or delay the development of the Chinese economy.At the same time, China should assure the United States that it will not seek to terminate the dominant position of the U.S.in the global order, and it will not seek to establish a new order in East Asia without the presence of the U.S..From another point of view, China and the U.S.should also help each other to build self-confidence.The United States should help the Chinese policymakers and Chinese public to establish confidence through its concrete actions and words, which means that the stability of China's basic political system and the prospects of China's economic development largely depend on their own domestic development, rather than the attitudes and practices of the U.S..This kind of confidence should not only depend on the American promise that it has no motivations to damage the stability and the rise of China, but also depend on the U.S.having no capability to do so.At the same time, China should also help the American policymakers and American public to establish confidence through its concrete actions and words, which means that the dominant status of the U.S.in the world and the situation of the U.S.'s domestic economy is good or bad depends on whether the United States could better itself, not on China's attitude or practices.Similarly, what is critical to make this argument credible and reliable is not the motivation of China to end the hegemony of the U.S., but that China has no capability to do so.For this reason, the dialogue mechanism for a series issue of strategic mutual suspicion between China and the U.S.should be developed.This kind of dialogue can be worked out in the form of the two tracks dialogue of the academia, both sides can focus on the behaviors which lead to the suspicions of the other side and then listen to the explanation of the opposite side.The results of the dialogue should be transmitted to each government, but what is equally important is to transmit them to their people through the mass media.

What are most critical to China in the issue of “mutual respect”are the problems related with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China.What the United States worries most is also the request put forward by China on these problems, which ties the hands and feet of the U.S..Thus, although not all of these are the problems of the new type of major countries' relationship, they are the difficulties and the focal points of this kind of relationship.Specifically, the arms sales to Taiwan and meeting the Dalai Lama by the U.S.president in the White House are “periodicity”problems in Sino-U.S.relations.Since 2013, although the relationship between China and the U.S.shows a more positive trend, it almost can be ascertained that these old problems will emerge at some moments in the second administration of Obama and will affect Sino-U.S.relations.Furthermore, the U.S.'s substantive support for Japan and Philippines in the issues of East China Sea and South China Sea in recent years is also highly concerned by China.

What should we pay attention to is, on one hand, the “mutual respect”is based on power.In the condition that the gap of power between China and the U.S.is still very numerous, the expectation that the United States suddenly changes its position on the above issues is unrealistic.On the other hand, the judgment of “mutual respect”is of great subjectivity.The understandings of mutual respect by China and the United States may not be consistent.Therefore, in the pursuing process of the “mutual respect”principle, both sides should abide by the way of gradualism and find a middle point which is mutually acceptable and then gradually push it forward, it is better to not have too high of an expectation on solving these problems in a short time.The issues related with Taiwan, Tibet and so on are old issues in Sino-U.S.relations.“Rome is not built in one day.”The political system of separation of power and the pluralism political feature of the U.S.have increased the complexity of these issues.Even if the U.S.administration takes some actions, Congress, interest groups, and the non-governmental organizations are likely to make trouble on these issues.Finding a middle point and adhering to the way of gradualism means that if the U.S.cannot solve the problem of arms sales to Taiwan in a short time, at least it should gradually implement the regulations of the “August 17th Communiqué”that the U.S.ought to reduce the amount and limit the quality of the arms that it sells to Taiwan.It should be noted that the U.S.government has not sold advanced weapons such as the F-16CD fighter plane in recent years, which is a signal of restriction on weapon quality on arms sales.China should continue to encourage and promote such self-restraint and combine it with the changes in the relations between Taiwan and Mainland China in a long period of time so as to eventually solve the arms sales issue to Taiwan.In the East China Sea issue, China cannot expect the United States to abandon its security commitments to its allies, but the United States could make an effort to push Japan to admit the dispute and stabilize the present new situation.This approach of finding an intermediate point can weaken China's suspicion and help to build confidence and trust to some extent.In history, the George W.Bush administration of the U.S.has made a series of statements on fighting against the independence of Taiwan such as “oppose unilateral changes in the status quo”and opposed “the referendum on UN membership”.Although these measures do not fundamentally change the U.S.-Taiwan relations, they played an important role in improving the mutual strategic trust between China and the U.S.on the Taiwan issue, which is a positive case of finding intermediate points.The U.S.policymakers should carefully study this period of history.

Win-win Cooperation: the Maintainability and the Construction of International Regime

The third implication of the Sino-U.S.new type of major countries' relationship is “win-win cooperation”.As the two most important countries in the world, China and the U.S.should focus on the maintainability, the construction and the reform of international regime.

Generally speaking, international regime is consists of international organization, international law, international rule and international convention.Most of the current international regimes were established by the United States and other Western countries after World War II.However, once the international regime formed, it would develop a kind of autonomy that would restrict all countries, including the U.S..The essence of China's decision of opening to the outside world in the late 1970s was to join into the international system and accept the existing international regime.The tremendous economic and social development of China in the last 30 years was achieved through the integration into the international regime.It can be said that China is a beneficiary of the current international regime.What accompanied this process is the change of China's attitude towards the existing international order and regime.In the report of the 15th national congress of the CPC, the expression of the international order is “unfair and irrational international economic order still damages the interests of developing countries……China will be devoted to promote the establishment of a fair and rational international political and economic order.”The expression in the report of the 16th national congress of the CPC changed to “promote the establishment of a fair and rational new international political and economic order.”The expression in the report of the 17th national congress of the CPC is “to promote the international order development towards a more fair and rational direction.”[19]The 17th national congress of the CPC in 2003 is a turning point as China's attitude towards the current international regime gradually changed from criticism to affirmation, from advocating the establishment of a new order to promoting the rationalization of the existing order.In other words, the role of China in the international system gradually changed from a “revolutionary”to a participant and reformer.

The above positions and locations of China and the U.S.provide the foundation to build a new type of major countries' relationship at a high level: as the two most important powers in the world, China and the U.S.can work together to become the defenders, the reformers and the constructors of the international regime.China is a developing country, and while it shares many common interests with the developed countries; China is a non-Western country, but it has a deeper cooperation with the Western countries.This unique status is a superior advantage for China to play the constructive role of reformer in the international system.From this point of view, there are several of the following aspects which at least deserve a win-win cooperation between China and the U.S..

The first is cooperation on promoting the implementation of the existing international regime.For example, China and the U.S.recently enhanced their interaction and cooperation on the North Korean nuclear issue, in that they prompted more severe sanction measures on North Korea at the United Nations so as to implement the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and they achieved some success, which is also objectively conducive to Sino-U.S.relations.

The second is to keep on promoting the reform of the international regime so as to more accurately reflect the new international reality.What is more important about it is to promote the reform of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations.As two major powers in the future world, the greatest interest of China and the U.S.is to make these organizations more rationally reflect the current international reality.Only in this way could these organizations not lose their relevance with international reality.In the meanwhile, in the background of the U.S.'s economy getting out of a crisis, China and the United States should work together to maintain the new global governance mechanism whose core is the “Group of Twenty”that formed after the financial crisis in 2008.It is unacceptable that the international mechanism turns back after the crisis.

The third is to promote the construction or implementation of new international regime in new fields.The fields such as the climate, the oceans, outer space, networks, and the polar ice cap are all important fields for current construction or implementation of a new international regime.There are many divergences between China and the U.S.in these fields.The climate issues for instance, the propositions of China and the U.S.on the obligations of developed and developing countries are different; on marine issues, the interpretations of China and the U.S.on exclusive economic zones are also different.In addition, besides the universal international regime, China and the U.S.also need to keep an open mind on regional institutional arrangements.For example, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement), the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), and China-Japan-South Korea FTA.The former one is strongly advocated by the U.S., the latter two are free trade arrangements in East Asia promoted by Asian countries themselves．China and the U.S.should avoid interpreting these issues from the zero-sum perspective.

As a latecomer of the international system, it is very difficult for China to cooperate with the U.S.to construct the new type of major countries' relationship whose core is the construction of international regime at a high-level, and China has to make a strategic choice in politics.Since China does not play a major role in the establishment process of the current international regime, it may not be fully in line with the demands of China.But as China has chosen integration into the international system as a national strategic choice, it is necessary to hold a constructive view on the existing international system as a whole, seeking partial reform in the premise of overall acceptance of it.China should take an active part in the establishment of the unfinished international regimes and while participating in the process of setting rules to shaping the future international regime, China should also ensure its own interests.In recent years, the United States and the neighboring countries of China are suspicious of the rise of China.In order to weaken the suspicions of the other countries, an effective method is to put all countries, including China, under the constraint of the international regime.Under the constraint of the international regime, China could let the other countries feel at ease on the development of China on one hand, in addition, it could also protect its own interest.What is most in accord with the interest of China is to participate in the process of setting up rules and protect its discourse power, especially in the fields that the regimes haven't yet established.

It needs to overcome a lot of sufferings if China chooses the construction of the international regime at a high-level for the new type of major countries' relationship.The construction of the international regime mainly depends on the soft power of a nation.Despite the rapid rise of China's national strength, the capability of China to use power through the international regime not only falls behind developed countries, but also falls behind the development of its own hard power.As a developing and non-Western country, China has a special responsibility on the reform and the maintenance of the international regime.Chinese academia should distinguish the irrational components of the international regime and protect the interests of developing countries.It should also specify the content of “promoting the international order and the international system toward a fair and rational direction.”What is the most dangerous is to blabber the current international order is “unreasonable”but with no concrete reform plan.At the same time, China should fight with the behaviors such as the violations of the international regime or pursuing double standards.For example, the United States repeatedly bypasses the United Nations, violates the international regime and unilaterally uses force against a sovereign state; it pursues double standards on the issue of nuclear proliferation in some countries, and determines its attitude on nuclear program according to other countries' domestic political systems.China should “speak straightforwardly for justice”on these issues.In order to construct the new type of major countries' relationship between China and the U.S., it is necessary for both sides to receive each other's constructive criticism in accordance with the international regime.

A Strategic Choice or a Propagandistic Slogan

From the perspective of China, since the U.S.'s national power is still stronger than China's, the foreign strategic mentality of the U.S.is hegemonic, and the interests and values of China and the U.S.are different, a number of policies and practices of the America's China policy hurt the interests of China, and violate the will of the Chinese.Under such circumstances, does China sincerely want to construct a new type of major countries' relationship with the United States? Or it is just a kind of “delay tactics,”trying to stabilize the Sino-U.S.relations temporarily and waiting for a better opportunity? It should be said that, even in China, there are still many different answers on this issue.

According to the development trend and the international power structure of China and the U.S., if there is no major accident for quite a long time in the future, China and the U.S.would be the two most important countries in the world.The comprehensive national strength of China's would gradually approach the U.S.'s, and its economic scale may surpass the U.S.'s in a shorter time, but on the whole, the most likely international structure is the comprehensive national strength of China and the U.S.ahead of the other countries, while the U.S.is ahead of China.Due of the existence of strategic interdependence, the relative balance of power between China and the U.S.will not be a serious matter.In this context, it is very important for both two countries and the whole world to maintain the constructive relations between China and the U.S..

From the perspective of the international regime, China achieves its own development through integration into the international regime in the past 30 years.This fact proves that the current international regime is considerably inclusive, which can accommodate with the development and the rise of a great power such as China.It is impossible that the development of China relies on the overthrow of the existing international regime in the future.As the existence of strategic interdependence, the rise of great powers in the future cannot actually depend on a cold or hot war.

According to these perspectives, the new type of major countries' relationship with the United States and other great powers is an active strategic choice of China's new administration.From the practice of Sino-U.S.relations since 1990s, the construction of the new type of major countries' relationship is not only possible, but also has an initial practice.The key is “beyond realism”, which means based on realism but beyond the strategic concept of it.Specifically, China and the U.S.should achieve it in the following aspects:

First, China and the U.S.should go beyond the view of “national center”from the strategic concept of realism.The realism emphasizes that the nation is the main or even sole actor in international relations, which regards inter-state relations as billiards bumping with each other.On the one hand, in the construction process of the new type of major countries' relationship, the strategic sectors of China and the U.S.should go beyond the national level and be aware of the constraint from the current international regime on the nation's behaviors, especially the interdependence; on the other hand, they should pay attention to the level under the nation, note the influence of both countries' domestic factors on the relationship between China and the U.S..

Second,China and the U.S.should go beyond the assumptions of power, security and interest that come from the strategic concept of realism.The strategic concept with realistic features assumes that the “nature”of a nation is pursuing endless power, pursuing absolute security, and pursuing relative interest compared with other countries.But these issues are no longer the absolute truth in today's international relations.Since the effective restraint of the international regime, the excessive pursuit of endless power, absolute security and relative interests may adversely injure the power, the security and the interests.During the construction process of the new type of major countries' relationship between China and the U.S., these two countries should restrain their impulses mentioned above; on the other hand, they also need to avoid using the hypothesis of endless power, absolute security and relative interests as the starting point to understand the other's strategic intentions.For example, it is impossible that the United States imposed the “containment”policy like in the Cold War era on China in contemporary Sino-U.S.relations.The mainstream of the U.S.policy towards China indeed is the so-called “hedge”(liangmian xiazhu).But in Chinese academia and mass media, they often mechanically apply the conception of “containment”in current Sino-U.S.relations, the misuse of concepts may lead to the misperception of strategy.Similarly, the interpretation of the Chinese aim in East Asia to expel the United States out of Asia and achieve the “Asian version of the Monroe Doctrine”is just some Americans' projecting their own historical experience on China, which is the misreading of Chinese strategic intention and will also account for incorrect assumptions.

Third, it is necessary for us to have the hardship consciousness if we hope to go beyond the strategic concept of realism.Having the hardship consciousness is certainly a valuable quality of a nation and an individual, the international strategic concept of realism especially emphasizes “prepare for the worst”.However at the same time, we must be aware that the strategy of prepare for the worst may also become a self-fulfilling prophecy.Countries with profound hostile to each other may lead them to interpret others' actions from the worst perspective and will result in the “Prisoner Paradox”.The worst outcome of Sino-U.S.relations is the war and conflict between them, which cannot be afforded by both sides.Thus, an important task of the strategic sectors in China and the U.S.is to “prepare for the worst and strive for the best”, they should understand each other's strategic intentions as objectively as possible and transmit them to their decision-makers accurately.The most effective method to break the “Prisoner Paradox”is to strengthen mutual communication and realize the information sharing.Once frequent communication and repeated game can be achieved by China and the U.S., although they hold hostility to each other, the situation can also be relieved, even changed.

If China and the U.S.could “upgrade”their own strategic concepts and make them based on realism but also beyond it, thus, it will not only be a realistic goal for China and the U.S.to construct the new type of major countries' relationship, but also helpful in forming their foreign strategies, which are more consistent with the reality of international relations in the 21st century and more in line with their national interests.

[1] Director and Researcher，Institute of American Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

[2] 习近平：《共创中美合作伙伴关系的美好明天——在美国友好团体欢迎午宴上的演讲》，2012年2月15日，华盛顿，《人民日报》，2012年2月17日，第2版。

[3] The report of Hu Jintao on the 18th Central Committee of the CPC, from http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2012/1118/c64094-19612151-11.html, access date: December 29th, 2013.

[4] 温宪、陈一鸣：《跨越太平洋的合作——国务委员杨洁篪谈习近平主席与奥巴马总统安纳伯格庄园会晤成果》，《人民日报》，2013年6月10日，第1—2版。

[5] 王毅：《如何构建中美新型大国关系——王毅外长在布鲁金斯学会的演讲》，中华人民共和国外交部网站，http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/zyxw_602251/t1078765.shtml, access date: December 29th, 2013.

[6] Hillary Rodham Clinton,“Remarks at the U.S.Institute of Peace China Conference”, The U.S.Institute of Peace，Washington, DC, March 7, 2012.http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/03/185402.htm, access date: December 29th, 2013.

[7] Asia Society,“Complete Transcript: Thomas Donilon at Asia Society New York, National Security Advisor to President Obama discusses The U.S.policy in the Asia-Pacific region in 2013”, http://asiasociety.org/new-york/complete-transcript-thomas-donilon-asia-society-new-york, access date: December 29th, 2013.

[8] Susan E.Rice,“America's Future in Asia”, Remarks As Prepared for Delivery by National Security Advisor Susan E.Rice, At Georgetown University, Gaston Hall, Washington, D.C., November 20, 2013.http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/21/remarks-prepared-delivery-national-security-advisor-susan-e-rice, access date: December 29th, 2013.

[9] This word is created by Graham Allison, professor in Harvard University, see Ben Schott,“The Thucydides Trap”, New York Times, January 31, 2011.http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-thucydides-trap/.

[10] Hillary Rodham Clinton,“Remarks at the U.S.Institute of Peace China Conference”, The U.S.Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, March 7, 2012.

[11] 王毅：《如何构建中美新型大国关系——王毅外长在布鲁金斯学会的演讲》。

[12] 王毅：《如何构建中美新型大国关系——王毅外长在布鲁金斯学会的演讲》。

[13] Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick,“ ‘Chimerica’ and the Global Asset Market Boom”, International Finance, 10:3, December 2007, pp.215-239.

[14] For example, the U.S.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used this idiom in her speech on American Asia policy in Asia Association in February 13th, 2009.See Hillary Rodham Clinton,“The U.S.-Asia Relations: Indispensable to Our Future”, Remarks at the Asia Society New York, New York.February 13th, 2009.http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/02/117333.htm, access date: June 15th, 2013.

[15] 李静、吴庆才：《首轮中美经济对话:除上月球外主要问题均已谈及》，中新社华盛顿七月二十八日电。See http://www.chinanews.com/gn/news/2009/07-29/1794984.shtml, access date: June 15th, 2013.

[16] The White House, National Security Strategy, May 2010, p.7, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf, access date: June 15th, 2013.

[17] James B.Steinberg,“China's Arrival: the Long March to Global Power”, Center for New American Security, http://www.cnas.org/files/multimedia/documents/Deputy％20Secretary％20James％20Steinberg％27s％20September％2024,％202009％20Keynote％20Address％20Transcript.pdf, access date: June 15th, 2013.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Relevant statements were drawn from the news website of Communist Party of China, the “databases of the previous Congress of the Communist Party China”, see http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64162/64168/index.html, access date: June 15th, 2013.