Interested in better relations with China?
There's one complex and difficult way to move that needle in the right direction
The determination shown by too many individuals in position of authority in the US and the West to demonize China should remind open-minded people of that line about doing the same thing over and over again and anticipating a different result.
The time has long since come for the US and its allies to stop the rhetorical nonsense advancing the premise that China is seeking to undermine the West. Much like passengers stuffed onto an airplane who are then told that their flight can neither take off nor return to the gate, too many people around the world are tired of hearing messages that do not align with common sense. They ought to be treated with more respect.
Imagine for a moment that Sam establishes a set of rules. For a bundle of years, those rules appear to work. Listening only to people who think like him, Sam grows more and more convinced of the superiority of those rules.
And then Pan Da comes along. Pan Da identifies significant flaws contained within them. Pan Da reminds Sam that if he would take a clear-eyed position, he would be able to admit that, too. Furthermore, Pan Da says that more than one leader might actually benefit the global community.
Sam could adopt a responsible position and critically examine the inputs, so to speak, that created the foundation for those rules. In addition, Sam could assess what he has done in his position of authority and which teams, for lack of a better word, have benefitted from his choices. What that critical analysis might lead to is an acknowledgment that the rules were bent to favor one side over any other side.
Dare I say that people like me in higher education challenge students every single day to critically examine data, policy, history, people and more in order to ensure that they possess the best information possible as they enter the “real” world. If we are hostile to change, we do a disservice to our students. That is not consistent with the noble virtues of education.
But in today’s “reasoned” political climate, such maturity might be tantamount to being seen as a traitor. So instead of taking on the open-mind position, Sam clings to the closed-minded and simpler route: He suggests that Pan Da should remain outside his tight-knit (no one dare look close enough to see the holes in the netting, mind you) circle until he plays by Sam’s rules.
Affirming supposed greatness through vigorous condemnation of supposed threats is a bad idea.
Think of the number of times you have made a mistake because you acted out of arrogance, fear, groupthink or the like. More often than not, the choices in such circumstances fail. Unwilling or unable to ask difficult questions or to admit long-held values might need reconsideration, people power ahead. And they know they should not.
So what does all of this have to do with the fractured bilateral relationship between China and the United States?
If only a political leader had the courage to say something like this:
Let’s be honest: There are some issues on which China and the US must allied. Whether we are talking food insecurity, preparing for the next global pandemic, fighting climate change or a host of other matters, our two countries are best positioned to get things done.
The world is anticipating both of us will do the right thing. And that means that you, the American people, are going to hear a different message starting today. Instead of the non-stop rhetoric that equates China to the big bad wolf, you are going to learn how we need them and they need us. You are going to hear why that country is ahead of us in certain areas, and the fragile world in which we are in right now mandates that we Americans accept — but not fear — that. Yes, you are also going to be reminded of our differences, but those will not be blasted at you all the time.
No, we are not going to abandon the values that allowed us to become the nation that we are; we still believe in ideals such as freedom and democracy. We still believe that our way of life is the best one for people around the world. But at this critical moment in history, it is high time that you hear a different narrative about the only country we can work with in order to ensure the world is a better place.
At this point, you are likely laughing. Either you realize that no politician will deliver such a message or you think I am a numbskull for thinking as I do about the desperate need for a real alliance between China and the US.
I ask you to think back to a little more than 10 years ago. Do you remember when President Barack Obama said what needed to be said: America’s longstanding policy toward Cuba had failed. In his words, “We will end an outdated approach that, for decades, has failed to advance our interests, and instead we will begin to normalize relations between our two countries. Through these changes, we intend to create more opportunities for the American and Cuban people, and begin a new chapter among the nations of the Americas.”
America’s experiment with democracy did not crumble. The republic did not collapse. The sun did come up the next day. And for a few years, Washington displayed common sense relating to Cuba. (Sadly, and for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, Obama’s correct approach did not last: Today, Washington and Havana are right back where they were for almost all of the past 65 years.)
America’s experiment with democracy will not crumble by seeing China as ally, not antagonist. The republic will not collapse by viewing China as friend, not foe. The sun will come up tomorrow, and it will continue to do so for all the days after. But none of this is possible unless national politicians step away from the blame game, stop the chronic hostility, delete ridiculous economic and other policies and admit to the reality that billions of people across the globe know to be true.
Should we be optimistic that will happen? We have to be. There is no better reality.
As he was heading out the door Jake Sullivan admitted that decades of attempts to mould and change China to America’s liking had failed. His conclusion was that this meant China had to be treated as a foe. From a different vantage point Rubio also knows unipolarity is over but persists in treating others through a Manichaen lens of “friend / foe”, in which the ontology is defined by “great power rivalry”. So to some small extents, both acknowledge that U.S. hegemony is a thing of the past. Yet, the political machinery can’t let go of the idea that relations must by nature be antagonistic and zero-sum in nature.