US-China Tension: A Comparative Analysis

The growing hostility between the US and China has reached an all-time high, with the tension between the two countries continuously increasing with each interaction. From the recent trade war to the enforcement of influences to contain one another. It is not strange to see such rivalry between states throughout history, with most political scientists suggesting such conditions to be completely natural and taken as a given. However, as time progresses, new methods and perspectives have given birth to new analytical results and explanations of the phenomenon from a positivist or interpretivist standpoint. With China’s rising significance in the international system, underpinned by its economic successes, military power, and diplomatic influence, most have expected the US’ consideration of an impending threat to its dominance (Hang, 2017). However, the reasoning behind the phenomenon may also come from cultural factors, past relationships, or even driven by specific individuals that may have great interest in the event themselves. By examining the phenomenon from both perspectives (i.e., realism and constructivism), this article hopes to illuminate the different arguments each theory provides in explaining the circumstances of this growing rivalry between China and the US.

To understand the circumstances, one of the perspectives that can be used to comprehend the phenomenon is a positivist standpoint. Viotti and Kauppi (2012) describe the concept of realism to be rooted in four basic assumptions. First, states are considered the most important actors in an anarchical international system without a legitimate centralized authority. Second, the state is viewed as a unitary actor; thus, the internal dynamics of the state are not to be considered in its analysis. Third, states are viewed as rational actors, with each of their decision-making based upon the goal of maximizing utility and ensuring the best outcome in benefitting the state. Lastly, the realist assumes that national and international security is the most prioritized issue. A distinction of issues is shown by how realists categorize military security and strategic issues as “high politics” while economic and social issues as “low politics.” From such assumptions, realists perceive the great importance of power. International politics, from a realist perspective, is a constant power struggle. Although no common understanding is made to describe the term power means, power can be mainly explained as the relative sum of military, economic, technological, diplomatic, and other capabilities at the disposal of a state against another. This understanding also includes a psychological control of one man over the other’s mind and actions (Morgenthau, 1948; Viotti & Kauppi, 2012).

Although commonly considered a part of the top-used perspective in international politics, joining positivist liberalism and realism, constructivism provides a more interpretive understanding. Popularized after the failure of IR theorists in anticipating the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, constructivism breaks down the traditional view of states as unitary actors, giving access to the assumption that the object of knowledge is not entirely free from our interpretations and that norms, rules, and identities play a significant role in affecting the conception of ourselves and our relation to the world. Constructivists look upon the models of value-rational behavior, focusing on the ontological and epistemological preferences of the researchers themselves and the normative concerns and principled beliefs of the actors or agents involved. Unlike realism, which holds material structures such as power-based or those composed of economic production, population size, armed forces, technology, weapon system, or geographic factors, constructivism centers upon the normative or ideational factors or structures, all elements, of course, remain as a subject to interpretation (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012; Wendt, 1992). Upon applying the concept to state rivalry, constructivism can encapsulate the various concepts that may be beyond the reach of positivist theories. Within the context of the US-China tension, one main point that can be taken is how state rivalry is based upon not only relative power and dominance but also previous relationships, institutions with which they identify, norms, and ideological differences which play a role in the established relationship between the two countries.

Upon investigating the case of US-China tension from the realist perspective, it is expected that the phenomenon is primarily caused by the fight for dominance and the race for relative power. China has been rapidly successful in establishing a robust economic power and ripping its benefits to increase its military arsenals and diplomatic power. Indeed, objective indicators have confirmed the reality of China’s rise. In 2010, China displaced the US as the world’s leading manufacturing nation while drawing about 18 percent share of the world GDP, a relatively rapid development considering that China only had about 6 percent share of the world GDP in 1995. Meanwhile, the US has been declining relatively over the last decade (Layne, 2012). Following the Cold War, the US possessed unparalleled military prominence globally and in the world’s key strategic areas. However, such power has come at a high cost as time goes on. Today, the US is bleeding out dollars, forcing itself to minimize its defense spending from $768 billion in 2010 to $595 billion in 2015. The result is a creeping crisis of American military primacy, as the margin of superiority to which the US has become accustomed is diminishing, and a growing gap between its capabilities with its commitment has emerged (Brands & Edelman, 2017). Once examining the above factors, it is to be expected that a conflict between China and the US is an inevitability from the realist perspective. The fall of the USSR has made the US the sole hegemon for the last two decades. Through the theory of balance of power, it is to be expected that a shift will come. With China’s opposition to the US becoming ever more pronounced, it has come a time that the period of unilateralism is ending. Power will soon be redistributed to those who are willing to challenge.

However, regarding constructivism, the rationale behind this growing tension is another issue. It is common knowledge that we mainly supported the rise of China to prominence. For the last forty years, the US has relied on its belief that China will gradually become more democratic through economic reformation. By integrating China into the US’ envisioned international institutions, the US hoped China would join the bandwagon and become common with the US. However, as proven by modern political scientists, this is not the case. Under the administration of President Xi, China had instead taken a turn towards authoritarianism, cracking down on NGOs, publicly renouncing its lenience towards Western values and governance, and consolidating one of the world’s most intrusive surveillance states (Wyne, 2018). Furthermore, in inspecting the formulation of China’s foreign policy itself, several components are mixed to constitute the contemporary foreign policy of the nation. A particular element of historical influences has significantly impacted the formation of the current policies. The intrusion of Western and neighboring powers into the Middle Kingdom and the dissolution of its imperial influence have helped destroy China’s self-image of cultural superiority and political centrality. Such memories of this trauma fit themselves upon the foundation of modern Chinese nationalism, which operates today in shaping the actions of the PRC in the world arena (Feuerwerker, 1972).

Indeed, upon reviewing the factors mentioned above, the fact that the US had been funding the very enemy they currently face today shines the light upon the factors that are not considered by the realist perspective. With norms, laws, and identities becoming accessible for analysis, there is a contradiction to be found between realism and constructivism in their explanation. It is seen as if the US had not considered China a threat and was exceptionally supportive towards China, believing that doing so would help integrate China into the US sphere of influence. It is not until China becomes ever more authoritarian and publicly denounces itself from the Western world order that the relationship between the two countries has grown tense. Although realism has established a comprehensive rationale for the current tension through the analysis of unilateralism, the distribution of power, and the concept of balance of power, constructivism has let us understand the deeper reasoning behind the distrust of China towards the Western world order. In addition, it also gives a logical explanation for understanding the reasoning behind the US’ peculiar and (from a realist perspective) self-damaging action by supporting China’s economic reformation and development over the last forty years. With the research conducted on US-China tension through the different lenses of interpretivism and positivist theories, it is concluded that the two theories act more as complementary towards one another rather than a replacement. Each perspective is based on its assumptions and scope of consideration, leading to different analytical results that are impossible to be replaced with one another and instead augment the overall final result.

References

Feuerwerker, A. (1972). Chinese History and the Foreign Relations of Contemporary China. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 402, 1–14. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1039201

Hang, N. T. T. (2017). The Rise of China: Challenges, Implications, and Options for the United States. Indian Journal of Asian Affairs, 30(1/2), 47–64. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26465816

Kauppi, M. V., & Viotti, P. R. (2012). International Relations Theory. Pearson Education.

Layne, C. (2012). This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00704.x

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggles For Power and Peace (First). Alfred A. Knopf.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300027764