EAI Asia Security Initiative Working Paper No. 28

Author 

Hyung-Min Joo is a visiting assistant professor in the department of political science at DePaul University in Chicago, United States. His research and teaching interests include comparative politics, international relations, and political theory. Aside from the publication of his article in the book Experiencing the State, he has published his research works in a wide range of journals, including Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Problems of Post-Communism, and Europe-Asia Studies. During the academic years 1997-1998, he served as a teaching assistant at the department of political science in University of Chicago, and during the academic year 2004-2005, he was a post-doctoral fellow at the Division of Social Sciences in University of Chicago. Prior to obtaining his PhD from the University of Chicago, he received his BA in political science in Yonsei University and MA in political science in University of Iowa.

I. Introduction

With the rise of China and the so-called G-2 era, what will be the future of US-China relations? The question has consumed a lion’s share of scholarly discussions and policy debates in recent years. Inside academia, scholars following realism, which emphasizes the importance of power in international politics, argue that China as an ascending power will inevitably challenge the existing superpower of the United States, thus initiating a “New Cold War” in the end. According to liberalism, by contrast, increasingly complicated and multilayered webs of “economic interdependence” will provide increasing incentives for cooperation, and even when occasional conflicts do occur, they will be resolved more or less peacefully through the intervening role of “international regimes.” At the same time, the topic has been the focus of policy debates in Washington as well. If the rise of China means the arrival of a fierce strategic competitor, a proper US policy would be “containment” to minimize its threat, by forming an alliance with willing regional partners in Asia. By contrast, if remarkable growth of China means great opportunities for mutual prosperity, Washington should continue its “engagement” with Beijing as it had done in the past.

On this subject, South Korea is faced with a serious dilemma. On the one hand, it has long been a close ally of the United States, often evoking expressions such as “blood ties” to emphasize its pro-American stance. On the other hand, its economic ties with China have thickened in the past two decades, making Beijing its largest trade partner. As a result, the rise of China with a potential recast of US-China relations has been the concern of Seoul for some time. From its viewpoint, the desirable scenario is for the current cooperation between Washington and Beijing to continue in the future so that South Korea can seek its security guarantee from Washington while deepening economic ties with Beijing at the same time. By contrast, if a new cold war begins between the two countries, South Korea will find itself in a nightmarish situation, being pulled in two opposite directions but unable to give up either “blood ties” with Washington or economic ties with Beijing. As a result, it has become an increasingly critical task to make a correct diagnosis of the future of US-China relations and, if possible, prepare for appropriate measures in advance.

As a first step to such a task, this paper aims to build a theory that can explain the past, present, and future of US-China relations. After a brief introduction in the first section, an attempt is made to elaborate a theoretical framework in the second section of the paper, setting up theoretical “bones,” so to speak. Specifically, it is argued that a “structure” of international politics determines a possible “range of relations” among states and a “specific relation” within such a range at a particular time is further decided by “nonstructural factors.” Key concepts in our theory (e.g., structure, relations, nonstructural factors, etc.) are also elaborated in the second section, adding some “flesh” to our theoretical bones. In the third section of the paper, it is then attempted to analyze the past of US-China relations, especially the Cold War era. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been a fundamental change in international structure with the rise of US unipolarity. In the fourth section, the present of US-China relations under US unipolarity is analyzed. In the fifth section, we diagnose possible changes in international structure in coming decades and analyze the resulting transformation of US-China relations from such a viewpoint. What is to be done if the future of US-China relations is likely to be filled with more conflicts and competition than the present? This question is discussed in the conclusion of the paper, along with policy implications.

II. Building a Theory

Key concepts in our theory include the “structure” of international politics, a possible “range of relations” among states, a “specific relation” (within such a range) that is formed at a particular time, and “nonstructural factors” of international politics. After building a theory that connects these concepts to explain US-China relations, we move on to explain what is meant by those concepts in detail.

1. Theoretical Framework

As shown in Figure 1, our theoretical position is that “structure” determines a possible “range of relations” among actors and within such a range, a “specific relation” at a particular point of time is determined by “nonstructural factors.” For instance, various relations are possible between two individuals, such as family members, friends, lovers, enemies, business partners, strangers, and so on. A structural factor, however, narrows down such possibilities to a certain range of relations. When two unacquainted individuals meet at a school, for instance, the structure of school imposes teacher-student relations upon them. Likewise, when the same two individuals meet in the marketplace, it is the structure of the market that imposes buyer-seller relations upon them. As a result, it is structure that determines a possible range of relations among actors.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

Although structure sets a possible range of relations, it cannot fully decide a specific relation found among actors at a particular time. When a school structure imposes teacher-student relations upon two individuals, there still exist many possibilities within such a range of relations. For instance, the teacher and the student may treat each other with a mutual respect, a nonchalant ignorance, a deep hatred, and so on. What narrows down such a wide range of teacher-student relations to a specific relation (a deep hatred, for instance) at a particular point of time? To use the aforementioned example, it is nonstructural factors (such as a lazy student, a strict teacher, their lack of common experiences, etc.) that form a specific relation of a deep hatred within an overall range of teacher-student relations set by a school structure. As a result, whereas structure determines a possible range of relations among actors, a specific relation within such a range is further determined by nonstructural factors. Applying the same logic to US-China relations, the structure of international politics decides a possible range of relations between the two countries, but within this range, a specific relation formed between Washington and Beijing at a certain period is further determined by nonstructural factors of international politics.

Importantly, a specific relation plays a dual role of dependent and independent variables in our theory. As shown in Figure 1, a structural shift in international politics causes a change in a possible range of relations between states, thus bringing a change to the existing specific relation between them in the long term. As a result, a specific relation between China and the United States at particular time is a dependent variable (albeit an indirect and distant one) of a structural change of international politics in the long run.

With respect to nonstructural factors, however, a specific relation plays a dual role of independent and dependent variables at the same time. When a specific relation at a certain time changes due to nonstructural factors (e.g., ideology, values, issues of conflicts, etc.), the former (a specific relation) becomes a dependent variable of the latter (nonstructural factors). By contrast, a specific relation operates as a prism through which Washington (or Beijing) views the other’s ideology, values, and so on. As a result, a specific relation is an important factor (independent variable) that decides the meaning of nonstructural factors, whereas a specific relation itself is a result of a long-term accumulation (dependent variable) of nonstructural factors in our theory...(Continued)