The claim that the rivalry between the United States and China is purely geopolitical has no hand or foot.
Democracy was understood by Chinese hardliners as a Western conspiracy to bring chaos to China.
China is seen by other countries through the prism of authoritarian government - and thus as a threat.
It is not just a conflict between the US and China, but a conflict between the PRC and most of the democratic world.
This article is available for the first time in German - it was first published on April 6, 2021 by
Foreign Policy
magazine
.
Whether we call it a great power competition or a new Cold War: it cannot be denied that the USA and China are in an intense long-term rivalry with one another.
But many observers, especially foreign policy generalists and realists, seem to believe that the US-China conflict is geopolitical, not ideological.
They argue that China embraced capitalism, did not export its ideology, and did not pose an existential threat to liberal democracy and the Western way of life, as was the case with the Soviet Union.
In this interpretation, which sometimes invokes Thucydides, the only problem is China's rise to power, which inevitably comes into conflict with the established superpower, the United States, regardless of the political systems of both countries.
But in reality, their ideologies have always had a strong conflict-fueling effect - and many tensions could have been avoided if the West had dealt with a democratic China.
China and USA: conflict between the two great powers tinged with ideology
There are always two that belong to it. Even if the United States chose to somehow ignore this ideological dimension, many in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would not do so because they see this conflict already ideologically tinged. This interpretation is already very clear in the language - and actions - of Beijing. Beijing directed the latest counter-sanctions against the European Union not only against members of the European Parliament and the parliaments of the member states, researchers and think tanks, but even against committees of the European Parliament and the European Council. These measures were taken despite the fact that EU leaders were keen to sign an investment agreement with China that is now in question.
Let's think about what a real geopolitical conflict looks like and look at China and India as an example.
Chinese leaders are not afraid that India wants to promote democracy and threaten the stability of the regime.
From an Indian perspective, China could become a democracy tomorrow and nothing would change as long as the active border dispute persists, China is Pakistan's best friend and Chinese military ships continue to be increasingly active in the Indian Ocean.
Likewise, China basically doesn't care which system New Delhi uses.
Ideological fears between Washington and Beijing - Tiananmen massacre as a turning point
In contrast, ideological fears have always underpinned Beijing and Washington’s opinions of one another. The rapprochement between the US and the PRC, which began in 1971, eventually led to the normalization of diplomatic relations in 1979, followed by ever stronger economic ties. But the decades-long confrontation could not simply be reversed. Among the conservatives in the Chinese leadership, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's decision to strengthen ties with the United States, as well as the economic reforms of the 1980s, was accepted as necessary, but never fully embraced. The economic reforms themselves were seen by the party leadership as a necessary means toto develop China and one day make communism possible, just as the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin implemented the New Economic Policy shortly after he came to power. They were not intended as a change to capitalism and certainly not to democracy.
Democracy, the hardliners argued, was a Western conspiracy to bring chaos to China.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the misery in Russia in the 1990s only heightened these feelings.
Andrei Lungu
And then there was the Tiananmen massacre. Chinese conservatives and hardliners saw it as a ploy to democratize and destabilize China. Even Deng said: “The causes of this incident have to do with the global context. The western world, especially the US, has focused all its propaganda machinery on agitation and has strongly encouraged and supported the so-called democrats or opposition in China - people who are really the scum of the Chinese nation. That is the root of the chaotic situation we are facing today. ”Democracy, the hardliners argued, was a Western conspiracy to bring chaos to China. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the misery in Russia in the 1990s only heightened these feelings.
People's Republic of China as the last bastion of communism - US commitment to promote “Western values”
Suddenly the PRC was the last great bastion of communism and - from Beijing's point of view - the main target of the United States and the capitalist world.
It hardly mattered that Washington tried to keep relations going.
Instead, the party's hardliners saw US engagement in China as a strategy to subvert the CCP through "peaceful evolution" and to use economic ties to promote "Western values" and democracy.
For individuals in the party, military, and government, further evidence of the perceived duplicity, containment, and ultimate goal of regime change in Washington was provided over the next decade: the deployment of two US aircraft carriers near Taiwan, the bombing of the Embassy of the PRC in Belgrade and the incident on Hainan Island. These people are not necessarily a coherent faction and they did not control the entire party for many years. This view of the United States was not ubiquitous in Beijing, but it did influence government action, even among the non-hardliners. But the CCP was never an immutable entity: there were also officials who admired the United States and even hopedthat economic reforms would be accompanied by political reforms.
But it was the conservatives and hardliners who got lucky and benefited from the rise of Chinese President Xi Jinping from 2008 onwards.
They were finally able to assert their views in the party from 2012 and 2013.
At this point in time, from Beijing's point of view, the US had once again proven that it cannot be trusted - the Obama administration had announced its realignment in the Asia-Pacific region, which for some in the leadership simply meant "containment".
Their main concern, however, was not geopolitical.
Biggest threat to the People's Republic of China: not geopolitical, but ideological
A relatively new concept became popular, with US officials and analysts focusing on whether places like the South China Sea could be identified as core interests. In doing so, however, they missed the most important message: The main core interests of the People's Republic of China were not some rocks in the sea or even Taiwan, but securing the political system led by the CCP. The greatest threat to the PRC was not geopolitical but ideological. And that was before the conservatives and hardliners even came to power.
Once they did, they wasted no more time. In an internal party document, the “Communiqué on the current state of the ideological sphere”, the greatest threats to the PRC were set out: universal values, rule of law democracy, civil society, neoliberalism and the denial of the country's socialist character. A documentary by members of the Chinese military called
Silent Contest
also warned that the United States was secretly trying to infiltrate the PRC by westernizing and democratizing it and it was argued that the great struggle between the two was taking place Countries is an ideological one.
The members of the military did not warn against US warships, but against Western ideas.
Since then, the power of the hardliners has only grown.
They finally took control of the party leadership in 2017 - at the same time a new group of US hardliners tried to use the US government in 2017 to change Washington’s policy on China.
China is seen from the outside through the prism of the authoritarian government - and thus as a threat
The ideological factor is striking in Washington and in the West too. The PRC is not seen simply like any other country, but through the prism of its authoritarian government and the threat it poses to the liberal order and democracy. Ideological tensions are inevitable because Western governments and societies, at least in their current form, can never do what Beijing asks them to do, which is not to interfere in its internal affairs. H. to express no criticism or to take any action, no matter what human rights violations may take place in his area. This in turn leads to backlash from the Chinese leadership in an incessant downward spiral.
For many Westerners who have never experienced a communist system, it is almost impossible to understand how the Chinese hardliners think: the belief that democracy is bad because it creates diversity and thus chaos; the control mania; the knee-jerk distrust of anything foreign; the sheer paranoia of containment, encirclement, and foreign coalitions allying against China; the conspiratorial mindset of "foreign enemy forces" and "black hands" who secretly undermine the political system; and a complete lack of understanding of how democratic and open societies work. At the same time, they embrace militarism and believe that power can solve any problem while having few internal constraints on that power.
Many of the people in the CCP leadership are fundamentally shaped by the propaganda and ideology they have been subjected to, but also by a political system where there are no friends, no trust, and where someone can stab you at any time . A broad-based anti-corruption campaign was later directed against four of the 24 high-ranking officials who sat with Xi in the Politburo between 2007 and 2012. Across China, more than 2 million public officials have been disciplined since 2013. And all these statistics are far from being comparable to the climate of internal power struggles and fear from the days of Chairman Mao Zedong. Through such a system, not only do public officials tend to perceive external dangers and threats where none exist, but they see China and the world tinged ideologically.They define China's interests primarily as a CCP-led state that puts Party rule above national interests, which could be defined differently in a democratic community.
All of this leads not only to a confrontation between the USA and the PRC, but - as in the original Cold War - to one between the democratic world and the PRC, perhaps at the side of their mostly authoritarian allies like Russia.
Andrei Lungu
Ideological demands and paranoia weigh on China's relations with other countries such as Sweden
These ideological demands and paranoia weigh heavily on China's relations with other countries. Currently, the European country with the worst diplomatic relations with China is peaceful and neutral Sweden, which also has relatively strong economic relations with China. Why this? Because of the fate of one man: Gui Minhai, a Hong Kong bookseller with Swedish citizenship, whose imprisonment in China sparked criticism and caused relations to deteriorate continuously. Ten years ago, peaceful Norway was in the same situation, again because of one person: the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This pattern is repeated across Europe:European countries can benefit greatly from diplomatic or economic cooperation with China, but human rights issues such as those in Xinjiang or Hong Kong continue to complicate relationships that European business elites would otherwise wish to be easier. Take the UK, which is torn between trying to open up new markets in China after Brexit and bipartisan calls for action on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.that they would be easier. Take the UK, which is torn between trying to open up new markets in China after Brexit and bipartisan calls for action on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.that they would be easier. Take the UK, which is torn between trying to open up new markets in China after Brexit and bipartisan calls for action on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
All of this leads not only to a confrontation between the USA and the PRC, but - as in the original Cold War - to one between the democratic world and the PRC, perhaps at the side of their mostly authoritarian allies like Russia. Until recently, Beijing apparently wanted to maintain its economic ties with the developed democratic countries, but given that democratic countries are forming a united front against the PRC and economic incentives to work together are dwindling, the CCP's leadership could potentially begin democracy and to view a free society not only as enemies to defend against at home, but to attack abroad.
If the ideological competition intensifies, there is a danger that the CCP will become a real existential threat to democracy and freedom worldwide, regardless of whether China is truly communist or not. As China's wealth grows, external and internal tensions intensify, and the CCP continues to radicalize, there is a possibility that some party members who believe in the need to return to collective economic ownership may take control of the party, Turn China into a truly communist country and work for the world revolution. This scenario seems far-fetched, but it cannot be dismissed entirely as long as China is ruled by a centralized authoritarian organization,in which some executives deeply distrust capitalism and long for the days of Mao, and in which the original decision to use the markets was justified as a strategy to reach an advanced stage of socialism.
Confrontation between the democratic world and the PR China: ideological conflict for global supremacy
The fact that the conflict between the US and the PRC for global supremacy is ideological could also have a good side for the West: It is an opportunity to get in touch with the Chinese people and try to resolve the conflict focus on leadership rather than China.
Such a conflict could achieve one goal: a liberal, peaceful and cooperative China.
Perhaps there is still hope that China and the United States could someday get along well.
Just because they look different from the Cold War doesn't mean ideologies are dead.
Ideologies are in control.
Hold on tight.
Andrei Lungu
But to do this, the United States must focus on the ideological, not the geopolitical, one. Including authoritarian regimes like Russia or Vietnam in a geopolitical coalition against China would be a big mistake. It would confirm to the Chinese people and the world that the United States is not really about democracy and that they will oppose China regardless of its political system. An ideological conflict that could one day end is better than an endless geopolitical conflict with China. It is vital that Washington focus on the Chinese people, not just the fight against the CCP, and try to preventthat anti-American attitudes in China will increase in the future - especially if this conflict intensifies and the party leadership tries to stir up nationalism.
While Washington and Beijing have not yet focused on overthrowing each other's government, both countries are shaped by the ideological divide between them and fear of each other's intentions.
This is not just a conflict between the US and China, but a conflict between the PRC and most of the democratic world.
Just because they look different from the Cold War doesn't mean ideologies are dead.
Ideologies are in control.
Hold on tight.
by Andrei Lungu
Andrei Lungu
is President of the Romanian Institute for the Study of the Asia-Pacific (RISAP).
This article was first published in English on April 6, 2021 in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” - as part of a cooperation, the translation is now also available to
Merkur.de
readers
.
+
Foreign Policy Logo
© ForeignPolicy.com
Foreign Policy: Throughout the Indo-Pacific, countries are expanding their defenses. It is in response to China's massive expansion policy.