Advertisement
Opinion
Why framing US-China ties as a Cold-War-style coexistence doesn’t help
- Soviet idea of coexistence was to prevent military conflict, which was seen as a viable choice. But for Chinese, coexistence underlines global interaction, trade
- Neither China nor US has the moral authority to force other countries to sacrifice their pursuit of growth and development to accept a bifurcated world economy
4-MIN READ4-MIN
2
Zha Daojiong is a professor at the School of International Studies, Peking University.
The meeting between presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Bali G20 summit indicates a commitment to prevent the US-China relationship from spiralling downwards. Observers are right to see the challenges ahead as structural. But is “coexistence 2.0” a useful framing to adopt?
After World War II, “peaceful coexistence” was commonly seen as Soviet phraseology for framing its relations with the West: keep open channels of communication with the United States and western Europe to avoid military conflict. Conflict was viewed as a viable choice.
In contrast, the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa, China included, endorsed the “five principles of peaceful coexistence” – where the corresponding Chinese expression is gongchu. Gongchu is more about operating and interacting with other countries than about goals. Accordingly, the coexistence of countries is an accepted fact.
Since World War II, the US and its allies have consistently adopted the notion of an “international order” in conceiving foreign relations. Does reference to “coexistence”, in academic discussions, to US-China relations today imply seeing military conflict as a viable option?
Select Voice
Select Speed
1x
AI-generated voice