By Lee Seong-hyon
 |
Baquan means "hegemony." But in Chinese it is a much more pejorative term than in English. Apparently, the Chinese warning is also indicative of Beijing's concern about whether, and how much, Biden is willing to inherit Trump's China policy legacy.
Interestingly, Yang Jiechi, the most senior foreign policy adviser to Chinese President Xi Jinping, gave a speech on U.S.-China relations, only hours before Biden's speech. "For the past few years, the Trump administration adopted misguided policies, plunging the relationship into the most difficult period since the establishment of diplomatic relations," Yang said.
"Some" in the United States "attempted to seek decoupling and the so-called 'new Cold War.'" He continued, "We believe that peace and development are still the prevailing trend of the times. Peaceful co-existence and win-win cooperation remain the shared aspiration of all peoples."
The rest of Yang's speech was as expected, a mixture of warnings and appeasement. But what is notable is his characterization of the current state of U.S.-China relations as a "new Cold War," even though he added the qualifier, "so-called." In addition, he also made it clear that it was "some" in the United States, rather than the Chinese, seeking such a Cold War. These claims can be dissected by historians later.
The academic community has also not resolved its heated debate on whether or not the current state of U.S.-China relations should be defined as a "Cold War." Let them continue to do so. It's their job. In the meantime, what is pertinent for the policy community is that the U.S.-China relationship is a serious enough issue and has resemblance to many elements of the Cold War. (The problem with South Korea's policy community is that it confuses the two. Its mission is to practice real-world policy, but it is still basking itself in entertaining academic and theoretical debates.)
How will China fare from now? Yang's speech has a hint. "China calls for a New Type of International Relations." This phrase is the key. It is an "upgraded" version from the phrase, "New Type of Great Power Relations" (xinxing daguo guanxi). In the earlier phrase, the "great power" refers only to the two nations, the United States and China.
China assertively pursued this "Great Power" policy during the previous Obama administration. A signature Chinese metaphor at that time, uttered by Xi to Obama, was that the Pacific Ocean is big enough to contain both the U.S. and China. So both countries should not quarrel.
It sounded peaceful. So, it took a while for the Obama people to realize that its actual message was that the U.S. should treat China as an "equal" power and concede the Western Pacific (that is, "half" of the Pacific Ocean) to be under the Chinese sphere of influence. Some scholars at that time interpreted this as the Chinese version of the Monroe Doctrine.
The concept of "Great Power" relations is centered on the dualistic international relations paradigm, reflecting the view that as long as China (as the number two power) successfully resolves its relationship matrix with the world's number one power, the rest of the global power structure and balance will be stable for China.
However, due to intensifying conflict with the United States under the Trump administration, China rightly realized that its "Great Power" paradigm had two flaws. First, it was seen as China pursuing hegemony as a rising superpower.
Second, for sure, the United States is important, but the rest of the world is important as well, in this increasingly multilateral world.
In particular, China has noticed that the foundational strength of the U.S. and its global influence lies in having many allies and partners. China doesn't have them. So, the name change from new "Great Power" to new "International Relations" reflects this strategic realization.
Taken together, the next phase of the U.S.-China competition (which will largely continue regardless of what Biden says) will be about who, between the U.S. and China, has more friends and partners in the world. In diplomatic terms, this new situation means "multilateralism." It is about stealing allies and snatching friends. What will this new situation mean for South Korea?
Lee Seong-hyon (sunnybbsfs@gmail.com), Ph.D., is director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the Sejong Institute
![[ANALYSIS] Pandemic awakens demand for data-driven automation](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/2b05d621a193420abef7ee24b95eab3d.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
