China-US Relationship?

Although some would suggest China has already overtaken the United States, I think that is too simple an understanding of the transition that is taking place. The United States is still a major global actor. Other states look to it for leadership on a number of issues.

Furthermore, the United States has a global reach in terms of its military. There are approximately 800 American bases in 70 different countries. China has one overseas base in Djibouti, which it describes as a logistical facility. Overall, there are areas of soft power as well as hard power where the United States remains the leading actor.

It is also unclear the extent to which China is viewed positively as a global actor. There are questions about its domestic political system. There are also concerns about its rise to power and the associated costs. This is particularly true of the environmental costs involved as well as the costs of its political-economic model.

China has developed and heavily invested in dual-use technologies. Dual-use technologies are technologies that have high commercial value and potentially high military value.

Looking to the future, there is concern that China will become the leading actor in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics or quantum computing. This reality is difficult for the United States to accept. It has forced the United States to realise it has not invested the necessary resources in developing the new technologies.

The deterioration in the China-US relationship has often been attributed to structural causes in parts of the academic literature. Academics argue that there are several historical examples whereby a rising power begins to challenge the status quo or otherwise dominant power. These moments are the most serious for power transitions. At these times, conflict is most likely to occur.

In our era, this archetypal situation is often referred to as the ‘Thucydides Trap’. The term draws on the writings of the Athenian historian and General Thucydides who has written a history of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides tells the story of the war between Sparta and Athens.

Nevertheless, I'm not convinced by this particular argument. I believe that there are many ways in which countries can manage conflictual relationships. We saw that during the Cold War. Governments make choices. They can make choices that don't necessarily promote a broad range of cooperative outcomes, but still allow for forms of coexistence between parties that otherwise are in opposition.

Examining the China-US relationship in third-party venues such as the United Nations provides a clear example of the deterioration in ties. It also provides a perspective on the roles of the two countries.

In particular, the Chinese view the UN as an authoritative and universal body. China believes the UN is a useful platform in which it can express its beliefs, demonstrate its status as a great power and influence other states, particularly states in the developing world.

The United States, on the other hand, has always had a more ambivalent relationship with the UN. This is because the US is so powerful that it can act unilaterally. It can also form coalitions of the willing and work outside the UN on security questions. Yet it's also supported the maintenance of the UN. It's been the primary contributor to the UN budget since the UN was first established in 1945.

This situation is likely to be reversed under the Biden administration. It contains several advisers who are multilateralist in approach, and Joe Biden himself is essentially a more multilateralist thinker. He realises that US power is multiplied if it can generate support for some of the policies that it would like to see enacted.

I expect the United States to re-engage within the Human Rights Council and to re-engage with the UN more broadly. This is welcomed. Indeed, I think there's a kind of a collective sigh of relief within the UN Secretariat that the United States will be back and involved. Of course, the United States is not an easy actor under any administration, and it will continue to protect its interests within that body. Nevertheless, it will be a presence that will challenge China on various issues about which the two sides disagree.

So there will be pushback. It's complicated for weaker states within the UN system to push back against policy positions advanced by China. This is true because China is the leading trading partner of so many countries, and it's challenging for them to stand alone against policies that the Chinese regard as necessary. If the United States becomes more active within the United Nations, then at least there's the possibility of protective cover for nations in a subordinate position to China and who themselves may not agree with the positions that Beijing takes.