The difference between Chinese and American political philosophy, explained
The year 2010 saw the rise of China as a global superpower, trailing only behind America in the world economy. What soon ensued was the rise in tensions between China and America, the world’s largest economy, over various. While Sino-American tensions go way further back than Trump, the Trump Administration certainly kickstarted a new phase in the relations of the two powers with the Trade War starting in 2018. Ever since then, we have seemed to reach a “new normal”, where clashes between both countries in various fields feel almost a daily occurrence– see the clash over Taiwan, the Tech War and the abovementioned Trade War, allegations of human rights violations by China, the new Congress bill divesting Tik Tok from parent company Bytedance, and more.
But what causes Sino-American relations to be hostile so? There are, of course, a variety of factors at play, but perhaps they can all be traced back to one thing– the fundamental differences in the political philosophies of both countries. Hence, to understand the intricacies of Sino-American relations would be to grasp the complexities of the political philosophies of both sides.
Liberalism, and Confucianism– a comparison between founding ideologies
The founding ideologies of China and America respectively – the core of the political consciousness of both countries – fundamentally differ from one another, hence paving the way for tension and conflict when both sides fail to see eye to eye.
For America, it would not be an exaggeration to say that she was founded on the principles of liberalism– the American Revolutionary War and the great break from Britain, after all, was fought because of the belief held by the founding fathers that all people are created equal, and have fundamental rights, such as liberty, free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and freedom of assembly. As such, Americans take great pride in their democracy; to this day, liberalism is still at the heart of America’s political institutions.
However, whilst liberalism emphasises individual liberty, equality, and democratic governance, Confucianism sings a much different tune. Founded by Confucious, Confucianism became the official state ideology in the Han dynasty, forming the ethos of Chinese society. With 仁、礼、孝、义 as the core tenets, Confucianism places emphasis on morality, social harmony, and ethics, particularly within familial and societal relationships. It places strong emphasis on the maintenance of a rigid social hierarchy, whereby to achieve social harmony, Those in positions of power have the obligation to take care of those under them (their subjects), and in turn, the subjects reciprocate by respecting the authority of the leaders– this applies to all rungs of society, be it between the emperor and his people, or between a father and his children. Whilst the rise of Marxism Leninism during the Mao era
Placed together side by side, the many stark differences between the two ideologies are immediately evident– whilst Confucianism views the individual as part of the larger collective society, valuing social harmony over all else, liberalism focuses on individual freedoms and rights, often placing individual autonomy above collective concerns. Whilst morality is often based on protecting individual rights and freedoms in liberalism, Confucianism promotes the creation of a strong moral code based on ethics, loyalty, and the cultivation of virtue.
As a result, it is unsurprising to see both superpowers clash on various thorny issues such as human rights, with the most notable example being the Xinjiang cotton controversy, whereby China had allegedly put Uyghurs in labour and “re-education” camps, an action which received much outrage and backlash by the West, claiming it to be a violation of human rights– in 2019, Nancy Pelosi had described the plight of the Uyghurs as a “shock to the conscience of mankind”. Yet on the other hand, the Chinese government viewed it as necessary to maintain social stability, especially with the rise of nationalistic and separatist tendencies amongst the Muslim Uyghurs.
Lateral vs Linear thinking
Another aspect of political philosophy in which both countries differ is the way in which the political leaders think and strategise, hence affecting their policy-making. Perhaps the anecdote offered by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would be most apt to explain this– In his book “On China”, he compared American diplomacy to a game of chess, whereby pieces clash directly with each other. Conversely, Chinese diplomacy is more akin to a game of go (or weiqi), where the objectives of each action may not always be immediately clear; Chinese strategy is broadly conceived in long-term goals, just as how a game of go is won through encircling your opponent.
With this analogy, Kissinger effectively illustrates the difference in the linear thinking of American strategy, and the lateral thinking that drives Chinese strategy. Linear thinking focuses on building thoughts successively on top of each other, using a progressive thought process to derive a belief or policy. In this sense, Americans have a strong sense of principles and a belief in what is right and wrong, regardless of the circumstance. For example, many Americans have a strong belief that communism are paramount, and anything that infringes upon democracy are immediately considered bad, often intervening in the governance of other countries and even going to the extent of installing autocratic dictators, regardless of whether the country truly benefited from the leadership. More specifically regarding policy and decision-making, American leaders often come up with structured plans, with electoral candidates often expected to give a clear outline of their approach and stick to it after taking office.
On the other hand, the Chinese take on a more relativistic approach, opting to view issues more holistically. When considering certain issues, leaders often place them in the larger context, and in relation to other ideas. As such, rather than taking a hard stance on any position, Chinese leaders are more flexible and willing to adapt to achieve better outcomes. This realpolitik approach is perhaps best seen in Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms beginning in the late 1970s, whereby to remedy the economic crisis brought upon by Mao’s Great Leap Forward, Deng introduced a model of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”, integrating capitalistic characteristics into the socialist market. And while American leaders had a decisive plan to follow, Deng reflected that his approach was one of “crossing the river by feeling the stones”, rendering his approach more flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, a reflection of China’s broader, more flexible approach in policy making.
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch
mice, it is a good cat."
- Deng Xiaoping
Conclusion
Of course, there are many other reasons as to why tension exists between America and China – for one, America currently runs a huge trade deficit due to its large amount of imports from China, hence threatening its economic development and stability. Even within the countries, other concerns aside from political philosophy may be at play as well– whilst the religious violence in Xinjiang has undoubtedly affected the stability of the region, the Chinese government’s desire for autocracy has also played a part in its policy towards the ethnic minorities of China. Yet, overall, it is the fundamental difference between the two countries in their ideology and approach to decision making and strategy that drives these two superpowers– and perhaps even the world– apart.
Thanks for reading :)
Written by: Le Xuan
Edited by: Charmaine
Designed by: Cayden
תגובות