Abstract
The disintegration of the Soviet bloc, as well as the Soviet Union (USSR) itself, removed the strategic rationale that formed the basis for Sino-American relations for almost two decades. When the USSR was a common threat for both powers, realpolitik determined that strategic relationship prevailed over other considerations such as ideological conflicts, the nature of political institutions, and mutual economic interests. With the advent of the post-Cold War era, Sino-American relations need to be built on new bases. The vicissitudes of Sino-American relations since 1989 support the diagnosis of Harry Harding, that the two countries are bound by cooperation, competition and conflict in all aspects of their relations.1 However, the question of the extent to which the opportunities of cooperation between the two countries in a certain area are affected or sacrificed by competition and conflict in other areas remains to be examined. It is obvious that national security issues and economic interests are becoming the prime considerations for the foreign policy decision-makers of both nations, thus further development of Sino-American relations should seek better understanding and common ground on these two basic factors. But the Chinese perception of the hegemonic nature of the only superpower, which seeks to promote its own (Western) values of democracy and human rights, further complicates the difficult relations in the beginning of this post-Cold War period.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and references
See Harry Harding, The Fragile Relationship: Sino American Relations since 1972 (New York: The Brookings Institution, 1992.)
Jia Qingguo, ‘Reconsidering Sino-American Relations’, American Studies (Beijing), No. 1 (1995), p. 38.
See interview of Henry Kissinger in Far Eastern Economic Review (16 November 1995), p. 26.
See Patrick E. Tyler, ‘China’s Campus Model for the 90s: Ernest Patriot’, New York Times, 23 April 1996, p. A4.
See David M. Lampton, ‘China and the Strategic Quadrangle: Foreign Policy Continuity in an Age of Discontinuity’ in Michael Mandelbaum (ed.), The Strategic Quadrangle (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1995), p. 66.
See Ting Wai, ‘China and the New International Political Order: Perceptions and Policy Orientations’, in K. S. Liao (ed.), Politics of Economic Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region (Hong Kong: Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1993), pp. 45–65.
See Xi Laiwan, ‘New Asia-Pacific Policy of the United States and its Prospects’, in Hsueh Chun-tu and Lu Zhongwei (ed), China and her Neighbours: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century (Beijing: Current Affairs Publishing Co., 1995), p. 191.
David Shambaugh is correct in pointing out that ‘Chinese definitions of national security have always included an essential linkage between internal and external security, and have always considered threats to political “stability” to be threats to national security’. See D. Shambaugh, ‘The Insecurity of Security: the PLA’s Evolving Doctrine and Threat Perceptions towards 2000’, Journal of Northeast Asian Studies, vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring 1994), p. 6.
See ‘Text of Anthony Lake’s remarks to Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies’, 21 September 1993, in W. Q. Bowen and D. H. Dunn, American Security Policy in the 1990s (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 1996), pp. 158–160.
See William Clinton, A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement (The White House, February 1995), p. 7.
Winston Lord, ‘A Sweet and Sour Relationship’ (Interview), Current History, Vol. 94, no. 593 (September 1995), pp. 248–251.
Winston Lord, ‘For China, not Containment but True Integration’, International Herald Tribune, 13 October 1995.
See William J. Murphy, ‘Power Transition in Northeast Asia: US—China Security Perceptions and the Challenges of Systemic Adjustment and Stability’, Journal of Northeast Asian Studies, Vol. 13, no. 4 (Winter 1994), p. 80. This view, of course, is based on the assumption that Chinese leaders are divided into conservative and moderate (reformist) factions.
See Les Aspin, Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and the Congress 1994, January 1994, in Bowen and Dunn, p. 161.
Zheng Yin, ‘Asia—Pacific Region: Multiple Angles and the Five Parties’, Contemporary International Relations (Beijing), No. 60, October 1994, p. 4.
See David Shambaugh, ‘The United States and China: A New Cold War?’, Current History, vol. 94, no. 593 (September 1995), p. 244
N. B. Tucker, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the United States, 1945–1992: Uncertain Friendship (New York: Twayne Publishing, 1994), pp. 5–6.
See E. Friedman, ‘The Challenge of a Rising China: Another Germany?’, in R. Liebert (ed.), Eagle Adrift: American Foreign Policy at the End of the Century (New York: Longman, 1997), pp. 215–45.
See E. W. Eikenberry, ‘Explaining and Influencing Chinese Arms Transfers’, McNair Paper 36, February 1995 (Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University), p. 27.
See Robert S. Ross, Negotiating Cooperation: the United States and China, 1969–1989 (Stanford: Stanford University Press), 1995. p. 261.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1999 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wai, T. (1999). Sino-American Relations in the Post-Cold War Era. In: Teather, D.C.B., Yee, H.S., Campling, J. (eds) China in Transition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333983829_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333983829_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-73134-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-333-98382-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)