America and China share a common reality neither can change. Both are and have been “empire-states”; that is, both have acquired over time extensive extra-territorial “national interests” in outer, often distant, geographical regions.
Their histories show it is unwise to ignore or cede control in these regions to potentially hostile powers. For either to deny this reality rises to the level of self-deceiving conceit.
Meanwhile, a recognition of each nation’s self-interest is the first step to finding accommodation both can live with.
The angry exchanges between Beijing and Washington are not necessarily a prelude to war. Rather, they should be welcomed by those who wish their relationship well. As serious as their differences are, none invites or implies inevitable, long-term strategic hostility. Both sides wanted to avoid conflict. Unfortunately, the critical importance of enduring realities of history and geography, forces which will decisively shape both countries’ future, are being ignored and/or distorted by partisan narratives being spun in both capitals.
The longer, more important curve of America’s and China’s historical records show that, having consolidated their respective empires’ geographical-historical boundaries (though in different historical periods), both powers became, and remain to this day, conservative, nonexpansionist states. Their international behavior is driven by defensive security concerns, not designs on hegemony. Territorially, their core zones are not in conflict. Neither wants land possessed by the other.
Their subtle competition for tactical advantage among the secondary players around them cannot alter either one’s military or economic pre-eminence as a great power. Only internally generated disruptions in their empires, and of their own making, can undermine either one.
This conservative characterization of the American and Chinese states contradicts a popular narrative that conflict between them is likely inevitable, a conclusion allegedly supported by the history of previous rivalries among empires. But that narrative is deeply flawed, resting as it does on a weak premise. Previous Greek, Roman, English, French, and German empires were and remained expansionist powers until they were defeated or forced to retreat. None of them evolved peacefully, willingly accepting a limited conception of empire-state boundaries. All of them had first to be beaten in the field.
This historical outcome does not apply to America or China. America’s existing empire-state has long been in retreat, and there hasn’t been an expansionist Chinese empire under Han Chinese rule for a thousand years.
The current Sino-American impasse requires a preliminary, old-fashioned push-and-shove, short of military conflict, until the stronger logic of history and geography prevails. In the end, an accommodation will be necessary — a compact based on coexistence among the Chinese, American, and Russian empire-states. The unavoidable alternative is another era of prolonged, wasteful, inconclusive international struggles, producing destruction without victory for anyone.
We are in the early stages of the pushing and shoving, but there are grounds for cautious optimism. For all their differences, both societies are rooted in civilizations that honor stability, compromise, law and order, restraint, and dignity. History and geography proclaim this ultimately more important shared universe will likely forestall conflict and overcome the angst that currently troubles and divides them.
David Mozingo is writing a book on Sino-American empire-state interaction. He was formerly China military and foreign policy specialist with the RAND Corporation and chairman of Cornell University’s China Program.
