ince Trump took office earlier this year, Zheng Yongnian, director of the Institute for East Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, has argued that the various “uncertainties” Trump has created in the Sino-US relationship should be understood not as a threat but as a neutral opportunity, because just as they contain huge risks, so there are opportunities for future changes.
When interviewed by NewsChina, Zheng said the Mar-a-Lago summit was not a signal for the worse, but instead “opened better possibilities.”
NewsChina: Judging from the results released, it seems the Xi-Trump meeting didn’t produce as many concrete results as we expected. Had you foreseen this?
Zheng Yongnian: Yes. I think the meeting was actually very successful - no concrete results is the greatest result possible. Meeting with each other, the two leaders shouldn’t talk about specific issues, but philosophy, worldview, and methodology.
As recorded by Henry Kissinger in his memoirs, then US president Richard Nixon and then Party chairman Mao Zedong didn’t discuss specific issues at their first meeting, but philosophy and civilization. In fact, we must emancipate our minds when talking about international relations and realize that it is critical to talk about epistemology.
It is to determine the general direction and principles of the relationship, not solve problems, that leaders of two major countries meet with each other. Specific problems are solved by officials at lower levels. A dialogue between leaders aims at building a platform. Besides, through this meeting, the two leaders built a personal relationship, which is also important.
Notably, an important consensus was achieved. Xi stressed that we have a thousand reasons to build a good Sino-US relationship, and not a single reason to ruin it. Trump said the two countries should lay a sound foundation for the bilateral ties of the next five decades. Both leaders acknowledged the importance of the bilateral relationship.
NC: Many people hold that it’s time to re-define the Sino-US relationship after 45 years of development. The summit is believed to set the tone for the relationship in future. What adjustments will be likely made to the relationship?
ZYN: Before the meeting, a signal was released: the two leaders would talk about Sino-US relations over the next five decades. This is to see the bilateral relationship in the long run, not just the present.
But even “in the long run” has different interpretations. American neoconservatism holds that China is an enemy in the long run and must be contained as quickly as possible.
So far, we haven’t seen Trump act to contain China. So the signals released are positive and beyond ideology. Nevertheless, conflicts over specific issues are inevitable.
The national interests of China and the US are more complementary than directly conflicting. The US should understand that China has a different culture than the US does and that the country neither has the wish, nor the ability to be a hegemon. They have no geopolitical conflicts, only indirect conflicts, or China’s direct conflicts with US allies.
Over the North Korean nuclear issue, China and the US have considerable space for cooperation, since they are both intent on solving the issue. Xi showed his determination at the meeting with Trump.
And the issue of economic and trade relations is not one that they should discuss for a long time. Economic and trade relations have never been a zero-sum game. From the era of Clinton to that of Obama, the two economies have always been highly complementary, making a trade war unlikely.
These conflicts are normal. That they exist is also normal. It doesn’t mean a trade war is looming, but instead that the two countries should seek more common strategic interests over such issues.
NC: The Sino-US relationship has always transcended being just a matter of two states and has affected the global situation. So what impacts will the summit have globally?
ZYN: The US is the world’s largest economy, followed by China. The third largest economy - Japan - is less than half of China’s economic aggregate size. Seen this way, the relationship is not a mere bilateral one; the two countries are the two pillars of international relations. Neither of them can afford to lose the other. I think both leaders are very clear about this, though they can’t say so.
America should give up alliance relations like those formed during the Cold War, as alliances are targeted at a third country. China establishes partnerships with other countries, a relationship that doesn’t target a third country.
For instance, China launched the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to solve regional problems, rather than counter an enemy. Developing alliances will cause the international community to divide. International wars, historically, were ones between different alliance camps.
Old Version
