中文
By Hafijur Rahman
The U.S. is escalating its technological cold war with China by imposing new sanctions to squeeze the flow of high-end semiconductors and semiconductor-manufacturing equipment to China.
According to Reuters, in an effort to halt China's technological and military advancements, new restrictions have been enforced that require licenses before U.S. products can be transported to Chinese factories that produce advanced chips.
Restricting China's tech ambition in contravention of the international legal regime such as the principles of openness and non-discrimination is one of many frontiers the U.S. has pushed ahead on in order to assert its increasing strategic assaults against China, pursuing a strategic mission that China must be contained on the world stage.
As the logic of zero-sum competition with China has become super-charged in Washington policy circles, the U.S. foreign policy agenda has begun to lose its positive affirmative aspects. Seized by the so-called China challenge and consumed with the ill-conceived notion of the "China-containment strategy," the U.S. is, on the one hand, squeezing the existing minimum space to recalibrate the bilateral relations into a peaceful-co-existing trajectory, and on the other hand, crowding out the collective efforts that are so crucial to tackle the challenges that the world is facing for the moment.
The U.S. foreign policy is set in an aggressive "automated motion" with that of China, moving to where China moves, thereby placing the whole policy apparatus in a reactive posture. An increasing "reflexive fear" over losing its hegemonic preeminence and their nostalgia over a bygone "unipolar moment" has continued to prompt Washington to take on tougher punitive and protective policies against Beijing, which are ranging from the securitization of relations to sanctions and restrictions on trade and scientific exchange.
Correspondingly, those are precipitating a fractious geopolitical landscape and "perpetuating a vicious cycle" that has throttled "the long-structured global interdependence."
What makes a great power? It lies in what the states do – not necessarily what they say. But the U.S. foreign policy posture runs antithetical to that axiomatic proposition. It says a lot concerning where it is supposed to do more – climate change, economic recovery, or promoting global peace and stability. And it has been doing a whole lot of what exactly runs counter to the collective betterment of the world – fomenting bloc politics, provoking militarization, accelerating protectionism, and so forth.
The question of why Washington's politics and policies have taken such a reactionary and perilous turn could best be answered from the perspective of the profound presence of misconceptions within the U.S.'s political establishment about China's rise and its ever-increasing global footprint.
The misconceptions about China ingrained within Washington's current policy establishment are: China has changed over the last decade or two, but it's still allegedly intent on "replacing the current international order with one favorable to its own hegemonic advantages."
The pervasive concept among Washington's policy circle is that Beijing has changed in the past decade or two in an assertive manner, but it has more to do with the U.S. shifting their threat perceptions on China rather than recognizing the positive impact of China's rise itself.
China's growing ascendance and global outreach are due to its "stable evolutionary strategy" – one characterized by its tailored responsiveness to the needs of both the Chinese and its partners. It is a path established on its decades-long credibility and promoted by the egalitarian principle of developing an interconnected cooperative environment based on mutual respect and enhancing economic relations instead of one seeking to maximize its own self-interests.
Despite being the second-largest economy with vast global outreach over the last decades, China has never sought any alliance system similar to the U.S., demonstrating that it would never pursue hegemony or seek to interfere in other nations' internal affairs.
If any change is to be cited as the reason behind the ever-deteriorating bilateral relations, then it stands on the U.S.'s part, regarding the absence of any change over its deep-rooted cold war mindset and ever-sustaining nostalgia over once-enjoyed "unipolar moment." Meanwhile, the corresponding changes in its policies and politics have become more hostile, intolerant and reactive to the developments both in China and its engagements abroad.
Additionally, the myth that China is seeking to "replace the current international system with one in its favor" is not accurate. What China has sought is the reformation of the existing global system, which is flawed and in favor of a particular privileged class, particularly the West.
And its efforts in crafting out the desired reformation of the current system toward more inclusivity and shared prosperity of the global community as a whole are precisely structured for meaningful multilateral dialogue rather than one asserted through pushing unilaterally aggressive counterforces.
The future direction and potential pattern of the global governing system must be drawn up by appreciating the diverse interests and values of each and every stakeholder – not by the forces dictating unilaterally to their narrow self-interests. The systemic status quo that benefits several few cannot be deemed normal by any measure.
Hafijur Rahman is a columnist and Security and Strategic analyst, working in a prominent Strategic Studies Center in Bangladesh.
