Minxin Pei
{
"authors": [
"Minxin Pei"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
The Tension is Overrated
Given the deep and unbridgeable differences between China and the United States in terms of their political values and geopolitical interests, minor conflicts between the two nations should be expected and should not be viewed as signs of a rapid downturn in U.S.-China relations.
Source: International Herald Tribune

The rapid downturn in a relationship that was, until recently, marked by cordiality and tranquility has led many to worry about another extreme: a qualitative deterioration and eventually a full-fledged rivalry.
Such fears are overblown, in the same way that recent talks of a close-knit U.S.-China strategic partnership (a.k.a. G-2) were premature and naïve.
In many ways, the sudden worsening of ties between Beijing and Washington really means that U.S.-China relations are returning to “normalcy.” Because of the deep and unbridgeable differences between the two countries in terms of their political values, conceptions of international order and geopolitical interests, constant frictions, even minor conflicts, should be the rule. Chumminess and absence of tensions, as displayed during Mr. Obama’s first year in office, are actually the exception.
Additionally, the downturn in ties also reflects two important policy adjustments by President Obama. First, a tough stance toward China is part of an overall hardening of his foreign policy. China is not getting special treatment. Second, the Obama administration has specific reasons to be less accommodating to China because of Beijing’s recent assertiveness, such as its uncooperative behavior at the Copenhagen climate change summit, obstructionism on sanctions against Iran, and intensified repression of dissent at home.
Some worry that Beijing will respond to Washington’s policy adjustments with retaliation, thus initiating a vicious cycle.
While it is true that the Chinese government has turned up its blustering several notches, we should learn to tell bark from bite. Other than canceling its military exchange program with the U.S., which is not viewed as productive in any case, China’s retaliations are mostly rhetorical and symbolic. The real test, of course, will be Iran. If Beijing single-handedly blocks sanctions against Tehran at the United Nations Security Council, that would be serious. But Chinese leaders must also know that they will surely face the united wrath of the United States and Europe, a prospect no smart mandarins in China relish.
There are additional grounds for cautious optimism. The two countries are now so economically intertwined that a major disruption in their political relationship could severely damage their respective economic interests, a price neither wants to pay. Economic interdependence also means that neither China nor the U.S. can hurt the other without harming itself. In spite of the heated words in the official Chinese press, it is reassuring to note that Beijing and Washington are merely fighting the same old fights: Taiwan, Tibet and human rights. Both sides are familiar with the ground rules for these disputes and, so far, have observed them.
Some worry that Chinese leaders may have such hubris that they will assert themselves with unusual aggressiveness. On the surface, that sounds plausible. However, Beijing’s rulers are ruthless, but cautious, realists. It is unlikely that they have deluded themselves into believing that they are now strong enough to stare down the U.S. Most importantly, acutely aware of their own domestic frailties, they understand that a costly confrontation with America will endanger their hold on power.
What lies ahead should be familiar to China watchers: After the huffing and puffing is over, Beijing and Washington will start repairing the damage. As for the rest of the world, it had better get used to frequent, but controlled, rows between China and the United States.
About the Author
Former Adjunct Senior Associate, Asia Program
Pei is Tom and Margot Pritzker ‘72 Professor of Government and the director of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College.
- How China Can Avoid the Next ConflictIn The Media
- Small ChangeIn The Media
Minxin Pei
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz
- Assessing Information Ecosystems: How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid ThreatsPaper
The hybrid warfare landscape is evolving rapidly, leaving policymakers without clear strategies. To better inform their work in addressing emerging challenges, governments must dig deeper into the underlying dynamics at play.
Raluca Csernatoni, Alicia Wanless
- Taking the Pulse: Are the EU’s Watered-Down Russia Sanctions Better than None?Commentary
The EU had to compromise to adopt a twenty-first sanctions package against Russia, exposing growing cracks in the union’s resolve. Is this latest, weaker round worth it to keep pressure on Moscow?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Why Europe Must Take Charge of its Russia Diplomacy NowCommentary
Trump is distracted and Ukraine wants Europe to step up. The continent’s leaders must find their voice and assert it in talks with Russia.
Alissa de Carbonnel
- Why Russia Could Escalate Hybrid Warfare Against EuropeCommentary
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
Maksym Beznosiuk