Yu Zhi: Does the United States inevitably curb China's rise?

China's important official media "People's Daily" published an important comment on August 9, "What is the essence of the United States provoked the trade war?", Its core point is: And "Which country's strength is second in the world, which country threatens the United States'Global status, which country is the most important opponent of the United States, the United States must curb Andrdquo in this country; the United States has curbed the Soviet Union and Japan that year, and this is the case; since China is already the world's second largest economy, no matter what China does, the United States does it, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States.It will curb the rise of China, which is the essence of the United States to challenge the trade war.

This comment focuses on the awareness of Chinese official media and a considerable part of the knowledge elites and even ordinary people, and has a serious confrontation of the current Sino -US trade war and even China and the United States.

The author believes that the United States will inevitably curb the cognition of the world's second country (currently China), and its theoretical basis is not sufficient; in the historical American -Soviet Cold War and the United States and Japan, it cannot prove this;The shallow and deep roots of Sino -US confrontation cannot be explained from this perspective; whether the United States curbs China's rise depends on China's rise.

I. Andrdquo; "the United States must curb the theoretical basis of Andrdquo; the United States is not sufficient. AND" The United States must curb the cognition of Andrdquo; the United States must curb the world's second country's Andrdquo; its theoretical basis is the so -called "Xiu Xide trap Andrdquo;This theory originally originated from the famous historian of ancient Greece Xiu Xidid. Its core point is that a new and rising country will inevitably challenge the existing great power, and the existing power will inevitably respond to this threat. The contradictions of the two are "Most Andrdquo; eventually solved through war, such as the Athens and Sparta War in the 5th century BC.

Harvard professor Graham, a professor of Harvard University, a special adviser to the United States Defense Secretary; Ellison has summarized: Since 1500 years, there are 15 cases of newly rising great powers challenging the existing great powers, including 11 of them.Including 1914 and 1939 due to Germany's replacement of Britain's dominance in Europe, two world wars triggered, and Japan's war that replaced European colonists in Asia, and the war launched by other countries in Asia.In his hands, "liberated Andrdquo; named Asian countries). He also used Andrdquo; this concept to locate the 21st century Sino -US relations.

However, whether it is the proposal of this theory, or the promoter Ellison, it just emphasizes the phenomenon of serious conflict between the rising power and the existing country.(Andrdquo; or 11/15), without emphasizing or demonstrating its logical inevitability.

From the perspective of historical facts, there are indeed a major power relationship that has not experienced this trap.The most typical example is that when the United States replaced Britain in the late 19th century to become the strongest country in the world, the two did not experience war or serious confrontation.

From a regular analysis: In the example of the rising power and the existing powers, in the example of "Xiuchandide trap andRDQUO; serious confrontation or even war), at least one of them is a non -democratic country.Japan; and when both countries are democratized countries, this possibility is relatively small. For example, when the United States replaces Britain to become the strongest country in the world, since the two countries are already democratic countries, they have no serious confrontation.

The author believes that this observation is more logical and theoretical.When one of the two major countries in the two countries is a non -democratic country, its authoritarian leaders want to be Andrdquo; the desire of the world, and generally speaking, it will be stronger, and it will control the national emotions of public opinion and stimulate the people./p>

And once it becomes Andrdquo; because of its strong desire to control other countries, it has a large threat to another country (whether it is a democratic country or a non -democratic country).The possibility is relatively large.

When both major powers are democratic countries, due to the open speech and the opening of the people, the people generally pay attention to their own development and improvement, and will not use whether their country can be "the world boss Andrdquo; as a deliberate pursuit of goals.The government will not have a strong hegemony attempt to be elected by the people. Moreover, because they follow the values of free and democracy, who is the boss will not pose a fatal threat to the other party.

Therefore, competition between the two countries may be carried out in a fair and friendly situation without serious confrontation and war.

In short, theoretically, Andrdquo; AND's "Xiu Xidde trap andrdquo; is a theoretical hypothesis that does not necessarily be established. This to demonstrate and" the United States must curb the world's second country Andrdquo;, the theoretical basis is insufficient.Moreover, in an interview, Chinese leaders also warned between China and the United States not to fall into Andrdquo; "People's Daily" as one of the most important official media in China, why should they use this as one of the two most important official media.What about the foundation of national relations?

Second, the contradiction between the Cold War and the United States and Japan cannot prove that "the United States must curb the world's second country Andrdquo;. During the Cold War of the United States and the Soviet Union, the United States did make every effort to curb the external expansion of the former Soviet Union and the internal development related to this.High -tech product embargo). It should be explained that the Soviet military strength and political influence at that time ranked second in the world, but economic strength was not as good as Japan, not the second in the world.

More importantly, the core cause of the United States to curb the Soviet Union is not because its military and political influence ranks second, but because the Soviet economic and political system is completely opposed to the United States, and the two must be globallyInternal conflicts have occurred to compete for world leadership (Khrushchev's Andrdquo; is just a guise to ease the atmosphere).

Therefore, the United States curbing the Soviet Union is the containment of Andrdquo; if military and political influence ranks second in Japan or Germany, which is the same as the American system.There are some precautions for it, but it will never take comprehensive curb measures like the Soviet Union. Therefore, the US -Soviet Cold War cannot prove that Andrdquo; the United States must curb the world's second country Andrdquo;

The contradiction between the United States and Japan was the contradiction between ordinary trade

The surplus is too large, so it is required to appreciate the yen to solve this problem. This is an ordinary trade contradiction, which can not be discussed to curb the development of Japan.

Secondly, the United States did not take other measures (including technology embargo, etc.) to curb the development of Japan, and did not prevent the expansion of Japan's international influence. On the contrary, it also actively encouraged Japan to play a greater role in the international community, including foreign aid and peacekeeping operations.Third, the United States not only demanded Japan at that time, but also required other allies (Germany, Britain, France) to take consistent actions (depreciation of the US dollar) to solve its trade deficit.It cannot be said that the United States curbs the development of all other four countries.

If you relax your horizons, which countries are curbing and which countries that do not contain, the primary and core eyesight is obviously in terms of ideology and political and economic system, not the strength of the other party.EssenceThe United States vigorously curbs the development of Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, but does not curb the development of Japan and European countries that are much stronger than them, which is evidence.

Third, the current shallow, deep roots and nature of the Sino -US trade war with China and the United States.The shallow cause of the Sino -US trade war is the long -term accumulated trade imbalance between the two countries, and the root cause of the imbalanced of the United States, that is, China's long -term economic development model characterized by the government, and "exported exports exports with and" exports exportsGuide Andrdquo; Foreign and trade policies characterized by characteristics, including various subsidies, trade barriers, underestimation of RMB, etc.

The United States exerts the pressure of trade in China to force China to change this model and policy and fundamentally change the problem of imbalance between Sino -US trade.Therefore, from the perspective of the shallow level, China and the United StatesPlay a greater role in the international community, including foreign aid and peacekeeping operations.Third, the United States not only demanded Japan at that time, but also required other allies (Germany, Britain, France) to take consistent actions (depreciation of the US dollar) to solve its trade deficit.It cannot be said that the United States curbs the development of all other four countries.

The United States exerts the pressure of trade in China to force China to change this model and policy and fundamentally change the problem of imbalance between Sino -US trade.Therefore, from the perspective of shallow levels, the Sino -US trade war is very similar to the original contradiction between Japan and the United States.But as mentioned earlier, this contradiction is only a trade contradiction, and does not indicate that the United States will inevitably curb China's development or rise in other aspects.

The deep reasons for the Sino -US trade war and even the confrontation between China and the United States are mainly the political and economic trends that have strengthened their centralized and control in recent years. They are opposite to the direction of reform and opening up in the United States.The implementation of Andrdquo;, the Belt and Road Investment Bank, BRICS Organization and other international plans and organizations to expand its influence to the outside world. As a result, the United States believes that China and its world leadership are the world's leadership.Control in China.

These measures are not limited to the field of trade, but also expanded to bilateral investment, intellectual property, high -tech strategic industries, Taiwan and South China Sea, military, diplomatic, international relations and other fields.Its comprehensiveness and grimness are the worst since the Tiananmen incident in 1989.In a public speech recently, Trump publicly declared that China was Andrdquo;

Therefore, it should be objectively acknowledged that the United States is indeed curbing China's rise.As mentioned earlier, the core source and primary factor of this curb is that the United States believes that the development direction of China is the opposite of its development; China's economic strength is second in the world, only the secondary factor affecting its determination and strength.From the perspective of the United States, curbing China's development is not only related to who is "the world boss Andrdquo; and what direction to develop in the future world. Therefore, from the perspective of deep levels, it is more accurate that the United States is curbing China to curb ChinaAndrdquo; "reverse rise of Andrdquo; its nature is similar to the United States curbing the Soviet Union.

Chinese official media have repeatedly declared that China's rise is the rise of peace, unintentionally challenging the global leadership of the United States, and repeatedly reiterated that it will never dominate and never expand.The problem is, do countries judge the strategic direction and intention of other countries, through its language declaration or practical action?In recent years, China's political and economic direction and foreign strategy will make the United States and its allies believe that the language of the Chinese side is declared?

4. Whether the United States curbs China's rise depends on China's rise.Finally, return to the question of the article title: Does the United States inevitably curb China's rise?Answer: It is not inevitable, depending on the rise of China.If the rise of China is in the same direction as the United States, and does not endanger the values and systems of the United States, the possibility of peaceful competition between the two parties is greater and may not have a large conflict. Even if trade friction occursJapan contradictions.If China's rise is in the opposite direction with the United States, threatening American values and systems, the United States will inevitably curb China's Andrdquo; similar to the US -Soviet Cold War.

In short, whether the United States and to how much to curb the rise of China, can China and the United States avoid being caught in Andrdquo; depending on China's own development direction."

(The author is a professor of economics at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics in China)

Yu Zhi: Does the United States inevitably curb Chinas rise?

The contradiction between the United States and Japan was the contradiction between ordinary trade