US-China relations: could a 19th-century accord between Britain and France serve as a model to avoid conflict?

Any US policy to either seek regime change or modify Chinese behaviour risks escalating the rivalry
Rather, a strategy of collaborative confrontation could serve as the foundation for stable US-China relations, as it did for Britain and France in the 19th century

Gregory Mitrovich

Published: 1:30am, 26 Jul 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

The continued deterioration in Sino-US relations has sparked an intensifying debate about what objectives the United States should pursue towards China. On one side are those who argue that the only way to prevent an endless conflict is for the US to favour regime change.

Others counter that such a strategy would greatly exacerbate tensions between the two nations while also weakening alliances critical to American national security. Instead, they argue, the US should centre its efforts over the next several decades on modifying Chinese behaviour to reduce the risk of conflict.

Both strategies, however, unnecessarily risk escalating the rivalry.

Proponents of regime change argue that American planning must begin with the end in mind if Washington is to construct an effective grand strategy for the 21st century.

They dismiss the prospects for competitive coexistence, arguing that it relies on a long-term hope of modifying the behaviour of the Chinese leadership, which appears increasingly unlikely as President Xi Jinping has yet to indicate when or if he might step down. Even if Xi does step down, there is no guarantee that his successor would choose a more accommodationist policy.

02:03

US warns American companies about operating in Hong Kong, sanctions 7 Chinese officials

Following the Cold War strategy of containment, regime change would entail maintaining consistent pressure on China to exacerbate the internal stresses of the communist system and create conditions necessary to cause the collapse of its leadership – or, at the very least, create a China so consumed by internal crises that it is no longer able to challenge the liberal international order.

Opponents of regime change warn that the US must avoid deepening the crisis in relations or risking an overt conflict that may well result from launching a crusade against the Communist Party.

Instead, Washington must recognise that it is immersed in long-term competition and develop strategies centred on “behavioural therapy”, which prioritises creating an international environment that “balances, binds, deters and shapes China’s choices”.

US policy would seek to prevent Beijing from “undermining fundamental US diplomatic, economic, technological and military interests”, while targeting a wide range of Chinese activities, from abusing the international trading system to technology theft and intimidation of US allies, etc.

02:44

US, Britain and EU accuse China of sponsoring massive Microsoft email server hack

The competition would not be entirely zero-sum and would reflect challenges that would be both dynamic and disruptive, and best able to defend American interests across the globe.

As declared policies, both approaches are dangerously inflammatory. First, advocating regime change – or at least declaring that it is America’s preferred outcome – would only galvanise Chinese support for the Communist Party for the simple reason that the Chinese fear instability more than anything else.

Indeed, the Communist Party’s legitimacy is drawn from ending the century of fragmentation and defeat China endured before its victory in 1949. In the minds of both Chinese officials and the general public, the idea of regime change only confirms America’s desire for China to return to an era of chaos and humiliation.

Second, while a policy of behavioural modification sounds more anodyne to the ears of Western scholars, it would be hard for the Chinese to distinguish it from an outright policy of “bullying”, which Xi has warned China would no longer accept.

04:14

Xi Jinping leads celebrations marking centenary of China’s ruling Communist Party

As I show in my book, Undermining the Kremlin, this exact debate occurred early in the Cold War when many American policymakers doubted that the US could survive as a democracy while engaging in a long battle with an authoritarian state.

Fearing the loss of the “American way of life”, US planners called for the extensive use of covert action and psychological warfare to exploit the deep divisions within the Soviet communist leadership, military and party officials, and the security services to create gaping weaknesses that could result in the collapse of the regime.

However, after a few years, Charles Bohlen, then counsellor to the secretary of state, convinced the US government that only a war could bring about the collapse of the Soviet regime. Instead, the US needed to remain confident that the intrinsic strengths of its system would survive a struggle that would be long and hard. This lesson still holds true for the US today.

A historic example offers an alternative approach with hope for stability in the 21st century: the collaborative and confrontational relationship between Britain and France in the 19th century.

A re-enactment of the Battle of Waterloo on the original battlefield on June 18, 1995. The battle broke French Emperor Napoleon and made Britain’s victorious Duke of Wellington a household name. Photo: Reuters

Though bitter enemies for centuries, following the Napoleonic Wars, both nations decided to seek an accommodation that would prevent another war.

Britain and France frequently cooperated to resolve diplomatic crises around the world and fought together to prevent Russian expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean, while simultaneously engaging in an often bitter commercial rivalry and arms race that triggered war scares in Britain several times throughout the 19th century.

It took the growing might of Germany in the early 20th century to finally end the confrontational nature of their relationship. Nevertheless, collaborative confrontation led to a century of peace between the two powers after hundreds of years of conflict.

US, China must learn to cooperate or war may ruin us all

Collaborative confrontation might also serve as the foundation of US-China relations. There are obvious flash points that make both sides wary of the other; however, there are also clear advantages to both sides and their economies from compartmentalising these areas of conflict while continuing to collaborate on areas of common interest. This will be no small feat.

However, that the British and French could achieve this following centuries of warfare offers hope that the US and China might as well. The alternative – war between these two nations – would not be a zero-sum outcome but, rather, a disaster.

Gregory Mitrovich was co-principal investigator for the project “Culture in Power Transitions: Sino-American Confrontation in the 21st Century”, funded by the United States Department of Defence, Minerva Research Initiative