NSP Research Report: Competition in the Social Science Knowledge Systems between China and the United States

AbstractAnalyses of the US-China relationship have primarily focused on hard power aspects such as power, security, strategy, and economics, yet competition in soft power has always been concurrent. Considering that even during the power transition between Britain and the United States, which are classified under the same Anglo-Saxon civilization, competition and conflict occurred not only in hard power but also in soft power, the competition and conflict in soft power hold particularly significant implications in the context of US-China competition, which can be described as an interaction between different civilizations. This paper specifically examines the conflict in soft power between the US and China by focusing on the conflict and competition within their social science knowledge systems. The reason for examining the social science knowledge systems is that the factors of competition and conflict between the US and China are, broadly speaking, related to discussions about the international order, and international relations is the academic discipline that imagines and studies this international order. Furthermore, international relations exists as a social science broadly speaking and is connected to various social science disciplines. Therefore, this paper first provides a theoretical analytical framework for observing the competition and conflict in soft power between the US and China, specifically connecting realism, a theory of international politics frequently mentioned in explaining recent US-China relations, with constructivism, a theory of international politics that emphasizes the importance of ideational factors such as values and ideologies in international relations. Second, it examines the differences in understanding and outlook regarding the international order between the US and China, focusing on the competition within international relations theories. Although it is a competition between the US and China, the focus is on China's challenge to the US-centric mainstream international relations scholarship to date. Finally, it analyzes the strengths and limitations of this Chinese challenge and the implications of the resulting competition in knowledge systems for the future US-China relationship.

I. Introduction

There is no room for debate that the United States and China are the two most important actors in 21st-century international politics. Despite the widespread theory of American decline following the 2008 financial crisis, the United States' global influence persists across various domains, including politics, economics, military, and culture (Zakaria 2012, 41-78). However, China's rise is also an undeniable reality, and its recent assertive and resolute actions in Asia and globally demonstrate its substantial potential and will to challenge the US-led world order (Schweller and Pu 2011, 41-72). China has already surpassed Japan, the world's second-largest economy in 2010, in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), and by 2014, it had already overtaken the United States in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Militarily, China has emerged as a significant competitor to the United States, at least in East Asia, with projections suggesting it will become a global competitor by 2035 (Jacques 2009). Therefore, the dynamic of US leadership and Chinese challenge is expected to persist at least until the mid-21st century (Joffe 2009; Freedman 2010).

For these reasons, numerous academic and popular books on US-China relations have been published and have garnered significant attention. However, most studies tend to emphasize conflicts in hard power, such as military/strategic aspects or economic/financial dimensions. To date, analyses of US-China relations have primarily focused on power, security, strategy, and economics. Beyond these areas, however, competition and conflict in the domain of soft power are also increasingly coming to the fore. Of course, competition and conflict between great powers in the realm of soft power are not a new phenomenon of the 21st century. Even during the power transition between Britain and the United States, classified under the same Anglo-Saxon civilization, there was competition and conflict not only in hard power but also in soft power. Specifically, Britain and the United States engaged in differences in perception and competition concerning slavery/trade, democracy (political systems), and free trade norms during this period (Lorimer 1976; Prochaska 2012). A distinctive feature differentiating the US-China relationship from that of Britain and the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is that the relationship between the two countries involves the interaction of different civilizations, and in this regard, the competition and conflict in soft power between them carry even more significant implications.

The current international political system was shaped by the global diffusion of the European international political order, which originated in the 16th century and was perfected in the 18th century (Bull and Watson 1985). For this reason, most power transitions since the dawn of modern international politics have occurred within European civilization. However, considering the process by which Western powers first clashed with Chinese and Indian civilizations in the 19th century, the hegemonic transition between the US and China is expected to involve more elements of conflict as it is a relationship between highly disparate civilizations. In the case of China, since its incorporation into the Western modern international order, there have always been exchanges and conflicts of norms and values between Western countries and China (Gong 1984; Hobson 2004; Suzuki 2009; Kang 2013). However, in the future US-China relationship, conflicts in various 'levels of ideas,' such as worldviews, values, beliefs, and identities, which have not been significantly addressed previously, are expected to emerge as important factors. Therefore, to understand the transitional US-China relationship, it is essential not only to examine the traditional domains of diplomacy, security, and economics but also to consider new areas such as values, norms, knowledge, information, culture, technology, and the environment, which hold equal importance.

A prime example illustrating the importance of soft power is the recently leaked internal document of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) published in The New York Times. This document contains directives on the behavioral guidelines for high-ranking CCP officials, ordering them to reject subversive ideas originating from the West. These include, but are not limited to, Western-style democracy, the pursuit of universal values such as human rights, freedom of the press and civil participation, neoliberal market reforms, and nihilistic critiques of the Party's past (Buckley 2013). This document indicates that the competition and conflict in soft power between the US and China have already begun, and the first front of this conflict can be seen as an effort to prevent the influx of Western values, ideas, and principles into China. However, this is not the only manifestation; it is also evident in China's recent amendment of its National Security Law. Through this recent legal amendment, China has expanded the scope of the National Security Law to encompass not only cyberspace but also the cultural and educational spheres, applying security considerations to these areas (Wong 2015). Further evidence can be seen in the arrests and detentions of human rights lawyers across China and the intensified surveillance and control over non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Yu 2015).

However, this is merely the beginning. If preventing the influx of Western ideas into China was the primary step, the conflict and competition in soft power can extend beyond national borders. This primarily manifests as an attempt to counter Western ideologies, principles, institutions, and methods. China's diplomatic strategy surrounding the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling in the recent South China Sea territorial dispute clearly illustrates this. Throughout the proceedings, China pointed to issues of the Permanent Court of Arbitration's jurisdiction through various channels, asserting that the United States was behind the Philippines government and making it clear that China would never engage in a US-led game in this domain. However, China goes further by actively attempting to promote and disseminate its own values and principles in other areas. The well-known fact is that since 2004, China has established approximately 500 Confucius Institutes worldwide to promote the Chinese language and Chinese values. The investment or promised funds by China for image improvement amount to $1.41 trillion to date. Recently, China has strengthened its international law team, led by a former International Court of Justice judge, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to actively respond to issues such as territorial disputes and the extradition of fugitives involved in corruption cases (Ng 2015). Furthermore, as evidenced by President Xi Jinping's visit to the UK and Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit to Canada, China is actively countering criticisms of its human rights record with a strong offensive stance.

China's efforts to create and disseminate its values and norms are evident in various domains. The norms that China presents to the international community, such as the 'no first use' of nuclear weapons, possess considerable legitimacy. Furthermore, principles such as non-interference in internal affairs and the strict respect for sovereignty are shared by many developing countries, giving them persuasive power and potential for dissemination. China is also increasingly developing and disseminating various norms with 'Chinese characteristics' (정재호 2011; Foot 2000). China has already attempted to identify and apply Chinese characteristics in areas such as economics, development, democracy, global governance, and various academic disciplines (Haung 2008; Lampton 2008; Tsai 2007; Yan 2011; Chan et al. 2011). Additionally, the recent appointment of Liu Yousheng, Deputy Head of the Propaganda Department, as the Vice Minister of Culture signifies China's active promotion of its cultural power and soft power (Zhuang 2014). In this context, it is more likely that the US and China will seek to identify the sources of legitimacy for existing values and principles and gather support to strengthen them, rather than resolving the conflicts in various normative domains in one direction.

This chapter examines the competition and conflict in soft power between the US and China by focusing on the conflict and competition within their social science knowledge systems. The reason for examining the social science knowledge systems is that the factors of competition and conflict between the US and China are, broadly speaking, related to discussions about the international order, and international relations is the academic discipline that imagines and studies this international order. Furthermore, international relations exists as a social science broadly speaking and is connected to various social science disciplines. This chapter is structured as follows: First, it provides a theoretical analytical framework for observing the competition and conflict in soft power between the US and China. Specifically, this chapter connects realism, a theory of international politics frequently mentioned in explaining recent US-China relations, with constructivism, a theory of international politics that emphasizes the importance of ideational factors such as values and ideologies in international relations. Second, it examines the differences in understanding and outlook regarding the international order between the US and China, focusing on the competition within international relations theories. Although it is a competition between the US and China, the focus is on China's challenge to the US-centric mainstream international relations scholarship to date. The final section analyzes the strengths and limitations of this Chinese challenge and the implications of the resulting competition in knowledge systems for the future US-China relationship.... (continued)

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University. He graduated from the Department of Diplomacy, Seoul National University, and received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities). He served as Visiting Assistant Professor at St. Olaf College and Associate Professor at Griffith University. His main research areas include international norms and institutions, international human rights, and ethics. His recent publications include "The Politics of Peaceful Power Transition" (2015, co-authored),The Massacres at Mt Halla: Sixty Years of Truth-Seeking in South Korea(Cornell University Press, 2014),Transitional Justice in the Asia Pacific(Cambridge University Press, 2014).