Vijaya Laxmi Tripura
The relationship between the United States and China has evolved significantly over the past century and a half, yet it is rooted in deep-seated ideological and cultural beliefs that have shaped American attitudes toward China. Today, as the American political elite frames China as an existential “threat” to US global dominance, this rhetoric is steeped in a millenarian mindset that has historically vacillated between a desire to “save” China and a need to “vanquish” it. This binary perspective, however, oversimplifies the complexities of Sino-American relations and sets the stage for a potentially dangerous escalation in global tensions.
To comprehend the contemporary American posture toward China, it is crucial to examine the historical context. For over 150 years, the United States has viewed China through a lens of missionary zealotry, wherein China and its people were seen as subjects to be spiritually saved and culturally transformed. American missionaries, imbued with a sense of God-ordained exceptionalism, embarked on a crusade to convert the Chinese populace to Christianity and Western values. This early form of “soft power” was underpinned by a belief in the moral superiority of the American way of life and a conviction that the US had a divine mandate to spread its values across the globe.
However, as China’s political landscape shifted, particularly with the rise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the American elite’s perspective began to change. The dream of saving China through spiritual and cultural transformation gave way to the harsh reality that China was not merely a passive recipient of American influence. Instead, China emerged as a formidable and independent actor on the global stage, one that did not align with American expectations or interests. This shift in perception marked the beginning of a more adversarial relationship between the two nations.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a watershed moment for the United States. With its principal global rival seemingly vanquished, the American political elite declared victory in what Francis Fukuyama famously termed the “end of history.” The US, now unchallenged in its position of geopolitical dominance, turned its attention to the rest of the world, seeking to spread its model of liberal democracy and capitalism.
During the 1990s, the American elite revived the ambition of transforming China, this time not through religious conversion, but through economic integration. The belief was that by bringing China into the fold of the global capitalist system, particularly through its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, China would inevitably adopt Western political and cultural norms. This strategy was based on the assumption that economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization-a notion that, in hindsight, proved to be overly optimistic.
Despite significant economic reforms and growth, China did not follow the path that the American elite had anticipated. Instead of embracing Western-style democracy, China retained its unique political system, with the CCP maintaining a tight grip on power. The failure of this economic engagement strategy to bring about the desired political transformation led to a growing sense of disillusionment among American policymakers.
By the time Donald Trump took office in 2017, the US approach to China had undergone a dramatic shift. The 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) marked a turning point in American foreign policy, explicitly framing China as an economic and military “threat” to US interests, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. This document, more than any previous NSS, articulated a confrontational stance toward China, signaling the end of the post-Cold War era of engagement.
The disappointment that China had “defied” American expectations quickly morphed into outright hostility. Influential figures within the American foreign policy establishment, such as Kurt Campbell and Ely Ratner, openly lamented the failure of efforts to transform China. This sense of “buyer’s regret” was compounded by the realization that China was not only resisting American influence but was also challenging US dominance on the global stage.
By 2018, this sentiment had permeated the highest levels of American government, with current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan acknowledging in January 2024 that decades of US efforts to change and shape China had failed. Sullivan’s remarks underscored a growing consensus within the American political elite that China was not a partner to be accommodated but an adversary to be confronted.
In stark contrast to the American millenarian mindset, China has consistently rejected the notion of great power competition and the framing of international relations in binary, Manichean terms. Chinese leaders have emphasized a more co-existential approach to global order, one that recognizes the diversity of civilizations and the potential for mutual success.
The Global Civilization Initiative, championed by Chinese leadership, exemplifies this worldview. It posits that “Planet Earth is big enough for the two countries to succeed, and one country’s success is an opportunity for the other.” This perspective stands in direct opposition to the zero-sum mentality that characterizes much of the American political elite’s rhetoric.
While the US views China as a threat that must be countered, China sees the relationship in more nuanced terms, advocating for cooperation and coexistence rather than confrontation. This fundamental difference in approach has profound implications for the future of Sino-American relations and the broader global order.
The American political elite’s framing of China as an existential threat, rooted in a millenarian worldview, risks escalating tensions between the two superpowers to dangerous levels. This mindset, which oscillates between a desire to save and a need to vanquish, oversimplifies the complexities of the Sino-American relationship and ignores the potential for peaceful coexistence.
As China continues to rise and assert its place in the global order, it is imperative for US policymakers to move beyond this binary framing and engage with China on more realistic and constructive terms. Failure to do so could lead to a new era of great power conflict, with far-reaching consequences for the entire world.
