imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-2-12-30imi-333Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLES«Китайская мечта» или «американский кошмар»: к чему пришли американо-китайские отношения за три десятилетияThe ‘Chinese Dream’ or the ‘American Nightmare’: Where Did the U.S.-China Relations Come in Three Decadeshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6766-1792ЛексютинаЯ. В.LeksyutinaY. V.

Лексютина Яна Валерьевна, доктор политических наук, профессор РАН, профессор, Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет

SPIN-код: 96330244; ResearcherID: I-6134-2013; ScopusID: 57194420243

199034 Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб. д. 7-9

Yana V. Leksyutina, Doctor of Sciences, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Saint-Petersburg State University

7/9, Universitetskaya Emb., Saint-Petersburg 199034

lexyana@ya.ruСПбГУРоссияSaint-Petersburg State UniversityRussian Federation2021260720211221230Copyright © Лексютина Я.В., 20212021Лексютина Я.В.Leksyutina Y.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/333

Для американо-китайских отношений всегда была характерна асимметрия, при которой вектор их развития – курс на поиск сфер сотрудничества или акцентирование противоречий / соперничества – задавался проводимой Вашингтоном политикой в отношении Китая, а последний выступал реагирующей стороной. Наблюдаемое ныне усиление конфронтации между США и Китаем обуславливает необходимость осмысления того, как и почему «китайская мечта» о великом возрождении нации стала «американским кошмаром», заставив Вашингтон сделать выбор в пользу политики «сдерживания» Китая. С целью выявления логики формирования американской политики в отношении Китая автор анализирует динамику развития двусторонних связей с момента окончания холодной войны.

Для объяснения эволюции этих отношений в статье применяется авторская концепция «стратегической основы», под которой подразумевается сотрудничество двух стран в области противодействия внешней экзистенциальной угрозе для США. Периоды, когда такая внешняя экзистенциальная угроза для США существовала и интересы двух стран в минимизации ее рисков совпадали, характеризовались стратегической стабильностью американо-китайских отношений, отсутствием кризисов двустороннего взаимодействия, динамичным сотрудничеством двух стран по широкому спектру вопросов двусторонней, региональной и глобальной повестки. И напротив, в условиях отсутствия такой угрозы отношения были нестабильными, происходило обострение противоречий и соперничества. Уникальность современного этапа состоит в том, что ввиду становления Китая в качестве глобальной державы и неоправдавшихся ожиданий Вашингтона в отношении Пекина уже сам Китай начинает восприниматься Вашингтоном в качестве экзистенциальной угрозы.

The bulk of academic studies characterize the contemporary U.S. – China relations as asymmetrical ones, in which the relations' agenda − a course towards finding areas of cooperation or emphasizing contradictions/rivalry − was set by Washington's policy towards China, with the latter being more of a reacting party. In this paper, I argue that one needs a further and deeper reflection on the current confrontation between the U.S. and China, in particular the reasons and circumstances of how and why the “Chinese dream” of a remarkable renaissance of the Chinese nation became an American nightmare, forcing Washington to opt for a containment policy against China. In this regard, I show the importance of tracing the dynamics of the post-Cold War development of the U.S. – China relations to comprehend the patterns and logic of the shaping of American policy towards China. The article also explains the evolution of U.S. – China relations in the post-Cold War period as determined by the presence or absence of a strategic basis in the U.S. – China relations, which implies cooperation between the two countries in stopping the external existential threat to the U.S. So, I conclude that the uniqueness of the current stage lies in the fact that, because of China's emergence as a strong global power and Washington's disillusions about China, China itself is beginning to be perceived by Washington as an existential threat, to stop which the containment policy should be applied.

СШАКитайамерикано-китайские отношениясдерживаниестратегическое соперничествоThe U.S.ChinaU.S.-China relationscontainmentstrategic rivalrySPbSUReferencesДавыдов, А.С. Пекин, Вашингтон, Москва: взаимоотношения в контексте трансформации глобальной архитектоники. − М.: ИДВ РАН, 2015. − 400 с.Davydov, Andrew. Pekin, Vashington, Moskva: vzaimootnosheniya v kontekste transformatsii global'noi arkhitektoniki. Moscow: IFES RAS, 2015 [In Russian].Ефременко, Д.В. Двойная ловушка Фукидида // Россия в глобальной политике. − 2020. – 18(4).− С. 126–147.Efremenko, Dmitry V. “Thucydides’ Double Trap.” Russia in Global Affairs 18, no. 4 (2020): 126–147 [In Russian].Лексютина, Я.В. Американо-китайские отношения в 2018−2019: торговая война и процесс декаплинга // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. − 2020. – 64 (6). − С. 85–93. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-6-85-93.Leksyutina, Yana V. “U.S.-China Relations in 2018–2019: Trade War and the Process of Decoupling.” Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya 64, no. 6 (2020): 85–93 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-6-85-93.Ломанов, А.В. Современный Китай: внутренние и внешние вызовы на новом этапе преобразований // Вестник Российской академии наук. − 2020. – 90 (2). − С. 103–112. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869587320020073.Lomanov, Alexandr V. “Modern China: Internal and External Challenges at a New Stage of Reforms.” Vestnik Rossijskoj akademii nauk 90, no. 2 (2020): 103–112 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869587320020073Тимофеев, О.А. Сорок лет отношениям между КНР и США: изменение параметров стратегического сотрудничества // Россия и Китай: проблемы стратегического взаимодействия: сборник Восточного центра. − 2012. − №12. − С. 64–72.Timofeev, Oleg A. “Forty Years of Relations between China and the USA: Modify the Strategic Cooperation.” Rossiya i Kitai: problemy strategicheskogo vzaimodeistviya: sbornik Vostochnogo tsentra, no. 12 (2012): 64–72 [In Russian].Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? N.Y.: Houghton Mifϐlin Harcourt, 2017.Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? N.Y.: Houghton Mifϐlin Harcourt, 2017.Bernstein, Richard, and Ross H. Munro. The Coming Conflict with China. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.Bernstein, Richard, and Ross H. Munro. The Coming Conflict with China. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1997.Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1997.Christensen, Thomas J. “The Advantages of an Assertive China: Responding to Beijing’s Abrasive Diplomacy.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 2 (2011): 54–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800457.Christensen, Thomas J. “The Advantages of an Assertive China: Responding to Beijing’s Abrasive Diplomacy.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 2 (2011): 54–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800457.Dumbaugh, Kerry. China: Pending Legislation in the 105th Congress. CRS Report for Congress, 1998.Dumbaugh, Kerry. China: Pending Legislation in the 105th Congress. CRS Report for Congress, 1998.Dumbaugh, Kerry. Ten Years in U.S.-China Policy. Interest Groups and Their Influence, 1989–2000. CRS Report for Congress, 2000.Dumbaugh, Kerry. Ten Years in U.S.-China Policy. Interest Groups and Their Influence, 1989–2000. CRS Report for Congress, 2000.Friedberg, Aaron L. A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia. N.Y., London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.Friedberg, Aaron L. A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia. N.Y., London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.Garrett, Banning. “US-China Relations in the Era of Globalization and Terror: a Framework for Analysis.” Journal of Contemporary China 15, no. 48 (Aug. 2006): 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560600736384.Garrett, Banning. “US-China Relations in the Era of Globalization and Terror: a Framework for Analysis.” Journal of Contemporary China 15, no. 48 (Aug. 2006): 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560600736384.Gao, Zugui. “Transforming Sino-U.S. Strategic Relations.” Contemporary International Relations 20, no. 3. (May/Jun. 2010): 31–40.Gao, Zugui. “Transforming Sino-U.S. Strategic Relations.” Contemporary International Relations 20, no. 3. (May/Jun. 2010): 31–40.Gertz, Bill. The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000.Gertz, Bill. The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000.Gilboy, George J. “The Myth Behind China’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs 83, no. 4 (Jul./Aug. 2004): 33–48.Gilboy, George J. “The Myth Behind China’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs 83, no. 4 (Jul./Aug. 2004): 33–48.Glaser, Charles. “Will China’s Rise Lead to War? Why Realism Does Not Mean Pessimism.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 2 (2011): 80–91. Accessed July 3, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800459.Glaser, Charles. “Will China’s Rise Lead to War? Why Realism Does Not Mean Pessimism.” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 2 (2011): 80–91. Accessed July 3, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800459.Goldstone, Jack A. “The Coming Chinese Collapse.” Foreign Policy, no. 99 (1995): 35–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149004.Goldstone, Jack A. “The Coming Chinese Collapse.” Foreign Policy, no. 99 (1995): 35–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149004.Kissinger, Нenry. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 2002.Kissinger, Нenry. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 2002.Goodman, David S.G., and Gerald Segal. China Without Deng. Sydney; N.Y.: Editions Tom Thompson, 1995.Goodman, David S.G., and Gerald Segal. China Without Deng. Sydney; N.Y.: Editions Tom Thompson, 1995.Hu, Angang. China in 2020: A New Type of Superpower. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011.Hu, Angang. China in 2020: A New Type of Superpower. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011.Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1996.Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1996.Ikenberry, John. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West; Can the Liberal System Survive?” Foreign Affairs 87, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2008): 23–37.Ikenberry, John. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West; Can the Liberal System Survive?” Foreign Affairs 87, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2008): 23–37.Kissinger, Нenry. On China. N.Y.: Penguin Press, 2011.Kissinger, Нenry. On China. N.Y.: Penguin Press, 2011.Krugman, Paul. “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1994): 62–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/20046929.Krugman, Paul. “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1994): 62–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/20046929.Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. N.Y.: W.W. Norton &Company, 2001.Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. N.Y.: W.W. Norton &Company, 2001.Menges, Constantine C. China: the Gathering Threat. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005.Menges, Constantine C. China: the Gathering Threat. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005.Mosher, Steven. Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2000.Mosher, Steven. Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2000.Nye, Joseph S. Jr. “American and Chinese Power after the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly 33, no. 4 (Oct. 2010): 143–153, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2010.516634.Nye, Joseph S. Jr. “American and Chinese Power after the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly 33, no. 4 (Oct. 2010): 143–153, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2010.516634.Ross, Robert S. “Chinese Nationalism and Its Discontents.” The National Interest, no. 116 (Nov./Dec. 2011): 45–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42896414.Ross, Robert S. “Chinese Nationalism and Its Discontents.” The National Interest, no. 116 (Nov./Dec. 2011): 45–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42896414.Roy, Denny. “The ‘China Threat’ Issue: Major Arguments.” Asian Survey 36, no. 8 (Aug. 1996): 758–771.Roy, Denny. “The ‘China Threat’ Issue: Major Arguments.” Asian Survey 36, no. 8 (Aug. 1996): 758–771.Scissors, Derek, and Arvind Subramanian. “The Great China Debate: will Beijing Rule the World?” Foreign Affairs 91, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2012):173–177.Scissors, Derek, and Arvind Subramanian. “The Great China Debate: will Beijing Rule the World?” Foreign Affairs 91, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2012):173–177.Shirk, Susan L. China: Fragile Superpower: How China’s Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Shirk, Susan L. China: Fragile Superpower: How China’s Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Sutter, Robert G. U.S. – China Relations: Perilous Past, Uncertain Present. Lanham, Maryland : Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.Sutter, Robert G. U.S. – China Relations: Perilous Past, Uncertain Present. Lanham, Maryland : Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.Timperlake, Edward, and William C. Triplett. Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to America. Washigton, DC: Regnery, 1999.Timperlake, Edward, and William C. Triplett. Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to America. Washigton, DC: Regnery, 1999.Tucker, Nancy B. “China and America: 1941–1991.” Foreign Affairs 70, no. 5 (Winter 1991): 75–92.Tucker, Nancy B. “China and America: 1941–1991.” Foreign Affairs 70, no. 5 (Winter 1991): 75–92.Wortzel, Larry M. “China Pursues Traditional Great-Power Status,” Orbis 38, no. 2 (Spring 1994):157–175.Wortzel, Larry M. “China Pursues Traditional Great-Power Status,” Orbis 38, no. 2 (Spring 1994):157–175.Yuan, Peng. “Where Are Sino-U.S. Relations Headed?” Contemporary International Relations 20. (Sept. 2010): 53–62.Yuan, Peng. “Where Are Sino-U.S. Relations Headed?” Contemporary International Relations 20. (Sept. 2010): 53–62.Zhu, Zhiqun. “Three Levels of U.S. – China Strategic Rivalry.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs xxvii, no. 1. (2020): 119–134. https://bjwa.brown.edu/27-1/three-levels-of-u-s-china-strategic-rivalry/.Zhu, Zhiqun. “Three Levels of U.S. – China Strategic Rivalry.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs xxvii, no. 1. (2020): 119–134. https://bjwa.brown.edu/27-1/three-levels-of-u-s-china-strategic-rivalry/.Jia, Qingguo, and Richard Rosecrans. “Are China and the United States Heading for Conflict?” International Economic Review, no. 3 (2011): 7–14 [In Chinese].Jia, Qingguo, and Richard Rosecrans. “Are China and the United States Heading for Conflict?” International Economic Review, no. 3 (2011): 7–14 [In Chinese].Chen, Songchuan, and Shulong Chu. “The General Trend of World Development at the Beginning of the 21st Century.” Contemporary International Relations, no. S1 (2010): 5–17 [In Chinese].Chen, Songchuan, and Shulong Chu. “The General Trend of World Development at the Beginning of the 21st Century.” Contemporary International Relations, no. S1 (2010): 5–17 [In Chinese].“China-U.S. Relations: Dependence and Fragility.” Contemporary International Relations, no. 9 (2009): 36–44 [In Chinese].“China-U.S. Relations: Dependence and Fragility.” Contemporary International Relations, no. 9 (2009): 36–44 [In Chinese].Tao, Wenzhao. “Adjustment of Interests: An Eternal Issue in Sino-US Relations.” The Contemporary World, no. 9 (2010): 4–8 [In Chinese].Tao, Wenzhao. “Adjustment of Interests: An Eternal Issue in Sino-US Relations.” The Contemporary World, no. 9 (2010): 4–8 [In Chinese].Fu, Mengzi. “The Bush Administration’s China Policy and the Future of Sino-US Relations.” Contemporary International Relations, no. 1 (2003): 17–22 [In Chinese].Fu, Mengzi. “The Bush Administration’s China Policy and the Future of Sino-US Relations.” Contemporary International Relations, no. 1 (2003): 17–22 [In Chinese].

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.