China News Agency, Beijing, August 18th, title:
Historical myth: Is the transfer of power between Britain and the United States peaceful?
Author Lin Hongyu
Lin Hongyu.
Photo courtesy of me
There is a historical myth in the field of international relations, that the world power transfer is peaceful only once in history, and that is the power transfer between Britain and the United States, both of which are "democracies."
This is the so-called "theory of the peaceful transfer of Anglo-American hegemony."
The "derivatives" view of this theory holds that there will also be power transfers between China and the United States in the future, and there will inevitably be conflicts and even wars, because China and the United States are "heterogeneous" countries.
After the end of the Cold War, especially in the past 20 years, this theoretical point of view has been regarded as a classic in the academic circle of Guoguan. Scholars who study the theory of power transfer have hardly any doubts about this, and basically accept this so-called "common sense."
But is this theoretical point of view correct?
Is this true of history and future?
"The theory of the peaceful transfer of Anglo-American hegemony" carries obvious ideological bias
In fact, although Sino-US relations coexist with cooperation and competition, and the factors of competition are more obvious for a period of time, the two countries are not the hegemonic alternation of the old and new empires.
Not to mention whether there is really a so-called power transfer between China and the United States. Only by tracing the theoretical source and communication background of the "British-American Hegemony Peaceful Transfer Theory", we can find that this theory has obvious American-centric theory and American cultural hegemony. Ideological prejudice implies a complex of arrogance and contempt towards non-Western countries.
The direct source of the "theory of the peaceful transfer of Anglo-American hegemony" can be traced back to the book "World Politics" published by Ogensky, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan in the United States in 1958.
In his book, he first proposed the theory of "power transfer" that the relationship between rising powers and hegemonic powers (shoucheng powers) is the core of international relations, and the power transfer between the two is the basic symbol of the changes in the international system.
He believes that rising countries are often "dissatisfied" with the existing international order and often want to use force to change the status quo; similarly, the "saving" hegemony also tries to maintain the status quo through force.
Therefore, in history, whenever a strong rising power emerged, it often meant war.
But there is one exception, that is, the United Kingdom and the United States.
In the second half of the 19th century, the powerfully rising United States did not use war to challenge the hegemony of the 18th to 19th centuries, and the British did not launch a war against the United States.
As a result, the so-called "peaceful transfer of hegemony" was realized between Britain and the United States.
Data map: British and American flags.
People's vision
However, the historical facts of international relations are not so.
The emergence of a theoretical concept is inseparable from a specific historical context and perspective, especially those "fashionable" Western international relations theories, which are often easier to form historical perspectives due to the support of the great powers with a strong discourse power behind them. Myth.
Retracing and restoring the historical process is a way to break historical myths.
"The theory of the peaceful transfer of Anglo-American hegemony" is no exception.
By combing through the history of international relations, we can find that in the process of losing its hegemony and the United States, it fought many wars with other powers in the world at that time. These wars directly led to the decline of Britain and the rise of the United States.
Although there was no direct large-scale war for hegemony between Britain and the United States, the process of hegemony transfer between the two countries was full of wars.
In other words, the world is not peaceful during the transfer of power between the Great Britain and the United States.
In fact, since the beginning of American independence, Britain has suppressed and contained the United States through all available means (including war).
In addition to the War of Independence, the British Army set fire to the White House in the War of 1812, but the British failed to do so and had to use other means to continue to prevent the expansion of the United States in the Western Hemisphere.
Frictions and conflicts between the two countries have always been constant, first the Florida dispute, then the border conflict between the United States and Canada, and then the Texas issue.
Until the outbreak of the American Civil War, Britain still secretly supported the southern states to weaken the United States.
After the end of the Civil War, the U.S. government filed a claim against Britain’s "covert interference."
In 1871, the two sides signed the "Washington Treaty", which showed that Britain's military containment of the United States had in fact failed.
As a result, the United Kingdom began a process of gradual and slow withdrawal from the Americas, which continued until the "Venezuelan crisis."
In 1895, there was a border dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela, and the latter asked the United States to "advocate justice."
The United States, which held up the "Monroe Declaration," then wrote to the United Kingdom requesting "international arbitration", but the United Kingdom rejected it.
The United States immediately established a Boundary Commission, putting on a posture of "no hesitation" to resolve disputes.
However, Britain quickly fell into the Boer War in South Africa and was unable to be involved in another war at the same time, so in 1899, it agreed to "arbitrate" the Boundary Commission controlled by the United States.
Facing the obvious compromise of the established empire, the United States decided to sacrifice Venezuela's interests in order to cater to Britain's "goodwill."
The United Kingdom "returned for money" and withdrew its naval forces in the Western Hemisphere, which is tantamount to acknowledging the dominance of the United States in the Americas.
Data map: The picture shows the White House of the United States.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Chen Mengtong
Anglo-American "reconciliation and special relationship" is really a helpless move to weigh the pros and cons
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the British hegemony continued to encounter challenges from other powers.
But it is Germany and the United States that have brought substantial challenges.
Germany soon surpassed Britain in terms of economic and industrial strength, and formed a "three-nation alliance" with Austria-Hungary and Italy, and its rise is aggressive.
In addition to the European continent, Germany also challenged British hegemony in Africa and the Pacific.
Germany's expansion touched Britain's two core interests-maritime hegemony and European balance of power.
Therefore, Germany is naturally listed as the number one rival by the United Kingdom.
In contrast, the United States' expansion is focused on the Western Hemisphere, and its rise is relatively peaceful.
In the face of rising challenges, the United Kingdom can only weigh its pros and cons, list the United States as an object of "cooperation" and "concession" appropriately.
At the same time, the strong rise of the United States in 1898 launched the Spanish-American War and successfully captured Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.
This war marked the U.S. stepping out of the Americas, heading for Asia, and entering the "world power club."
Around 1906, the rapidly expanding naval power of the United States was second only to the United Kingdom, and it began to compete with the British navy on a global level.
This caused dissatisfaction with the British Navy and began to "beat" the US Navy.
It was during this period that Britain and the United States began to talk about "reconciliation and special relations", and American political elites began to talk about "common blood and cultural values."
For example, American Alfred T. Mahan wrote in his book "The Interests of American Sea Power: Present and Future" published in 1911: "It is impossible for any country to dominate the oceans as it did in the past. Britain and the United States. The sense of intimacy based on common blood between the two countries may establish cooperation in controlling the ocean and establish the same race's dominance over the ocean."
Data map: Streets of London, England.
Photo by Zhang Mengqi issued by China News Agency
Facing the rise of the United States, Britain adopted a policy of tolerance and restraint in exchange for "cooperation and support" from the United States.
However, the United States also had the same demand, because the expansion of Germany at that time also threatened the interests of the United States.
At that time, Germany not only wanted to seize the United States in the Far East Pacific region, but also despised the "Monroe Doctrine" and coveted the Americas many times, which aroused the anger and dissatisfaction of the United States.
Therefore, the "First World War" has become a model for Britain and the United States to "cooperatively resist Germany."
After the First World War, Britain's hegemony existed in name only, and its economic strength was no longer comparable to that of the United States. The world's financial center gradually shifted from London to New York.
But with the disappearance of the common enemy Germany, the United States began to use its growing power to change the international order at that time.
As a result, the conflict between Britain and the United States resumed, and the relationship between the two countries almost fell to the bottom due to the naval arms race.
However, Germany, which was dissatisfied with the squeeze of the "Versailles Peace Treaty", rose again under Hitler's leadership, which once again extinguished the "internal fire" of Anglo-American hegemony, and once again opened the mode of "cooperative anti-Germany".
However, the outbreak of "World War II" made Britain finally step down from the shrine of "the sun never sets"; and the United States, which made a fortune in the "World War II" war, finally gained the supremacy of the Western world by "helping" Britain against Germany.
Therefore, from the perspective of the process of world power transfer, the main reason why the United Kingdom did not regard the United States as its number one enemy was that the strong rise of Germany posed a huge threat to Britain's core interests, forcing Britain to concentrate on the European continent and have no time to take care of the United States.
As the American geostrategist Nicholas J. Spykman pointed out, “If the new troubles in Europe failed to force Britain to concentrate its power east of the Atlantic Ocean, it might have hit the United States with all its strength long ago.”
Looking back on history, we can find that the decline of British hegemony is strongly related to war.
Without a series of wars, especially the two world wars, Britain's hegemony cannot be easily lost.
Similarly, the acquisition of American hegemony is inseparable from "God's help," but fundamentally, the role of war cannot be ruled out.
As the American scholar Atwood stated in the book "A History of American War", "War plays a central role in the establishment and development of the United States."
From this point of view, since the process of Britain's loss of hegemony and the process of America's acquisition of hegemony are closely related to war, it is difficult to conclude that the overall process of Anglo-American hegemony transfer is peaceful.
In other words, the "peace" between Britain and the United States is just a representation. The transfer of power between Britain and the United States is the result of the overall evolution of the world situation.
Data map: The national flags of China and the United States were hung in front of Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Jia Tianyong
Chinese civilization has never had the genes for dominating and colonizing other countries
In fact, the "theory of the peaceful transfer of Anglo-American hegemony" is a product of American cultural hegemony and American exceptionalism. It directly serves the legitimacy of American hegemony in order to maintain the unjust, unreasonable and unequal old international order.
In addition to the "theory of the peaceful transfer of Anglo-American hegemony", the "Thucydides trap", "offensive realism", "democratic peace theory" and other Western international relations theories have also used seemingly indisputable theoretical myths to constantly criticize China's peaceful rise. The process is pessimistically interpreted and even discredited.
Therefore, we must have the courage to break this superstition and myth of Western theories, and explain China's own development path and development model with the international discourse system and theoretical viewpoints with Chinese characteristics.
This is actually a historical contribution to the development of human society and the international community.
China has fulfilled its first century-old dream with high quality, and has effectively responded to the unprecedented new crown epidemic with its own system advantages and governance efficiency, and handed in a beautiful anti-epidemic report.
This makes China more confident to move towards its second centenary dream.
China is closer to the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and closer to the center of the world stage, and the future development environment will be more severe. This requires a firm historical confidence in its development path.
In fact, the Chinese civilization has lasted for thousands of years and has never had the genes to dominate and colonize other countries.
The righteous way of peace is the root of Chinese civilization.
Peace-loving China will not choose to confront or even war with the United States for hegemony.
China will choose a path different from the rise of Western powers in history. It will actively interact with other small and medium-sized countries peacefully based on the principle of “consultation, joint construction, and sharing”, and will benefit the world through “peace projects” such as the “Belt and Road” initiative. The new "Peaceful Transfer of World Power".
That is to say, world power will be transferred from the hands of a few traditional big countries to a large number of emerging countries, emerging economies, the third world and developing countries, so that world power will return to the world, international relations will be more democratized, and a community with a shared future for mankind will be built by promoting , To solve the common problems and challenges faced by human society.
(End) (The author is the Dean and Distinguished Professor of the School of International Relations, Huaqiao University)
Lin Hongyu, Dean of the School of International Relations of Huaqiao University (and Dean of the Overseas Chinese Research Institute), Distinguished Professor of Political Science and International Relations, and PhD supervisor.
Expert advisory member of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Council, executive director of the Chinese Society of International Relations, vice chairman of the Chinese Society of Overseas Chinese History, and director of the China Pacific Society.
He has long been engaged in the teaching and research of Sino-US relations, the game of big powers and international security, international political economy, and the theory of international relations.