Asymmetry theory and China's concept of multipolarity

Abstract Since 1986 the concept of multipolarity has played a key role in China's analysis of the world order, evolving from a critique of bipolarity in the late Cold War period into a critique of American unipolarity. Although multipolarity is empirically correct in its questioning of the superpower's capacity for domination and it is ethically attractive in its insistence on international cooperation, it does not address the real problems created by the disparity of power in international affairs. Asymmetry theory is a new paradigm that addresses the effects of national disparities on international relations. It argues that asymmetry inevitably creates differences in risk perception, attention and interactive behavior between states, and that it can lead to a vicious circle of systemic misperception. Despite such tensions, however, the international order is quite stable, and even asymmetric relations can rarely be forced by the stronger side. Asymmetry confirms multipolarity's critique of unipolarity's exaggerated claim to absolute power, and suggests a theory of international leadership based on negotiated relationships that avoid the systemic misperceptions that asymmetry encourages. Notes * Brantly Womack is a Professor in the Department of Politics, University of Virginia. He has published extensively on contemporary Chinese politics, and is currently completing a book on relations between China and Vietnam. Hu Jintao, speech to the French International Relations Institute, reported in Renmin Ribao People's Daily English edition, (6 November 2001). Jiang Zemin, speech at Fortune Forum, China Daily, (5 September 2001). Qian Qichen, Renmin Ribao People's Daily English edition, (25 September 1999). See Michael Pillsbury, China Debates the Future Security Environment (Washington: National Defense University Press, 2000), especially ch. 1. Huan Xiang, 'Zhanwang 1986 nian guoji xingshi' 'Prospects for the 1986 international situation', Liaowang 1, (January 1986), pp. 8–9. Wu Baiyi calls the 1971–1981 phase the 'united front of counter‐hegemony', and the 1982–1991 phase the 'non‐aligned security stance'. See Wu Baiyi, 'The Chinese security concept and its historical evolution', Journal of Contemporary China 10(27), (May 2001), pp. 275–283, especially pp. 276–278. Chen Qimao, 'New approaches in China's foreign policy: the post‐Cold War era', Asian Survey 33(3), (March 1993), pp. 237–251, especially p. 243. This argument is well developed by Zhang Yunlin, ed., Huoban haishi duishou: Tiaozheng zhong di Zhong Mei Ri E guangxi Partners or Adversaries: Relations between China, America, Japan and Russia in Readjustment (Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe, 2001), pp. 24–34. See 'American empire steps up fourth expansion: news analysis', Renmin Ribao People's Daily English edition, (12 March 2003). See for instance Zhu Majie, 'Western civilization: essence, features and impacts', in Shanghai Institute for International Studies, The Post‐Cold War World (Shanghai: SIIS Publication, 2000), pp. 28–39. A less critical version of this view is not absent in the West. See the discussion of the 'Westernistic era' in Barry Buzan and Gerald Segal, Anticipating the Future (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998). It would be convenient to identify unipolarity theory with neo‐realism, and especially with John Mearsheimer's 'offensive realism', but from vantage points outside the United States the problem of American unipolarity is broader than the influence of one theory. For a non‐Chinese critique see former French foreign minister Hubert Védrine, Les Cartes de la France a l'heure de la Mondialisation The Assets of France in the Era of Globalization (Paris: Fayard, 2000). See for instance Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1979), pp. 160–193; John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001), pp. 338–347. Zhang Yunling, ed., Huoban haishi duishou, p. 28. See for example Stanley Hoffman, 'Over there, parts 1 and 2', New York Times, (6 and 7 November 1972). An argument of this sort is made by Charles Kupchan (an American expert on Europe), in 'Life after Pax Americana', World Policy Journal 16(3), (Fall 1999); also Charles Kupchan, 'America and the need for cooperative security', paper presented at American Obligation: US Grand Strategy for a New Century, conference at Virginia Military Institute, 12–13 April 2002. Zhang Yunling, ed., Huoban haishi duishou. The 'yi chao duo qiang' formula is used by Jin Canrong, 'The US global strategy in the post‐Cold War era and its implications for China–US relations: a Chinese perspective', Journal of Contemporary China 10(27), (May 2001), pp. 309–315. It is also used by Zhang Yunling. See for instance Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962). This characterizes influential advisors of the current Bush Administration. See John Ikenberry, 'America's imperial ambition', Foreign Affairs 81(5), (September–October 2002), pp. 44–55. Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Chen Qimao, 'New approaches in China's foreign policy', pp. 241–244. See also the similar list in Wu Xinbo, 'Four contradictions constraining China's foreign policy behavior', Journal of Contemporary China 10(27), (May 2001), p. 297. Jiang Zemin, speech in Thailand, in Renmin Ribao People's Daily English edition, (4 September 1999). A stimulating discussion of the vagaries of the Cold War as a concept is presented by Allen Lynch, The Cold War is Over‐Again (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1992). Brantly Womack, 'How size matters: the United States, China and asymmetry', The Journal of Strategic Studies 24(4), (December 2001), pp. 123–150; Brantly Womack, 'Asymmetry and systemic misperception: the cases of China, Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s', Journal of Strategic Studies 26(3), (September 2003). Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 95. For the purposes of this basic analysis it will be assumed that the larger side greatly exceeds the smaller side in all major respects. Some asymmetric relations are more complex, but there are many that fit this simple model. The classic study is Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976). See Womack, 'Asymmetry and systemic misperception'. The Contadora group was formed in January 1983 and included a core membership of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia and Panama. It proposed a draft treaty in 1984 that was acceptable to Nicaragua but not to other, American‐supported combatants.