Journal of Contemporary China (2001), 10(27), 309–315

The US Global Strategy in the

Post-Cold War Era and Its
Implications for China–United States
Relations: a Chinese perspective
JIN CANRONG*

At the early stage of the post-Cold War era, Chinese scholars put more attention into the
study of US international standing than to the study of US global strategy. Around the
middle of the 1990s, it became obvious for Chinese scholars that the power structure in the
post-Cold War era was ‘yi-chao-duo-qiang ’ (one super-power and several big powers).
People realized that the leading position of the US would be unshakable and its comprehen-
sive national power would be unparalleled by any single country in the foreseeable future.
Since then, Chinese scholars have paid more attention to the study of US global strategy.
Chinese scholars tend to agree that the Bush Administration’s strategy was a transitional
one, and that the US global strategy in the post-Cold War era came into being in the middle
of President Clinton’s Ž rst term. It is symbolized by the appearance of so-called ‘engage-
ment and enlargement strategy’. At the very beginning of his Administration (January
1993), President Clinton set forth that ‘economy, security and democracy’ would be the
three pillars of US foreign policy. This greatly changed the traditional ‘security Ž rst’
strategy. The new strategy re ects some new features in the international and domestic
contexts of the post-Cold War era. It has very important in uences on Sino–US relations.

Chinese scholars of international studies continue to be concerned about US global

strategy in the post-Cold War era. Many articles, monographs, and college
textbooks relating to this subject have been published in China. All these publica-
tions can be roughly divided into four kinds: (1) the study of the US global strategy
as a whole; 1 (2) the study of the new world order while considering US foreign

* Jin Canrong is Deputy Director of US Government Studies at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences. He is also editor and chief of PaciŽ c Journal and a regular contributor to World Affairs, American
Studies, World Economics and Politics, Straits Times (Singapore), and numerous other publications. Since 1984 he
has published over 150 papers on US politics, PRC–US relations, and international relations. He has a BA in Political
Science from Fudan University and a Ph.D. from the School of International Relations, Beijing University.
1. Mei Shen, ‘On the foreign strategy adjustment of the USA’, in Gan Cheng, ed., World Situation in Transitional
Period (Beijing: The Current Affairs Press, 1991); Wang Jisi, ‘1996–1997: Study Report on USA’ (published by China
Society for Strategy and Management Research (CSSMR), Beijing, 1997); Wang Jisi, ‘The lonely power at the top
of the world: the global strategy adjustment of the United States’, American Studies 3, (Fall 1997); Wang Jisi, ‘The
US world standing and its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era’, in Niu Jun, ed., The USA under Clinton
Administration (Beijing: The Publishing House of Chinese Social Sciences, 1998); Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy toward
China at the end of the 20th century’, in Zhao Baoxu, ed., Sino–American Relations in the 20th Century (Beijing:
Dongfang Press, 1999).

1067-056 4 print; 1469-9400 online/01/270309-0 7 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1067056012004578 8
JIN CANRONG

strategy as a prominent factor in shaping the order;2 (3) the study of part of the US
strategy, like defense or military strategy, foreign economic strategy, and the
strategy of anti-internationa l terrorism, etc.;3 and (4) the study of the geography-ori-
ented US strategy, like the US strategy toward Africa, the Middle East, Russia,
Japan, or China, etc.4 The main purpose of this paper is to summarize how Chinese
foreign policy elites perceive the US global strategy. My summary is mainly based
on the Ž rst two kinds of publications .
In China, the discussion about foreign policy is generally open to the public, but
part of the debate only appears in the internally circulated journals. My summary
originates only from openly published materials.
The Kosovo crisis and the bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade greatly
shocked Chinese society and caused many people to rethink the world situation and
China’s foreign policy. The US global strategy is deŽ nitely an important aspect of
this reassessment. Since the reassessing process will last for a period of time, my
summary stops at the point just before the Kosovo crisis.

US global strategy in Chinese eyes: the Bush Administration

In Chinese publications, the concept of the US global strategy has not been clearly
deŽ ned. Sometimes it refers to the nation’s will toward the outsid e world and the
general direction of its foreign policy. This kind of strategy can be partly
represented by ofŽ cial policies, but some of its content goes beyond speciŽ c
policies and relates to important features of the US political culture.5 Sometimes it
refers to the foreign strategy openly stated by the US government.6 In addition,
sometimes it simply refers to the synthesis of all the long-term foreign policies.7
While studying US global strategy, Chinese scholars tend to give special
attention to the following sources: (1) the policy statements of the executive
branch; (2) US activities abroad;8 (3) the works of famous strategists, like Henry
Kissinger’s Diplomacy and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard , etc.; and (4)
the publications of some nongovernmenta l organizations that are actively involved
in foreign policy discussion, such as America’s National Interests by the Com-
mission on America’s National Interests in July 1996.9
2. Huang Hong and Wang Chiming, New International Order and the Strategic Adjustment of Great Powers
(Beijing: The Publishing House of the Central Party School, 1992); Wang Shu, ‘Prefaces’, in State of the World
Development , 1997, 1998, 1999, edited by the Institute of World Development of the State Council (Beijing: The
Current Affairs Publishing House, 1997–1999).
3. Ke Juhan, ‘The Subic Conference and the US Asia–PaciŽ c economic strategy’, in State of the World
Development , 1997; Qin Xinda, ‘Retrospect over international terrorism in 1996–1998’, in State of the World
Development , 1997–1999; Sa Benwang, ‘Evolution of US nuclear strategy and its impact on US nuclear weaponry’,
in State of the World Development, 1999.
4. Yu Zhengliang et al., Study on Great-Powers’ Strategies: US, Russia, Japan, European Union, and China in
the Future World (Beijing: The Central Translation Publishing House, 1999).
5. Wang Jisi, ‘The US world standing and its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy
toward China at the end of the 20th century’.
6. Zhang Linhong and Sa Benwang, ‘Readjustment in US post-Cold War global strategy’, in State of the World
Development , 1998, pp. 6–15.
7. Wu Jin, ‘1996: the US hegemony being widely opposed ’, in State of the World Development, 1997, pp. 56–63.
8. Ibid.
9. Wang Jisi, ‘The US world standing and its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy
toward China at the end of the 20th century’; Jin Canrong, ‘Kissinger and his Diplomacy’ American Studies 1, (Spring
1998); Song Yiming, ‘Brzezinski and his Grand Chessboard’, World Affairs 11, (1998).

310
 THE US GLOBAL STRATEGY

The study of US global strategy is closely related to the study of the US

internationa l standing. The former study focuses on the real intention of this great
power, and the latter one focuses on the actual role of the United States in the
world. In the early stages of the post-Cold War era, Chinese scholars put more
attention into studying US international standing. At that time analysts were not
sure what kind of world it would be and what kind of role the United States would
play after the end of the Cold War. Around the middle of the 1990s, it became
obvious to Chinese scholars that the power structure in the post-Cold War era is
‘yichao duoqiang’ (one superpower and several big powers), and they realized that
the leading position of the United States would be unshakable, and its comprehen-
sive national power would be unparalleled by any single country in the foreseeable
future. The United States has enough resources and in uence to achieve its foreign
policy goals. The only uncertainty is the will or the intention of the United States.
Since then, Chinese scholars have tended to pay more attention to the study of US
global strategy and to focus on what is the real concern of the United States, or how
it exerts its power, etc.
During 1990–1992, there was an intense discussion focused on the internationa l
standing of the United States and its global strategy. The dominant opinions at that
time were as follows: although the West or the club of developed countries led by
the United States won the Cold War, and has enjoyed greater advantages in both
East–West relations and North–South relations in the new era, the United States
was also hurt by the Cold War. Economically, the US international standing
(comparatively) declined in the 1970s and the 1980s. Many Chinese scholars
believed that this trend would go on in the post-Cold War era for three reasons.

1. The economic competition from Japan, the European Community, and the
newly industrialized countries (NICs) would be further intensiŽ ed.
2. With the end of the Cold War, the US military advantage had become more
prominent. However, in the new era, military power would not be as important
as before. In addition, although the Soviet threat decreased, new threats came
into being, like regional con icts, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruc-
tion, international terrorism, etc. So, the general security situation of the United
States became more complicated .
3. As the only superpower in the new era, the United States would face many
difŽ culties in dealing with other big powers or regional powers. Without the
common threat of the Soviet Union, the allies of the United States would act
more independentl y than before. Moreover, relations with countries like China,
Russia, India, etc., would also not be easy.10

As for US global strategy, people in China were especially concerned with the
following developments. First, ‘the strategy beyond containment’, which President
Bush set forth just before the end of the Cold War (17 May 1989) was considered
here as a turning point in US strategy from a defensive policy of ‘containment’ to
10. Feng Tejun, Economy and Politics in Contemporary World (Beijing: Renmin University Press, 1993); Huang
Hong and Wang Chiming, New International Order and the Strategic Adjustment of Great Powers; Huang Tinwei,
‘Political and economic situation in the current world’, in Gan Cheng, ed., World Situation in Transitional Period.

311
JIN CANRONG

an offensive policy of ‘beyond containment’. Second, the Bush Administration’s

statements about the ‘New World Order’ announced during the Gulf War were
considered as the Ž rst attempt of the US to deŽ ne a new strategy for the new era.
Third, some Chinese scholars closely watched the foreign policy debates within the
United States and the increasing impact of neoisolationism .11
In the eyes of most Chinese scholars, US strategy at that time can be roughly
outlined as the following.

1. Although some Americans wanted to decrease US responsibilit y abroad, the

basic goal of the United States was still to maintain its leadership in the world
and make the twenty-Ž rst century another ‘American Century’.
2. The real challenge for the United States was at home. That was how to improve
its economic, technological , and educational ability to face competition from
Japan or the European countries. To some extent, the most important thing for
the US was how to solve its domestic social problems.
3. There would be no immediate threat to the US from another country. However,
the United States still faced various threats, and the security situation in the new
era was quite complicated . The long-term objective of the United States was to
prevent any country or any group of countries from dominating the Eurasian
continent. The short-term one was to suppress any sudden regional con ict.
4. The United States would demand that its allies share more internationa l
responsibilities , and it would try to gain the cooperation of countries like China
or Russia. Nevertheless, it would be easier for the United States to act
unilaterally.
5. The United States would allow international organizations like the United
Nations to play a more important role, if it was in the interests of the United
States.
6. Ideology would be more important in US foreign policies. Actually, the United
States has been more idealistic than any other power in history. In the post-Cold
War era, it would be a real part of the US policy to improve global democratiza-
tion.
7. The priority of US policy at this moment was to make sure that the disinte-
gration of the former Soviet bloc would not be reversed. The focal point of US
global strategy was Europe.12

US global strategy in Chinese eyes: the Clinton Administration

Chinese scholars tend to agree that the Bush Administration’s strategy was a
transitional one; US global strategy in the post-Cold War era came into being in the

11. Mei Shen, ‘On the foreign strategy adjustment of the USA’.
12. Huang Tinwei, ‘Political and economic situation in the current world’; Mei Shen, ‘On the foreign strategy
adjustment of the USA’; Huang Hong and Wang Chiming, New International Order and the Strategic Adjustment
of Great Powers; Feng Tejun, Economy and Politics in Contemporary World.

312
 THE US GLOBAL STRATEGY

middle of President Clinton’s Ž rst term. It was symbolized by the appearance of the
so-called engagement and enlargement strategies.13
At the beginning of his Administration (January 1993), President Clinton
announced that ‘economy, security, and democracy’ would be the three pillars of
US foreign policy. This greatly changed the traditional ‘security Ž rst’ strategy. In
his Ž rst year in the White House, he was fully devoted to domestic affairs
(especially economic policies) and paid very little attention to foreign issues. As for
foreign policies, he put economic goals Ž rst. However, late during that same year,
the President’s national security adviser, Anthony Lake, suggested an ‘enlargement
strategy’. This new idea was later expanded into ‘A National Security Strategy of
Engagement and Enlargement’ (July 1994). From that time on, US foreign policy
has tended to be more balanced.14
When the Clinton Administration set forth its strategy, the international and
domestic contexts had some features that were different from those of the Bush
Administration. Regarding the domestic context, Chinese scholars have seriously
taken into consideration the following three points: (1) the US economy keeps
growing and the country is stronger than before; (2) the decision-makin g process
in foreign affairs is diversiŽ ed—the traditional presidential prestige in the Ž eld of
foreign policy is deteriorating as the US Congress, media, interest groups, and even
some state and local governments become more and more actively involved with
foreign affairs; and (3) the post-Cold War foreign policy debate in the United States
set forth various objectives, and it will have a long-term in uence on US foreign
policy. 15
The international standing of the United States or its global role is still a very
important issue for Chinese academics but the discussion around it has never been
as hot as in the early 1990s. Actually, when the Chinese academic community
reached consensus of ‘yichao duoqiang’ in the middle of the 1990s, the discussion
about US internationa l standing was put aside at least for a while. Since then,
Chinese analysts have paid more attention to the real meaning of the US strategy.
In the eyes of Chinese scholars, the global strategy set by the Clinton Adminis-
tration can be roughly outlined as the following.
1. Although there remains the restraint of neoisolationism , the goal of US global
strategy is still to maintain its leadership in the world. This strategy keeps
adjusting in accordance with internal and external changes. The starting point
of this adjustment is national economic and security interests, and which
interest is more important depends upon the speciŽ c situation. In addition, the
US will be more selective in overseas interventions .
2. American idealism is a steady feature of US diplomatic history. In the
post-Cold War era, the goal for democracy and human rights has become an

13. Zhang Linhong and Sa Benwang, ‘Readjustment in US post-Cold War global strategy’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US
world standing and its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy toward China at the end
of the 20th century’.
14. Wang Jisi, ‘The US world standing and its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy
toward China at the end of the 20th century’.
15. Ibid.

313
JIN CANRONG

independent part of current US foreign policy. However, if this goal con icts
with the nation’s economic or security interest, it has to give way to more
realistic goals.
3. To reach its own ends, the United States is really good at using internationa l
law, international regimes, or any other issue with universal appeal. This is
quite different from traditional powers. Since the current world order, inter-
national security mechanisms, and trade and Ž nance systems are basically in
the interest of the United States, the real meaning of US leadership in the world
is to maintain the status quo.
4. The ‘functional issues’, like environmental protection, international terrorism,
etc., have become more important than before. These threats come from
various directions and cannot be clearly identiŽ ed.
5. Based on common ideology and interest, the United States will strengthen its
relationship with its allies.
6. No big country is openly identiŽ ed as the enemy of the United States.
Although Russia and China are considered by some Americans as future
adversaries, the current US policy toward Russia or China is to try to engage
them, leading them to cooperate with the mainstream of the internationa l
community.
7. The United States will keep pressing the so-called rogue countries.
8. The United States will maintain its presence in Europe, in East Asia, and in the
Middle East. Europe is still the focal point of US global strategy, but the
importance of the Asia–PaciŽ c region keeps growing within this strategy.
9. The diversiŽ ed situation of foreign policymaking will remain. The domestic
restraint of foreign policy will be strengthened .
10. Both a unilateral approach and a multilateral approach will be exploited to
implement US foreign policy.16

The implications of US global strategy on China–United States relations

Generally speaking, Chinese scholars have deep concerns about the implications of
US global strategy on PRC–US relations. The typical views can be summarized as
follows.
1. To some extent, the goal of maintaining US leadership con icts with China’s
stance on multipolarization .
2. Economic security, military security, and global democratization are the three
pillars of US strategy. There exist differences in all these three Ž elds between
China and the United States. Economically, trade disputes between the two
countries have worsened. Militarily, with the rapid growth of China, the United
States will be more and more on the alert against China. Politically, the
increased in uence of ideology in US strategy will not help PRC–US relations.
The disputes over human rights will continue.
16. Yan Xuetong, ‘1996–1997: international situation and China’s foreign relations’ (CSSMR, 1997); Wang Jisi,
‘The lonely power at the top of the world: the global strategy adjustment of the United States’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US
world standing and its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy toward China at the end
of the 20th century’.

314
 THE US GLOBAL STRATEGY

3. The Taiwan issue is a special problem in PRC–US relations. This issue closely
relates to the three pillars of the post-Cold War US strategy.
4. Although there exist differences, the two countries can beneŽ t each other
economically. From a long-term perspective, the rise of economic goals in US
strategy will help to steady the relationship .
5. Even in the Ž eld of military security, the two countries can also Ž nd a lot of
common interests. With functional issues becoming prominent, it will be
increasingly necessary for the two countries to cooperate with each other.
6. The rising importance of the Asia–PaciŽ c region in US strategy will lead to the
United States being more concerned about China.17

Some features of the Chinese perspective

In Chinese publications , we can Ž nd the following common features.
1. In the study of US global strategy in the post-Cold War era, the dominant
approach is traditional political–historical analysis; i.e. with a stress on detailed
observation and accumulated personal experiences, etc.
2. Most analyses fall into the category of realism, i.e. to give special concern to
national interests, government behavior, relationships among great powers,
policy-oriented issues, etc.
3. Generally speaking, Chinese scholars are very sensitive to any delicate changes
in US policies.
4. One important starting point for Chinese scholars is that most of them prefer the
idea of multipolarization . They have deep doubts about US hegemony.
5. Another starting point is that all analysts in China agree that the United States
is the most important country for China’s modernization. So Chinese scholars
tend to pay more attention to Ž nding points of cooperation in the US strategy.

17. Wang Xiaodong, ‘Study report on the American situation in 1997–1998: medium and long term factors
affecting Sino–US relations’ (CSSMR, 1998)’ Wang Jisi, ‘The US world standing and its foreign policy in the
post-Cold War era’; Wang Jisi, ‘The US policy toward China at the end of the 20th century’; Yu Zhengliang et al.,
Study on Great-Powers’ Strategies.

315