在俄乌战事和疫情造成全球粮食及能源供应紧张的情况下，另一场大规模危机在美国推波助澜下似乎正在亚洲展开。华盛顿决意遏制中国，作为其印太战略的一部分。从华盛顿举行的东盟-美国特别峰会、拜登关于台湾的挑衅性声明，到组建一个有根本性缺陷的印太经济联盟，美国正加强针对中国的地缘战略。这可能使一场危机变成大冲突。

分析人士指出，拜登最近的举动可能是出于西方对俄乌战事作出空前反应后新找到的自信。拜登似乎想凭借这种信心对付中国。但若采取这样的遏制政策而非努力与北京接触，美中战略危机可能超出可接受和可控范围，给两国和整个世界带来不可估量的代价。拜登政府须记住，中国不是俄罗斯。且鉴于中国的经济、人口规模和全面融入全球经济体系，任何冲突都可能导致全球性灾难。

如今，华盛顿与北京有两条路可走。一是美中大幅缓和紧张，同意共同努力重塑全球秩序，使之对每个国家都有利。第二是紧张加剧，导致更深层次对抗，造成严重冲突和可能的全面战争。

第一种情况下，美国需进行实质性战略调整。首先，华盛顿必须摆脱过时的冷战思维，即把中国视为“系统性对手”。他们还要认识到，一个体系不能简单地取代另一个已形成独特特点的体系。中国独特的治理体系与西方不同，但无疑为中国人民和整个世界带来好处。此外，众所周知，中国在全球活动中从未表现出希望合作伙伴跟随其脚步，而西方国家特别是美国绝非如此。中国充其量是寻求重塑国际秩序——现有秩序本质上是霸权主义的且偏向西方。

鉴于中国过去几十年取得的经济进步以及未来将取得更大成就的前景，确实可被归类为正在崛起的超级大国。但美国仅根据“新兴大国须被遏制”这一过时地缘政治概念而实施战略遏制，是不明智的。中国如今是第二大经济体，与地区和全球融合。华盛顿不顾一切削弱北京的全球和地区影响力，美中都在为此付出沉重代价，其他国家也深受其害。

俄乌战事表明，若不给外交和政治机会来弥合国家间的分歧并铺设和平之路，最终地缘政治紧张爆发会带来毁灭性后果。中美在维护全球和平与繁荣方面都发挥着巨大作用。双方都迫切需要朝着政治和解共同努力。但问题是，在为时已晚之前，美国会明白这一点吗？

-A world in chaos as a result of Ukraine war and the pandemic does not need another crisis, which the US threatens to create by pushing its China agenda in Asia

-Officials in Washington need to shake off their outmoded Cold War mindset in which China is seen as a ‘systemic rival’ – or risk a global catastrophe

Hossain Delwar

Amid the catastrophic fallout from the war in Ukraine and a global food and energy supply crunch, the result of both pandemic and war, another large-scale crisis appears to be unfolding – in Asia, driven by the US. With its focus on containing China, Washington has been pushing its regional policies hard recently as part of its grand Indo-Pacific strategy.

From the Asean-US special summit in Washington last month and President Joe Biden’s provocative statements regarding US policy on Taiwan, to the formation of a fundamentally flawed Indo-Pacific economic alliance, the United States appears to be strengthening its long-standing geostrategic endeavours against China. This risks turning a crisis into another major conflagration.

While other nations are seeking a peaceful settlement to the Ukraine war, why is the US seemingly bent on fanning the flames of another conflict? Analysts have observed that Biden’s recent moves may be a result of his new-found confidence following the unprecedented Western response to Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. And it seems Biden has been tempted to exploit that confidence against China and seek to push home the advantage.

But with such a containment policy, devoid of any effort to engage Beijing, the risk is that a US-China strategic crisis could move beyond what are acceptable and controllable limits, with immeasurable costs for both parties, and the world as a whole.

The Biden administration has to remember that China is not Russia. And, given the sheer size of China’s economy, population and wholesale integration into the global economic system, any conflict that even came close to level of the Russia-Ukraine war could lead to a global catastrophe.

Sino-US strategic tensions have been growing for years. Today, there are two paths available to Beijing and Washington.

The first is for China and the US to dial back the tensions substantially and agree to work together to reshape the global order to everyone’s advantage, and avoid humiliating their adversaries.

In the second scenario, the tensions grow, leading to a deeper confrontation, which results in serious conflict and potentially an all-out war. Of course, no one wants to see such an outcome, but the first scenario requires a substantial strategic recalibration on the part of the US.

First, officials in Washington have to shake off their outmoded Cold War mindset in which China is perceived as the US’ “systemic rival”. They also need to realise that a system of state governance is not created overnight, and one system cannot simply replace another that has evolved with its own unique set of features.

China has its own system of “administrative-oriented accountability”, focusing on delivering substantive results to a majority of the population. This uniquely Chinese system of governance is, acceptably, different from the Western one, and has undoubtedly delivered benefits to the Chinese people and the world as a whole.

Moreover, it is widely recognised that China, in its global outreach, has never shown any desire for its partners, or even adversaries, to follow in its footsteps, something that cannot be said of the West, particularly the US. So, America’s perceived threat from China to its own systems is fundamentally flawed.

At best, China seeks to reshape the so-called rules-based international order – one that is hegemonic in nature and systemically biased in the West’s favour.

Given its remarkable economic advancements over the past few decades and the prospect of greater achievements to come, China can truly to classed as a rising superpower. So, the US is unwise to embark on a policy of strategic containment, based solely on the outdated geopolitical concept that rising powers must be contained.

China is now the world’s second-largest economy, integrated both regionally and globally. Thus, US containments efforts do not bode well for anyone.

Both the US and China are paying a heavy price for Washington’s reckless efforts to lessen Beijing’s global and regional influence – and, to that end, weaponising technology, finance, trade and other areas where cooperation once occurred. Other nations are suffering too, as they are increasingly caught in the downward spiral of geopolitical competition.

Asian countries are also increasingly being forced to divert resources to their defence budgets, given the constant militaristic drumbeats, away from improving their citizens’ well-being as they struggle amid the pandemic-driven economic slump and ongoing climate crisis.

The war in Ukraine has shown the danger of failing to give diplomacy and statesmanship a chance to bridge the gap between nations and pave a path to peace. Rather, we have seen geopolitical tensions erupt, with devastating consequences.

Both China and the US play an enormous part in maintaining global peace and prosperity. To that end, both urgently need to work towards political accommodation. The question is, will the US understand this before it’s too late?