For example, most Americans and most Westerners would fight to the death for a) the ability to have and express
one’s opinions, including one’s political opinions, and b) the lack of the right and ability of the organization they
are part of to stand in the way of that right. In contrast the Chinese value more a) the respect for authority, which is
reflected and demonstrated by the relative parties’ powers, and b) the responsibility to hold the collective
organization responsible for the actions of individuals in the collective. A recent example of such a culture clash
occurred when in October 2019 the general manager of the Houston Rockets (Daryl Morey) tweeted an image
expressing support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest movement. He quickly pulled down his tweet and
explained that his views weren’t representative of his team’s views or the NBA’s views. Morey was then attacked
by the American side (i.e., the press, politicians, and people) for not standing up for free speech and by the Chinese
side, and the Chinese side held the whole league responsible and punished it by dropping all NBA games from
China’s state television, pulling NBA merchandise sales from online stores, and demanding that the league fire
Morey for expressing his critical political views. This culture clash arose because of how important free speech is
to Americans and how Americans believe that the organization that the individual is a part of should not be
punished for the actions of the individual. The Chinese, on the other hand, believe that the harmful attack needed
to be punished and that the group that the individual is a part of should be held accountable for the actions of the
individuals in it. One might imagine much bigger cases in which much bigger conflicts would arise due to such
differences in deep-seated beliefs about how people should be with each other. For example, when in a superior
position, the Chinese tend to want that to be clear, to have the party in a subordinate position know that it is in a
subordinate position and to obey and that, if it doesn’t do these things, it will be punished. That is the cultural
inclination/style of Chinese leadership. They can also be wonderful friends who will provide support when needed.
For example, when the governor of Connecticut was desperate to get personal protective equipment in the first big
wave of COVID-19 illnesses and deaths and couldn’t get it from the US government and other American sources, I
turned to my Chinese friends for help and they provided what was needed, which was a lot. As China goes global a
number of countries’ leaders (and their populations) have been both grateful and put off by China’s acts of
generosity and strict punishments. Some of these cultural differences can be negotiated to the parties’ mutual
satisfaction but some of the most important ones will be very difficult to negotiate away.
I think the main thing is to realize and accept is that the Chinese and Americans have different values and will
make different choices for themselves than the other would like. For example, Americans might not like how the
Chinese handle their human rights issues and the Chinese might not like how Americans handle their human rights
issues, so the question is what should be done about that. Should Americans fight with the Chinese to impose what
they think the Chinese should do on them and vice versa, or should they agree not to intervene on what each other
does? In my opinion a) it is too difficult, inappropriate, and probably impossible to force others in other countries
to do what they strongly believe is not good for them and b) at the end of the day the United States’ ability to
impose things on the Chinese and China’s ability to impose things on United States will be a function of our
relative powers.
In thinking about practical principles that we might agree on I wonder if Americans and the Chinese and you and I
can agree on the ones that are true (putting aside whether or not we would like them to be true). If we can that will
help to determine the desired path forward.
Everyone needs to know their position, and one’s power determines one’s position. If there are questions
about who has what power, there will be a conflict to resolve that. Ideally that happens without a hot war,
but when it is not clear and it is important it generally isn’t resolved peacefully. Over time evolution will
make it clear who has what power, so if those with less power know that they have less power, they should
slip into the subordinate position so the power and position change takes place without fighting. If they
refuse to slip into the subordinate position, there will be fighting and the painful defeat of the weaker
power. That is what makes transitions of power so painful.
The only real rule in international relations is that there are no rules. That is because internationally there
are no mutually agreed-upon laws, no police, no courts, no judges, and no other protocols that are
followed in order to judge what’s fair and what’s not fair and to penalize those who are playing unfairly
and are more powerful than the individual powers. What counts most is whether you win or lose. For
example, in the American Revolutionary War, when the British lined up in rows for the fight and the
American revolutionaries shot at them from behind trees, the British thought that was unfair and the
revolutionaries won believing the British were foolish and that the emerging Americans did the right thing.