Abstract

Rise of China, its bend towards Russia, its increasing sphere of influence in Asia and Africa has posed perplexing questions like will the four decades of cooperation between USA and China end in great War; will the drive to maintain/attain hegemony be the guiding principle for USA and China; and what will be the impact of strife on states like Pakistan, recipients of both USA and China. The international politics pundits, well versed in Machiavellian-Hobbesian Realist discourses, predicts a coming war with continued pattern of hegemonic contention, competition, and shift in hegemony.  But Realism is not a unified paradigm and variants of Realist discourse(s), advocate divergent courses of statecraft, depending on state status in global order. The paper aims to analyse the prospective Sino-US relation with the lens of Symbiotic Realism given by Nayef Al Rodhan believing in sustainable multi-sum security principle, co-existence, and mutual dependence between great powers.

Key Words

Multi-sum Security, Hegemony, Symbiotic Realism, USA, China

Introduction

The International system of state from the very beginning has witnessed the pattern of hegemonic contentions, rivalry and competition ending in change of hegemonic leadership. The competition between the contenders of economic primus led to war, shifting the balance of power equation in favour of new hegemon. Foucault calls the phenomenon as revolution. Revolution is a recurring pattern of the world-system.  Revolution occurs when rival states combine their efforts to resist the order maintained and imposed by the dominant power and turn the tide in favour of new hegemonic rules. (Kumar and Nawaz 2017)  

Hegemony remained a purely state-centric 

European affair till 1945, when hegemony was shifted to an ex-colony and a multilateral system was crafted to impose the norms of dominant. Interestingly, the post WWII UN system was based on liberal ideals of collective security, peace, and its multiple organs like Human Rights Council, UNICEF, and UNESCO etc. were designed either to ensure liberal enlightenment ideals of human rights, and elements of human security. The UN economic regime of IBRD, IMF, GATT & WTO were also based on the liberal idea of market access liberal regime. Post WWII international regime was multilateral and liberal in nature at the same time giving a fair play to Realist strategies of counterbalancing signified in Treaty organizations like NATO, SEATO and Cento counteracted by the military pacts like WARSAW. To Neil Smith it was an American effort to reshape the world according to Lockean liberalism and animates American globalism. (Smith 2005)The hegemonic hard & soft power of the USA ensured the working of liberal internationalist regime. 

Though liberal regime faced the Socialist challenge personified as the USSR in hegemonic contention, the end of Soviet Union system became unipolar in character without a contender. To Neil Smith, the half loaf made with the ingredients of resources and markets of the world economy enjoyed by capitalism and the free-market system was converted in whole loaf for market-access liberal economic order. (Smith 2005)Erstwhile socialist systems and economies like Russia and China have to reform their economies to get their fair share in (market) resources. It was heralded as the end of dialectics and triumph of liberal order by Francis Fukuyama, as liberalism has successfully overshadowed the totalitarianism of left as well as right. The remaining challenges like drugs, homelessness, environmental damages, and consumerist frivolity can be handled by implying liberal principles. (Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man 1992) Though the economies of absolute socialist countries were engineered on market-Leninist lines synthesizing market capitalism with Leninist controlled state, i.e. state capitalism; to absorb foreign finances and market shares yet political systems remained totalitarian and absolutist in intent denying economic, social and political rights to the populace in these countries. 

Since the dawn of 21st century, with rise of China, its alliance with totalitarian absolute system of Russia based on mutual grievances against west and anti-western sentiments; with Russian ambition to reinstate its Post WWII sphere of influence and China’s desire to “make China great again” (Kotkin 2022); international politics experts are posed with the perplexing question that whether  the recurring pattern of revolution will repeat itself resulting in great war and shift in balance equation. The paper revolves round the big question that approaches of power balancing and zero-sum competition will remain relevant in 21st century, characterized as an interdependent global world or there will be mutualism involving multiple actors, as international system is in practice a liberal regime with multitude of Realist state crafts depending on state relative position in hierarchy. 

Review of Literature

Neil Smith is of the opinion that vision of globalization and internationalism was buttressed by the liberalism of John Lock and Adam Smith that guided US internal politics and policy. In the 1920s, the US wanted to impose its vision with collective security Wilsonian ideals expressed by President Woodrow Wilson in the Paris Peace Treaty. Post World War II multilateral system of the United Nations was a US effort to reshape the world according to its own liberal image. With re-realization of global might after WWII USA in July 1944 crafted the financial architecture of the post War period in Bretton wood institutions. Though the Soviet Union protested the size of annual dues for entry in capitalist club but real shock for both the old hegemon Great Britain and USSR was China as fourth policeman with veto power in the Security Council. USA considered the pre-revolutionary China as balancer and support for his designs in an ordered security regime. Revolution changed the equation but Nixon know-tow to revolutionary leader Mao and it made possible China’s entry in the global economy possible. The end of cold war was a boast of American empire and Lockean liberal one-world order was implemented at least in economic domain. Inclusion of East Europe in EU, consolidation of Germany were expressions of liberal international universalism. (Smith 2005)

Francis Fukuyama drawing on linear determinism of Hegel and Karl Marx traces the evolution of human societies from simple tribal structures based on slavery and subsistence agriculture, through theocratic, monarchic and feudal aristocratic polities to modern liberal democracy and technological driven capitalism ending in universal history and Promised Land of liberal democracy. Responding to questions of various stages of economic development in different regions of the world, he insists that stable democracies at times emerge in pre-industrial societies and authoritarian states often generate a rate of economic growth unachievable in democratic states. He believed in the aftermath of Soviet demise that liberal democracy has successfully countered the totalitarianism of left as well as right and it’s the beginning of universal human history. (Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man 1992)  

The Russian attack on Ukraine made Francis Fukuyama believe that liberalism is in peril. The decline of liberal values is evident in the growing power and capabilities of autocracies such as China and Russia, the erosion of liberal or partially liberal institutions in countries like Hungary and Turkey, and the backlash of liberal democracies like India and the USA. Nationalism is used as illiberalism, and liberal values are under attack by national identities, race, ethnicity, and religions. Fukuyama, once a staunch proponent of internationalism, make amends in his ideology and considers the state necessary to uphold liberal values and strong response and joint effort of liberal states to maintain liberal order. (Fukuyama, A Country of Their Own: Liberalism Needs the Nation 2022) 

Much before Fukuyama self-Realization of liberal peril Carlos Escudé (Escudé Noviembre de 2004 ) reflected on the cultural superiority of liberal values and iterated that cultures that acknowledge the equality of all men created equal are ethically superior to those that do not. There is natural conflict between them leading to inevitable Intra and inter-civilizational clashes like relativism vs. evolutionism, hierarchical theocracy vs. secularized republic. He warns the Western critics of Liberal values i.e. relativists, multiculturalists, postmodern subjectivists that synonymous liberalism as American imperialism that it is most effective imperialism of a macro-culture that makes itself universal by proposing an ethic of tolerance for “other”. Any people can adopt the macro-cultural norms yet retaining their distinct colouring. Favouring the UN security regime he is of the opinion that world Post-America will be the world post-humanity. Escudé suggested renaming Fukuyama’s book End of History and Last War (Just War).

Gill and Murphy (Gill and Murphy 2008) are of the view that though the United States of America is an indispensable member of the international community, its ability to act unilaterally is limited by economic, military and normative realities. It needs the cooperation of other poles of power like China and Europe in the domain of soft security and issues like illegal immigration, transnational crimes, drug trafficking as well as environmental issues and human rights. At the same time Alliance between China and Russia has raised hard security issues for East European states in particular and Europe in general because due to inclusion of erstwhile satellite states of Eastern Europe in EU, Russia feels as an aggrieved power.

To some like Kotkin Cold War never ended (Kotkin 2022)  and believes that the Russian absolute regime considers itself a providential power with a distinct civilization with a special mission in the World. The presence of political Islam led by Iran and rise of market-Leninist China along with Russia in Eurasian region makes the geopolitics significant again and pose a threat to the US-led internationalist order that can theoretically integrate the entire world. The three ancient civilizations of Asia had no intention to participate in one world based on liberal ideals. The cold war was never ended as challenges to Lockean liberal ideals supported by the USA are still there.  As the tri-lateral China-Europe-USA partnership that started in Nixon years and boomed in mid-1990s is under challenge as China is considered to be a new superpower with the potential to revise USA's dominant position in World hierarchy not only in Pacific theatre but the whole world. (Shambaugh, Sandschneider and Hong 2008)

Danzing and Laskai (Danzig and Laskai 2020) discuss the risk of war and decoupling and disconnection of interdependencies created in the last forty years of Sino-US relations. He considers the right wing nationalist strategies opted by Donald Trump with sloganeering to “make America great again” that was responded by China’s national rejuvenation program and return to historical position as global power second to none; enhancing the risk to recourse to balancing strategies in place of co-dependencies.

Casarini (CASARINI 2009) is of the view that the rise of both China and the EU was made possible in an environment whose security and public good was ensured and guaranteed by the USA.  Drawing on Michal Waltz, Cassini argues that unipolarity contained the seeds of counterbalancing as the second tier great powers resort to counterbalancing strategies both soft and hard in nature. Soft balancing includes actions that rely on non-military means like diplomacy, International law and institutions to constrain and delegitimize the acts of superior state. Hard balancing acts involve shifts in military balance by alliances. He believes that the China-Russia military-strategic alliance can pose threats, not only to the USA but also liberal institutional order. 




Problem Statement

The end of the 20th century was heralded as beginning a new era marked by a web of dependencies between great powers as well as the inclusion of Great(s) and Weak in mutually symbiotic relations in win-win games of co-existence. The end of the cold war and intensified relations between societies, economies and politics signified as Globalization was considered a triumph of liberalism. The dominant International Relations paradigm, the Realism also underwent the process of reflection to incorporate the realities of Postcolonial States (the majority of state-system), middle powers and subalterns of the state-system and broadened the horizons of security to incorporate non-traditional challenges. It was considered that interstate politics patterned by age old strategies of balance of power, hegemonic rivalry and contention, shift in hegemony will transform as there is no alternative to liberal regime, and liberal order has successfully countered the absolutist totalitarian threats like Socialism and Fascism emerging in 20th century. But the Sino-Russian alliance, Russian attack on Ukraine, Taliban taking over Afghanistan and existence of Totalitarian non-democratic political systems in the Middle East manifest that liberal regime still has adversaries, opponents and alternatives. The paper is about the coming scenario of Sino-US relations enjoying four decades of mutualism despite ideological differences; dialectics between liberalism and totalitarian world views. The Study revolves around the following research questions and supposition. 

Research Questions/Supposition of Study

Research Questions

? Are US-China relations are guided by the motivating drive to maintain/attain hegemony?

? Will the new cold war started with the China-Russia alliance result in a Great ideological war risking the peace of the world?

? What will be the prospects of the four decades of cooperation between USA and China ending in a great war?

? China and the USA are enjoying overlapping spheres of influence owing to their cooperation in the last four decades. So what will be the impact of strife between two Great Powers on states like Pakistan, recipients of both the USA and China?




Supposition of Study

The Machiavellian-Hobbesian Realist discourses predicting war based on age-old tactics of balancing power are no more relevant in 21st century and Great power relations like Sino-US relations will be guided by the principle of Symbiotic Realism due to presence of non-traditional security and human security threats like environment and intersecting spheres of influences of Great powers . The great power relations in the coming century must be based on synergy, reciprocity and accommodation of core interests as advocated by Nayef Al-Rodhan to maintain positive peace amongst states.  

Objectives of Research

The objective of Research are 

? To take account of multitude of Realist paradigms serving as guide to statecraft depending on state’s respective positions in world hierarchical order, i.e. Subaltern, peripheral and Symbiotic Realism

? To consider the prospects of Symbiotic Realism as a policy guide to Sino-Us Relations.

? To construct a scenario of Sino-US symbiosis/strife.

? To understand the impacts of strife between USA and China on countries like Pakistan who are in economic, military and political alliances with China and USA.

Theoretical Framework

Traditional International Relations revolves around rational, calculating, egoistic states aiming to maximize their power. Realism emphasises only some aspect of human nature that might motivate state behaviour i.e. fear, reputation and self-interest. Power is a means as well as the end of realpolitik yet some Realists according to Jørgensen like George Kennan are not strangers to  the role of identity.  According to Kennan “A country can have a predominant collective sense of itself-what sort of a country it conceives itself and what sort of behaviour would fit that concept. The place where that self-image finds its natural reflections is in the principles that a country chooses to adopt, and to the extent possible to follow”. Building on this classical tradition of Realism Samuel Huntington and Henry Nau demonstrated that Realism and the cultural factors are not antithetical. Some Post neo-realists took the Realist notions of interest and power-related them with morality. (Jørgensen 2017) In recent years many subaltern peripheral voices enriched the Realist tradition giving more place to questions of morality, accommodation of cultural diversity, economic and human wellbeing as core interests.  Mohammed Ayoob built his subaltern Realist perspective to deal with internal security concerns arising due to imposition of cultural homogeneity in state internal policy. He is of the view that subaltern states’ security predicament arises due to suppression of self-determinism through coercion. Borrowing from Ecla Prebisch center-periphery paradigm Carlos Escudé Peripheral Realism establishes that autonomy is non-existent for peripheral states. They can choose between strategies of counter balancing becoming the part of a greater alliance or bandwagon with the powers making rules. It is a choice between gun and butter. Establishing the case of present hierarchical world order, he categorises states in three-tier structure, i.e., Rule makers, Rule takers and Rogue (pariah) states. For peripheral middle powers, the best strategy is to abide by rules as rule-taker (Schenoni and Escudé 2016)  Peripheral Realism like power transition theory given by A.F.|K Organski acknowledges the inherent inequality amongst states. The image of power transition theory is a pyramid with dominant power on top and other great powers with a potential challenger lower in the pyramid. Stability of the system can be secured if great powers align with dominant power. Instability is the outcome of rough parity between dominant power and challenger. (Jørgensen 2017) The problem of parity with challengers, clash of civilization, cultural aspirations is tackled by Nayef Al-Rodhan concept of Symbiotic Realism. Borrowed from neurobiological conception of human nature the Symbiotic Realist paradigm takes a broader conception of human nature. It believes that as human nature reflects in human organization yet the drive of individual ego is not simply the drive for domination and pursuit of power. It can be an affinity and belonging with positive aspects of identity. So there must be a shift in understanding of human behaviour reflected in behaviour of state. (Al-Rodhan, A Neuro-Philosophy Of Global Order: The Case for Symbiotic Realism, Multi-Sum Security and Just Power 2019)




 

Subaltern Realism	Peripheral Realism	Symbiotic Realism
Mohammed Ayoob § Internal Security Problems § Identity in Multi-Ethnic States § Problems of Self Determination and Irredentism Solution § Acknowledgement of Difference State hardware § Institutionalization and Economic Development § Multiethnic civic nation	Carlos Escude §  Problem of asymmetrical power §  Relation between a major power and Middle Power §  Example Argentine and Great Britain Solution §  Realistic estimate of power §  Bandwagoning §  Choice between Gun & Butter?	Nayef Al Rodhan § Relation between hegemonic power and Contender § Critique of self help and Balance of Power § Symbiotic Relations-Mutual Dependence § Non Military Threats, Pandemic, cyber attack § Terrorism and larger collective identities § Politics ought not to be a priori zero-sum game

 




Nayef is of the opinion that Sino US a range of possible scenarios can be drawn based on a multitude of IR theories, Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. Recent developments indicate intensification in the security dilemma due to Chinese expansionism and its balancing strategy of alliance with Russia. While for liberals, institutional connections and codependency in the economic arena may enable cooperative instincts of human nature. Constructivists believe that learned behaviour after repeated interactions may result in shifting norms and change of perception. To Nayef Symbiotic Realism can provide an apt analytical framework for a world characterized by intensified economic, financial and societal interdependence signified as globalization. The environment of mutual interdependence and connectivity shaped actor behavior and access foreign policy options pragmatically. Nayef has borrowed the term symbiosis from natural sciences, referring to a condition in which mutually beneficial association for a prolonged period develops between two or more organisms and species. Though there is a range of symbiotic relations Nayef categorises the Sino-US case as mutualism. Mutualism is a sum-sum equation in which one actor can take advantage without causing harm or disadvantage for others. But mutualism does not refer to the condition of parity but one is predominantly lending and other is overwhelmingly borrowing. Nayef does not ignore the possibility of mistrust, ideological conflict/contradictions and competition between US and China, as both states’ strategic cultures are informed by distinct or diagonally opposite cultural norms. Both states despite a long period of cooperation are under historical baggage and motivated by their exceptionalism as chosen people. AS US takes pride in universalism of liberal values, China employs Sun Tzu directive to know one's competitor. But logic of symbios makes it implausible the escalation of strife. The level of interdependence compels them to avoid ideological conflict and focus on the big picture. (Al-Rodhan, China and the United States: A Symbiosis 2013)Though both want to influence and win friends in the external arena the overlapping sphere of influence extends symbiosis to another level. (Tiankai’s n.d.)

Methodology

Theoretical constructs present a vivid view of multiple variants of the Realist paradigm and strategies of statecraft for great, major and middle-sized powers, from counterbalancing to bandwagoning.  Combining the power transition theory with peripheral Realist concept of three-tier world hierarchy, the paper takes symbiotic realism given by Nayef Al Rodhan, which believes in a multi-sum security principle for sustainable global security and co-existence of multiple actors to analyse the prospective Sino-US relations. The same approach was resonated by the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai as 'new model of major-country relationship. Three-tier analysis for studying the symbiotic nature of Sino-US relationships is adopted a a method to analyse the prospective results of symbiosis and strife on not only Sino-US relations but on countries like Pakistan enjoying symbiotic relations with both the old guards of the international system as well as hegemonic contender China. 

Discussion

Analysis of Sino US symbiotic relations is not a simple analysis of co-dependence between two different species or correlation of two organs of the system. As a Power defining rules with its other powerful allies in power pyramid USA enjoys symbiotic mutualism with other great powers like EU and Japan who are not contenders of USA and enjoys parity with the perceived challengers’ i.e. Russia-China joint nexus. US hegemonic architecture is different from all previous hegemonic dispensations prone to counterbalancing strategies of contender. Normative moral considerations are institutionalized in the UN system. Anarchic order is mutated as mature structural anarchy. USA since the beginning of its hegemonic rule in Post WWII exercised symbiotic realism in relation with its powerful allies and revived their economic potential. In its sphere of influence, it opted for the strategy of economic lebensraum and bonded them in institutionalised economic dispensation of IMF, IBRD, and GATT. (Smith 2005) In cold War years it entered in chasm between its two ideological adversaries, i.e. USSR and China and in response China opened its doors for foreign business deviating from rigid socialist principles. 




Symbiotic Relation: Gaps between Expectation and Reality

In the case of China, the USA deviated from its Cold war policy authored by George Kennan considering Socialism as an existential threat in Nixon years. The decade following the fateful meeting between Nixon and Mao US considered China as a responsible stakeholder in the community of nations and American policy was of openness in communication, travel and trade with the aim to converse Kennan’s expectation of Soviet socialism. The strategy was opted with the expectation that a prominent position in the global order of security and economy can inculcate the liberal values of open society in China, the home of the largest world population. The expected outcome for a reformed Chinese polity was never actualized and China not only exercised totalitarianism in all aspects of polity, economy and society. The Chinese system leaves no room for personal choices, freedom and liberty. Chinese suppression of dissent in mainland, strategy of tacit genocide of Uighur Muslims, culturicide towards Tibetan, and its default on agreement that guaranteed freedoms in Hong Kong are against liberal beliefs on which present world order stands. China denies intellectual property rights and its alleged involvement in cyber theft is the reason it is not guaranteed complete market economy status. Still America does not consider the internal and external policies of China as a threat like the Soviet Union due to the fact that Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping is moved by a pragmatic approach of national interest that can be achieved through access to global markets and controlling dissent internally. Dealing with each other both countries take account of the facts: first that they are dealing with a counterpart whose economic muscle and sphere of influence far extends any other power in the pyramid; their engagement and co-dependencies with each other are deeper than their entanglements with rest of the world; and third to realize the potential and protection of their citizens Sino-Us partnership is needed. Pragmatic analysis reveals that despite the slogans of rejuvenation on both sides like “make America great again” and “restoration of China historical status” none can dominate the world alone as they are conjoined twins. (Danzig and Laskai 2020)  




US-China Mutualism

Figure 1

US Trade in Goods with China Since 1985



China, though dependent on the US for key technologies, is growing with a GDP that can surpass the US within a decade at present exchange values. Before COVID 19 it brought the US to a situation where its debt exceeded its GNP. It is not feasible for the USA to follow a strategy of containment for China. Decoupling is also not a practical option for China as though it perceives America as a declining power, yet with its innovative technological capabilities, culture of consumerism and demographic advantages it cannot sever its trading partnership with the USA. Both countries are globally integrated trading partners. Though they have different political systems, years of coupling created not only resemblance but also turned them into conjoined twins with a shared nervous system. Both powers are destined for a shared future with sum-sum advantages for both. The both states cooperate in transnational capital flows, including Chinese holding of 1 Trillion $ of American debt. 

Travel for study, work and tourism, there is enhanced people to people interaction. Though during the Trump period Full Bright scholarship for Chinese was closed yet despite the closure of American funding, 370000 Chinese students were studying in American universities, including the daughter of Xi Jinping.  (Danzig and Laskai 2020)



Figure 2

Number of Students from China Studying in USA Since 2010



Opening of China created opportunities for Chinese workers as well as American business. Apple employs over 3 million Chinese workers and General Motors sells more cars to China than it does in the US. American investors are a source of foreign direct investment in the Chinese mainland. 




Geopolitical Trap and Sino-US Strife

The China-Russia alliance made Mackinder's control of the heartland thesis again relevant in the 21st century. Threat perception in China is pursuing its expansionist designs in continental Eurasia, as military and diplomatic initiatives will follow economic commercial engagements. China’s declared policy is to secure economic as well as strategic interests, i.e., access to Eurasian markets, energy resources, transit corridors, ports, arms deals and security partnership. China aims to attain regional interconnectivity. Russian attack on Ukraine and Sino-Russia strategic alliance is alarming for EU in general and ex-Soviet satellite states of East Europe giving indication of beginning of not a new cold war but a Great War in the offing. Eurasia has become a tricky challenge for USA, making Cold war alliance security i.e. NATO relevant for present day strategic challenges. (Markey 2020)



Figure 3

FDI of USA in China from 2000 to 2020



Eurasian region, according to Francis Fukuyama's recent paper appearing in Foreign Affairs is becoming a theatre for a contest of liberal and totalitarian dialectics. (Fukuyama, A Country of Their Own: Liberalism Needs the Nation 2022)

China has global aspirations and tangled in not only Eurasia, but also in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Its alliance with Pakistan is counterbalancing to Indian regional hegemonic aspirations and become a cause of US slope towards India despite Pakistan’s geostrategic partnership with USA dating back to the Cold war era of Treaty Organizations.  Stephen Kotkin is of the opinion that Rise of three anti-liberal ancient civilizations in Eurasian region, i.e. China, Iran and Russia insisting on their unique civilizational patterns as alternatives to liberal universalism indicate not the end of history but the beginning of a new cold war. (Kotkin 2022) To Merkey due to China supporting US nuclear sanctions on Iran and Diplomatic pressure on Pakistan becoming less significant. US-China competition in East Asia becomes more due to its close alliance with the North Korean regime, as China and North Korea are treaty-bound for mutual aid and cooperation for defence. China’s attack on Hong Kong's democratic freedoms and its policy towards Taiwan give a clear indication that the USA can respond to the Chinese expansionism through militarised means. Merkey suggests a selective differentiated contention with China in the Eurasian region. (Markey 2020)

After the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and reinstatement of Taliban revivalist regime liberal values are under clear threat. China, Pakistan and Turkmenistan and Russia are countries who accredited the Taliban regime by appointing diplomats though all have refused to recognize the Taliban government. Sino-Russian support to Taliban is vital for consolidation of their anti-liberal anti-American regime despite the embargoes imposed by the international community. It is perceived as totalitarianism antithesis to liberal world order.




Crisis of Symbiosis: Pakistan between USA and China

Pakistan was China’s back door opening to the World during its years of isolation. Pakistan used its strategic ties to normalize Sino-US relations and bridge the chasm between liberal capitalist USA and socialist China led by Mao. Pakistan acted as a front line buffer to protect China from the Soviet Union when the clash started between two Communist Asian powers. Pakistan is the central node to Beijing's global regional interconnectivity initiatives and its hegemonic designs to control the world economy, through a network of ports, roads, railways, pipelines connecting energy resources of the Middle East to megacities of East Asia. Gwadar port and Pakistan long Coastline in Balochistan can serve as a take-off point for China’s aspiration to become Sea Power expanding it to Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. (Markey 2020) 

Pakistan entered into the Cold War Treaty organization structure in the decade of 50’s. Though the objective of alliance for both US and Pakistan was different, the United States of America saw in Pakistan a strategic outpost, a frontline state, a people who were against godless communism and fought US war as their own. On the other side Pakistan state’s consideration was to overcome security threats emanating from India. Another reason for Pakistan to choose the US was a clear bend of non-aligned India towards the USSR. Pakistan and India served as proxies for the US & USSR. Pakistan was a frontline state in 1979 when USSR troops entered Kabul to support the Moscow backed regime. The decade of Afghan War proved detrimental for evolution of liberal values in Pakistan and retrogressive trends penetrated in Pakistan, US due to its international considerations remained blind to civil society demands to restore democracy and autocratic regime in Pakistan enjoyed complete support from USA. The aid made Pakistan a dependent economy and Pakistan had to bear economic consequences after US withdrawal from Afghanistan in the 1990s. Pakistan again enjoyed US aid as a frontline state of the War on Terror. But US alienation for a decade made it evident to Pakistan policymakers that they cannot rely on the US for long periods. Gwadar port was the initiative taken by Gen. Musharaf to free Pakistan somewhat from US dictates.

For Pakistan, China is the alternative to the USA that embedded Pakistan independent relations making it an aid recipient economy. China is considered to be the Pakistan ticket to come out of US influence and pursue sovereign economic policies. Being the Aid recipient of US military and development aid, Pakistan is in symbiotic relation with the USA. China for Pakistan is a protector saving Pakistan diplomatically in UN Security Council on issues like Kashmir and support of militant terrorism, as well as supplier of arms and arms technology in its contest with India and lender of last resort to overcome its financial weakness and debt servicing. (Brzezinski 2000)

US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan ties with Taliban has made it integral for China’s Silk Road initiatives.  China is there to fill the vacuum with billions of dollars investment. Afghanistan for China as well as Pakistan is a strategic economic endeavour but also a threat. Both Pakistan and China must exercise restraint in their ties with the regime in Afghanistan that is against all kinds of liberal freedoms. Terrorism Issue in Pakistan is directly linked with Pakistan Afghan policy. The China Taliban ties also have consequences for China's internal dynamics in the Xinjiang Muslim majority region in China's North West. Liberal world deviates from its human rights principles on the issue of   Chinese policy towards Uyghur Muslims due to their perceived ties with extremist groups. (Small 2015)



Conclusion

With China coming to parity in the power pyramid as challenger, probability of revolution in Foucauldian terms has increased and with it the Post American illiberal order constructed by totalitarian, absolute retrogressive states. The system architected by the USA after WWII  is not only a synthesis of liberal-Realist paradigms, but it was also symbiotic Realist in essence giving due share to multiple powers in economic and security dispensations of the UN. US-led multilateralism  moves beyond classical Realism emphasis on some aspects of human nature like Fear, reputation, self/national Interest giving due acknowledgement to desire for justice, compassion or legal responses previously assumed to be less important drivers of state behaviour. Borrowed from Neurobiology, the Symbiotic Realism takes a broader view of human nature. It believes that egoistic states are not simply derived for domination but also for positive identity. It also acknowledges the non-state actors and multi-sum security challenges like transnational threats, organized crime, international terrorism, migration, human trafficking, health and Environment. To symbiotic Realism sustainable global security is not just about coexistence but synergy between cultures, and includes security from injustice, alienation, exclusion, humiliation, stereotyping and demonization. Symbiotic Realism takes account of other aspects of human nature like the need to associate with positive identity. It also estimates the new threats like the emergence of new collective identities, cultural arrogance and exceptionalism; that can destabilize the international system and destroy the world as we know it. .

China and the USA are considered conjoined Twins whose circulatory system cannot be separated. Interdependencies are associated with the flow of ideas, information, goods, services, and talent-related to technology. China’s time tested playbook for indigenous innovation does not eschew foreign technology and frequently require it. As discussed, the Russian factor and right-wing nationalism is creating a perception for decoupling. When China and the USA deal with each other, they have to treat each other with respect as both powers have economic engagements and influence more than Russia or any other state. The Sino-US history of interdependence is four decades-long, and it cannot be revised like chalk on the black board. Big business interests and stakes are involved in both countries. Both powers can dominate the world and to utilize their potential and protect their citizens US-China symbiotic mutualism is required. The USA has to lead live, compete and cooperate with China avoiding a slide towards war. 

US response to Chinese actions must be varied according to Merkey and not an all fit flexible attitude for all issues. (Markey 2020)

 




Table 1. Issue and Responses among USA and China

Issues	Responses
Global Warming	Cooperation
Pandemic	Cooperation
Technological Leadership	Competition
Military Expansionism	Contention
Human Rights Violations	Contention

Symbiotic Realisms believe that responsible hegemon should accommodate the interests of other states and avoid threatening behaviour. The Hegemonic contender must also avoid the counterbalancing strategy as the demise of the system will affect hegemony as well as the contender. The best strategy for both the US and China is to avoid geopolitical traps in East Asia, Europe, Middle East and South Asia. Withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is a clear manifestation that liberal democratic order cannot be implemented with external intervention. The best approach for China is also not to intervene in Afghanistan to consolidate anti-liberal revivalist regime and let the Taliban government adopt a behaviour complicit to international norms. Same applies to China’s approach towards Hong Kong. Democracy in Hong Kong must be given a fair chance as people choice. The United States of America pays heed to democratic principles in the Middle East ruled by collaborator monarchs. Through diplomatic pressure, the US must suggest these monarchical systems for institutional reforms.Both the US and China enjoy a sphere of positive influence across the globe stretched across continents. There are countries like Pakistan who enjoyed symbiotic mutual relations with both power contenders, and not in a position to choose any one state. Pakistan has been part of US institutional arrangement and recipient of military and economic aid for years; its future economic stakes are embedded with China Pakistan Economic Corridor, China led energy pipelines, and Silk Road initiatives. These economic projects are liberal in essence creating co-mutual and interdependence between seemingly antagonistic states.  Pragmatic approach must be the guiding principle for both states having a realization that they cannot dominate the world exclusively.

References

• Al-Rodhan, N. (2019).
• (2013).-.
• Bolt, P, J., & Sharyl, N. C. (2018). China, Russia, and Twenty-First Century Global Geopolitics. New York: Oxford University Press,
• Broome, B. J. (2017)
• Brzezinski, Z. (2000).The Geostrategic Triad: Living with China, Europe and Russia. Washington DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies,
• Casuarina, N. (2009). Remaking Global Order. New York: Oxford University Press,
• Danzig, R., & Lorand. L. (2020). Symbiosis and strife: where is the sino-american relationship bound? An Introduction to the APL Series
• Diller, M., Evan, J., Amanda, H., & William, R. H. (2020).
• Escudé, C. (2004).
• Fukuyama, F. (2022).
• (1992).-. The End of History and the Last Man. Toronto: Free Press,
• Gill, B., & Melissa, M. (2008).
• Jørgensen, K. E. (2017). International Relations Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
• Kotkin, S. (2022).
• Kumar, R., & Rafida, N. (2017).
• Markey, D. S. (2020). China's Western Horizon: Beijing and the New Geopolitics of Eurasia. New York: Oxford University Press,
• Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Edited by Joel Mokyr. New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
• Schenoni, L., & Carlos, E. (2016).
• Shambaugh, D., Eberhard, S., & Zhou. H. (2008). China-Europe Relations: Perceptions, policies and prospects. New York: Routledge,
• Small, A. (2015). The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia's New Geopolitics. New York: Oxford University Press,
• Smith, N. (2005). The Endgame of Globalization. New York: Routledge,
• Tiankai's, C. (2022). www.usip.org. n.d.
  https://www.usip.org/publications/us- china-cooperation-peace-and- security?_ga=2.15595318.1636143942.16 48911864-304886799.1648911864