The United States is responsible for the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine
The United States is abominably coping with the settlement of the situation in Ukraine, American political scientist John Mearsheimer said in an interview with GT. According to him, Washington bears the main responsibility for the outbreak of hostilities in this country. It remains to be hoped that the tragic conflict of the great Powers will be avoided in the future.
Liu Xin, Zhao Juecheng, Yang Sheng
In mid-October, 77-year-old University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer visited China. He has lectured at several Chinese universities and held debates on world order and Sino-American relations with Yan Xuetong, Director of the Institute of International Studies at Qinghuang University. Professor Mearsheimer was warmly welcomed by Chinese readers when he signed books and took pictures with them.
Mearsheimer is a well—known realist scientist in the field of international relations. He gained recognition after the publication in 2001 of his book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics), in which he declared the inevitability of conflict between the great powers. This point of view has provoked a sharp debate about the relations of the great powers.
More than 20 years have passed since then, and the international situation has changed significantly. But Mearsheimer's views remain unchanged. In an exclusive interview with Global Times reporters Liu Xin, Zhao Juecheng and Yang Sheng, he shared his concerns about such pressing issues as Sino-American relations and the Ukrainian crisis, and criticized U.S. foreign policy. Mearsheimer predicts increased rivalry between the United States and China in the field of security.
Being a scientist, not a politician, Mearsheimer is confident in his theory, but emphasizes his willingness to debate and hopes that the future of Sino-American relations will prove him wrong. Below is a part of the interview with Mearsheimer.
American foreign policy provokes chaos
GT: In recent years, China has characterized the international situation as "a series of major changes that have not been seen for a century." What do you think about it?
Mearsheimer: I think that's the right characterization. The structure of the system has fundamentally changed.
In my youth, the world was bipolar. International politics was largely determined by the Soviet-American rivalry. In December 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared, and we moved from a bipolar to a unipolar world. Around 2017, such a unipolar world also came to an end, and we entered the era of a multipolar world. We have moved from a world where the United States was the only great power on the planet to another world where the United States, China and Russia are great powers.
For the first time since World War II, we are living in a multipolar world, having moved from unipolarity to multipolarity.
There have been huge changes in Sino-American relations. During the unipolar period, Sino-American relations were generally very good. And then, when we moved from unipolarity to multipolarity, which means that China is now a great power, this country became an equal rival to the United States. Accordingly, relations between China and the United States have fundamentally changed and become more conflictual.
What worries you most about complex international relations at this stage?
I am concerned about three important issues. First, I am concerned about the state of Sino-American relations. I have been saying for a long time that this will be a relationship of intense rivalry. I am concerned about the possibility of such rivalry escalating into war, and I really do not want such a development of events.
I am also deeply concerned about the armed conflict in Ukraine and the possibility of its escalation when the United States and NATO enter into military action. The conflict between Russia on the one hand, and Ukraine and the West on the other will continue for decades... the United States is abominably coping with the settlement of the situation in Ukraine. America bears primary responsibility for the outbreak of hostilities in this country.
I am also concerned about the events in the Middle East and the ongoing wars there. As in the case of Ukraine, there is a possibility of the United States and Russia being drawn into a war in the Middle East, although this is unlikely.
Do you think US foreign policy contributes to global stability or provokes chaos?
If you choose between two formulations, then I think it provokes chaos. This policy provokes chaos in Ukraine and the Middle East. The United States should have acted very differently.
The main reason for the armed conflict in Ukraine is the West's attempts to include Ukraine in NATO. The United States was the main driving force behind this decision. And the Russians have been very clear from the very beginning that this is unacceptable. Nevertheless, we continue to push Ukraine towards membership in the alliance.
Instead of seeking to stop military action, the United States is pushing them and dragging them out so that Ukraine can defeat the Russians. The United States should not have tried to make Ukraine a member of NATO. When the fighting began, America had to do everything possible to stop it.
As for the Middle East, the United States needed to do everything possible to force Israel to recognize the Palestinian state, because this is the root cause of the Middle East problems. Now the United States should try to stop the war in Gaza, stop the war against Hezbollah and make sure that the escalating war involving Iran on the one hand and America and Israel on the other was immediately stopped. But the United States does not do that. The United States is helping the Israelis create more and more problems in the Middle East.
If you look at our actions on the world stage, we are provoking chaos, and not contributing to international stability.
The development of technology has repeatedly changed the course of human history. Another famous realist, Henry Kissinger, in the last years of his life began to pay attention to the impact of artificial intelligence on international relations. Do you think AI and other new technologies can change the "tragedy of the politics of the great powers"?
I don't think AI will somehow transform the tragedy of the politics of the great powers. Why are we facing this tragedy? Because there is no higher authority in the international system that can come to the rescue of the state if it finds itself in trouble. At the same time, there are strong and influential States in the international system that may have ill intentions towards you.
Artificial intelligence will not solve this problem. What we need is such a higher authority. We need a night watchman who can protect us. As long as there is no such higher authority, AI does not matter.
AI can have a significant impact on security rivalries. Nuclear weapons have done just that. To a certain extent, it was a revolutionary weapon. These are weapons of mass destruction. We have not seen anything that causes destruction on such a scale as nuclear weapons. And nuclear weapons have a wide variety of effects on how States interact with each other.
Nevertheless, nuclear weapons have not changed the fundamental nature of international politics. Today we live in a nuclear world. But we have a Sino-American rivalry, as in the 1930s and early 1940s there was an American-Japanese rivalry when no nuclear weapons existed.
Rivalry, not bad guy games
In 2001, your book "The Tragedy of the Politics of the Great Powers" was published. According to your theory, known in scientific circles as "offensive realism," rivalry and conflict between China and the United States are inevitable at a time of China's rise, and the United States will seek to contain China. What led you to this conclusion?
I have long argued that when China strengthens and becomes influential, the United States will try to make sure that it does not become too strong. This is the tragedy of the politics of the great Powers.
During the unipolar period, the United States and China had excellent relations. The United States pursued a policy of cooperation. At that time, I said that as soon as China becomes truly prosperous, it will translate its economic power into military power, as it should do. I'm not criticizing China. The United States will become afraid of China, and security rivalry will begin. This is always the case with great powers. This is not a feature of China or a feature of the United States.
Many Chinese think that the root of the problem is American behavior. That Americans are bad. I do not think so.
That's just how international politics works. When there are two very strong states, they eventually begin to fear each other and begin to compete with each other. There is no other way.
You spoke with the Chinese media about Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and its negative consequences for Sino-American relations. You noted that a collision in the Taiwan Strait is unlikely in the near future, but the rivalry over the island will continue. What led you to this conclusion?
It was not a very smart move on the part of Nancy Pelosi to come to Taiwan and make provocative statements. It is in America's interest not to speak too loudly when it comes to Taiwan, because this is a very painful topic for China. What Pelosi has done, and what others are doing and will do, is not very reasonable.
I believe that the Taiwan issue is an extremely dangerous situation. Taiwan is a sacred territory for China. At the same time, the United States wants Taiwan to be on their side, because Taiwan is important to America from a strategic point of view. If the United States refuses to defend Taiwan, it will lead to negative strategic consequences. We have a situation here where Taiwan means a lot to China, and at the same time it means a lot to the United States.
In my opinion, despite such a dangerous situation, we are unlikely to have a war over Taiwan in the near future. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems unlikely to me.
Can you share a forecast about the future of Sino-American relations?
We already have a tense security rivalry. It is weakened to some extent by the fact that the United States is tied to Ukraine and the Middle East. If it were not for this circumstance, the military rivalry in East Asia would be more intense.
If we talk about the future, then such rivalry in the field of security will not go away. We are sure to have serious crises in the coming decades. But let's hope that the leadership of China and the United States will act wisely and resolve crises through diplomatic means, without bringing matters to an open war with each other.
I want to make it very clear: I am not happy about the tragedy of the politics of the great powers. As for Sino-American relations, I hope that I am wrong here. I hope that in the next five years, the United States and China will be able to establish harmonious relations, and after that we will all live happily. However, I don't think that will happen.
If we have a good relationship, it will prove me wrong. In other words, if China can strengthen peacefully. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Not a dinosaur in China
You claim that the United States cannot allow China to become an equal power. What motivates you when you maintain contacts and exchanges with China?
I don't think the root cause of the problem is China's behavior. I don't think the Chinese are bad and the Americans are good. It's just the way international politics works. And although I am an American, this is a real example of a tragic situation.
I think it's very important that people hear my arguments and think about it. You don't have to agree with me, but it's very important to understand the arguments. After all, if you are interested in preventing war, understanding the nature of conflict is very important.
What is the difference between your audience in China and in the USA?
From the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union until about 2017, when there was a unipolar period, the entire US foreign policy was aimed at what I call liberal hegemony. We tried to spread liberalism all over the world. And we had all these liberal ideas about international politics.
In the USA, I was considered a dinosaur. No one wanted to listen to me. Most people in the United States called my thoughts on international politics outdated and said that liberal ideas were the future.
I first came to China in 2003, and after that I came many more times. I told the Chinese about my theory and the politics of the great powers, and for the most part they did not consider me a dinosaur. Chinese thinkers were interested in the politics of the great powers.
Now, with the end of unipolarity and the onset of the period of multipolarity, as well as the fact that the rivalry between the United States and China in the field of security has begun, there are more people in the United States who pay attention to me.
Zhang Changyue provided his material for the article.
