International Affairs
Original articles

Asymmetric parity: US–China relations in a multinodal world

BRANTLY WOMACK

Professor of Foreign Affairs and holds the Miller Center's C. K. Yen Chair at the University of Virginia.

An earlier version of this article was presented at ‘China–US relations in global perspective’, a conference held in October 2015 at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, as well as in Sydney, Taipei and Beijing. My thanks to Mel Leffler, Bo Zhiyue, Phil Potter, John Israel, Tim Heath, Bates Gill, Clemens Ostergaard, John Echeverri‐Gent, Harry Harding, Shirley Lin and the reviewers of International Affairs for their helpful comments.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 November 2016
Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.
Institutional Login
Loading institution options...
Log in to Wiley Online Library

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, please log in.

Abstract

The period 2008 to 2015 is likely to prove a traumatic transition from the post‐Cold War era of American unipolar hegemony to a new status quo of asymmetric parity between the US and China. With approximately equal masses of production and one third of the world's total, the relationship of the United States and China will remain the focus of global politics for the foreseeable future. While parity in economic mass makes each the greatest concern of the other, their asymmetry in wealth, developmental levels, and geopolitical concerns makes unnecessary a power transition scenario. Hitherto the analysis of parity has assumed symmetry, and therefore the point of power transition and challenge is highlighted and strategy has focused on relative gain vis‐à‐vis the rival. With asymmetric parity the transitional moment becomes ambiguous, and it is a reasonable strategy for each side to pursue absolute gain. Sustainable asymmetric rivalry is competitive, but it can also be win‐win. Moreover, neither the US nor China—nor the two together—can exercise the kind of hegemonic control that was the premise of earlier bipolar and unipolar eras. The diffuse interdependence created by globalization gives every state broader alternatives and raises the cost of hostility. The US and China do not face each other as hegemon and challenger, but rather as the largest, but quite different, players in a multinodal world that neither controls.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.