By Ryan Yeh
An increasing number of disclosures from U.S. government officials and leading scholars indicate that Trump gravely misjudged China. The president believed that by imposing sufficiently high tariffs – given China’s large trade surplus with the U.S.—it would quickly capitulate. At that point, the U.S. could then aggressively dictate terms to China.
What Washington never anticipated was that Beijing not only retaliated but struck back even harder, including imposing export restrictions on rare earth materials to the U.S. These measures clearly went beyond reciprocal tariff sanctions, representing additional punitive actions by China. Beijing’s series of countermeasures left the U.S. struggling on multiple fronts.
The ongoing friction in China-U.S. relations, exemplified by recurring trade tensions and strategic sparring, often leaves observers perplexed. Why does Washington seem persistently surprised by Beijing's reactions? Why do policies designed to pressure or contain China often yield unexpected, sometimes counterproductive, results?
The common narrative suggests China is an enigma, its motives complex, its system opaque. But what if the core drivers of China's actions are actually more straightforward and consistent than assumed? What if America's repeated miscalculations stem less from China's inscrutability and more from a persistent blind spot in understanding these fundamental aspirations, deeply rooted in China's unique history and national psyche?
Decoding China's Core Drivers: The SPEED Framework
To grasp China's responses, we need to understand its foundational motivations. These aren't secret directives but openly articulated goals consistent throughout modern Chinese history. They can be distilled into five core elements, which we can remember with the acronym SPEED:
1. Sovereignty (自主 - Zìzhǔ): Stemming from what China calls its "Century of Humiliation" – roughly a period from the mid-19th to mid-20th century marked by foreign invasions, territorial concessions, and unequal treaties – there's an almost visceral commitment to national independence and the absolute right to determine its own path without external interference. This is non-negotiable.
2. Peace (和平 - Hépíng): Having endured immense internal turmoil and external conflict, China deeply values a stable environment, both domestically and internationally, viewing it as essential for progress. While its actions are debated, the stated desire for a peaceful context for its rise is a constant refrain, echoing traditional philosophies emphasizing harmony.
3. Esteem (自尊 - Zìzūn): Representing a civilization with a continuous history spanning millennia, China seeks what it considers its rightful place and respect on the global stage. This involves erasing the humiliations of the past and being treated as an equal, a goal deeply tied to national pride.
4. Empowerment (自强- Zìqiáng): Directly linked to overcoming historical vulnerability ("落后就要挨打" - "Lagging behind leaves one vulnerable to attacks"） is a well-known saying. This is the relentless drive for comprehensive national strength – economic, technological, and military. It's about ensuring China can safeguard its sovereignty and never again suffer foreign domination.
5. Development (发展 - Fāzhǎn): For a nation lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, economic development remains the bedrock priority. It's seen as the key to improving livelihoods, maintaining social stability, and underpinning national Empowerment and Esteem.
These five drivers – Sovereignty, Peace, Esteem, Empowerment, and Development (SPEED) – are interconnected and form the bedrock of China's strategic calculus.
A History of Miscalculations: Ignoring the SPEED Limit?
Looking back, several major U.S. strategic assessments seem to have faltered by underestimating these core drivers:
· The "Loss of China" after WWII: Washington backed the Nationalists, failing to fully grasp the Communist revolution's potent appeal rooted in promises of national liberation (Sovereignty) and dignity (Esteem) after decades of foreign encroachment.
· The Korean War Intervention: The U.S. largely dismissed Beijing's warnings as UN forces approached the Yalu River, underestimating the new government's determination to protect its borders (Sovereignty) – a resolve forged in the crucible of recent historical vulnerability and the drive for Empowerment.
· The "Engagement" Bet: For decades, the U.S. wagered that economic integration (Development) would inevitably lead China toward Western-style political liberalization. This overlooked the unwavering commitment to maintaining political control and charting its own course (Sovereignty) while pursuing national strength (Empowerment).
Why the Blind Spot? Unpacking U.S. Perceptions
If China's core motivations are relatively consistent, why does the U.S. seem to struggle to internalize them? Several factors might contribute:
· Ideological Frameworks: A deep-seated belief in the universality of liberal democracy might make it difficult for some in the U.S. to accept the legitimacy or resilience of a different model, particularly one tied to a resurgent great power. This can hinder an objective reading of China's commitment to its own path (Sovereignty).
· Lack of Historical Empathy: The profound, lingering psychological impact of the "Century of Humiliation" is central to understanding China's modern drive for Empowerment and Esteem. Without fully appreciating this historical trauma, it's hard to grasp the intensity behind these aspirations.
· A Zero-Sum Lens?: Viewing China's rise primarily through the prism of great power competition and a potential threat to U.S. primacy might obscure the internal, historically driven logic propelling China's quest for Development, Empowerment, and Esteem. Is peaceful coexistence perceived as incompatible with China regaining strength?
· Domestic Politics: U.S. foreign policy isn't made in a vacuum. Domestic political pressures, election cycles, and lobbying interests can sometimes cloud objective, long-term strategic assessments of competitors like China.
The Trade War: A Case Study in Misreading SPEED?
The recent U.S. strategy of imposing tariffs to force significant changes in China's economic structure arguably misjudged the SPEED drivers once again. This pressure directly challenged China's perceived right to independent Development and technological Empowerment – core tenets of its post-humiliation rejuvenation narrative. The resulting strong resistance, emphasis on self-reliance, and resilience of the domestic economy were predictable outcomes when viewed through the SPEED framework, particularly the imperatives of Sovereignty and Empowerment. The unintended consequence might even be an acceleration of China's push for technological independence, potentially creating a more resilient long-term competitor.
Conclusion: Beyond Misjudgment – Towards Understanding
Navigating the complex U.S.-China relationship is arguably the defining geopolitical challenge of our time. Continuing down a path marked by recurring miscalculations benefits neither side nor the world.
The key to a more stable and predictable relationship may lie not in deciphering supposed hidden complexities, but in acknowledging and understanding the consistent, historically rooted core aspirations driving China – its demand for Sovereignty, desire for Peace, quest for Esteem, drive for Empowerment, and focus on Development.
This doesn't necessitate agreement with China's system or actions. It does, however, require a more nuanced, historically informed perspective from Washington – one that moves beyond ideological assumptions and recognizes the powerful internal logic shaping China's course. Acknowledging the SPEED framework could lead to more realistic expectations, better calibrated policies, and perhaps, a more constructive way to manage the inevitable friction and cooperation between two global powers. In the intricate dance of international relations, understanding your partner's fundamental motivations is the first step towards avoiding a costly stumble.
Ryan Yeh is a Beijing-based observer of international affairs. The views don't necessarily reflect those of BeijingReviewDossier.
