Perception lies at the core of West's failure to understand China

Editor's note: Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Chinese Ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming published an informative piece about his country's worldview in The Sunday Telegraph over the weekend. This piece deserves to be read by anyone who's interested in the topic. Its publication comes shortly after NATO's latest summit in London that saw the military alliance discuss the supposed challenge some of its members feel that China might constitute in the future, which explains why the ambassador thought it timely to dispel some of the most popular fake notions before they get out of control.

His piece made three main points: "China is committed to the path of peaceful development and does not threaten anyone," "China upholds the common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concept and does not seek confrontation with anyone," and "China's development intention is open and aboveboard and China does not seek to replace anyone." Each of these pillars of China's worldview are backed up by several supporting arguments, some of which deserve extra attention.

Concerning the first point about China's path of peaceful development, the ambassador wrote that "China's development in the future still needs a peaceful and stable external environment." The vast majority of the country's international trade traverses maritime routes. The unsubstantiated speculation that it would consider disrupting global shipping through the South China Sea makes no sense given that it would be economic suicide. China's future development therefore requires a peaceful maritime environment.

On the topic of China's security concept, the ambassador wrote: "It is time for thinking outside the Cold War box and for pursuing peace and security through cooperation. This requires those who see China's rise as a threat and China's development as a risk to cast aside their Cold War mentality and give up their belief in the 'Thucydides trap.'" International relations theories are just that, theories. The outcomes that they preach aren't inevitable. This point is even more poignant when using a Western notion to describe an Eastern state.

As for China's unwillingness to replace anyone, the ambassador wrote: "China does not believe in the logic that power inevitably leads to hegemony. What China seeks is self improvement, not challenging or replacing anyone." In other words, the zero-sum perspective isn't the only way to look at the world. The self-improvement of any given person or country doesn't automatically translate into their counterparts being at a disadvantage. The former could intend to use their newfound strength to help their peers to improve as well.

Reflecting on these three main points and the supporting arguments that were highlighted, it becomes clear the Western fears about China's rise are due to the deep philosophical differences between their civilizations. The West is projecting its own experiences onto China. Though this act occasionally produces some specious arguments, it ultimately results in an outlook devoid of factual substance, and perpetuated by the paranoia that whatever it is that they're worrying about "could possibly happen unless they stop it."

For instance, the UK ruled the high seas for centuries and interfered with its rivals' trade during that time. Western countries are projecting their own fears that China's rise in naval power will follow the same path. From what can only be described as a position of arrogance, they're so convinced of the relevance of their theories that they assume a civilization as different from their own as China's will follow the "Thucydides trap." The same thought process is at play when it comes to the zero-sum perspective over the win-win one.

The core of the problem is therefore one of perceptions, specifically the West's refusal to recognize that different civilizations operate according to different philosophical models. Dissimilar states are interacting with one another at an historically unprecedented pace, which necessitates a greater understanding of the unique experiences that influence their policymaking. Unlike what Huntington theorized, civilizations aren't destined to clash. Western countries could actually cooperate more closely with China if they understand China's worldview.