Pursuit of US hegemony in Asia causes conflict with China.

Alison’s work captured the attention of leaders in both Washington and Beijing. As a confidence-building measure, China laid out the concept of ‘New Type of Great Power Relation’ in 2013 based on cooperation; respect to each other’s core interests; and dialogue between Washington and Beijing. The concept emphasizes that the United States and other neighboring countries should respect the core interests of China, in other words acknowledging Beijing’s territorial claims in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.25 The United States distanced itself from Beijing’s proposed framework as Washington realized giving recognition to Beijing’s “core interest” would tantamount to legitimizing China’s disputed territorial claims as well as giving away lopsided concessions in East Asia.26 While United States is well within its right to protect its interests, China views Washington’s skepticism as arrogantly holding on to its primacy in the international system and denying a rising China her rightful place. China claims such attitude “dangerous or even irresponsible” because it can exacerbate both countries’ progress towards the apocalyptic Thucydides’s Trap, thereby, exploiting “perceptions of the trap by blaming the United States for trying to keep China down.”27 One of the reasons for China’s ability to peddle such a narrative is due to U.S. foreign policy stubbornly holding on to a hegemonic grand strategy even in a multipolar world. Christopher Layne defined U.S. hegemonic grand strategy as a “strategy of preponderance”–in simple terms–a strategy to maintain primacy in the world through preeminent U.S. political, military, and economic power.28 With China already an established pole, Beijing expects Washington to share the economic-security dual leadership of the world. The key implication here is that China’s outward-facing policies will inevitably clash with United States’ preponderance or hegemonic status. In 2008, U.S. National Intelligence Council report argued that America should adjust its international ambitions and forgo continued primacy in favor of accommodating the rising powers in the interest of greater global governance.29