Discursive constructions of Russian/Chinese threat directly implicate policy effectiveness---their representations make war inevitable---means our framework is absolutely critical

U.S. Security Policy Discourse” https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0175-274X-2016-3-165/threats-of-a-different-kind-china-and-russia-in-u-s-security-policy-discourse-jahrgang-34-2016-heft-3

The U.S. perspective sees the substantial need to integrate China and Russia more into international normative structures and to thereby affect an alignment of China’s and Russia’s actions with Western norms and interests. Both China and Russia are called upon to become responsible stakeholders in global order, meaning democratic and rule-of-law-oriented. The almost paternalistic call for responsibility expresses the view of a, in power and values, superior U.S. vis-à-vis China and Russia. Discourse then also offers warnings in the case that China and Russia do not learn or abide by the rules, in particular if they endanger U.S. interests. Again, seeing that both China and Russia are needed to deal with global and/or regional challenges, the U.S. must in some way continue to work with both. A new U.S. administration could, however, change policy.

Attempting to draw possible recommendations from these results, regarding the U.S. self and national identity’s impact on policy, it seems useful to recognize the elements of threat in constructions of China and Russia, to understand their specific motivations and critically consider these when formulating policy towards both countries. If threats are perceived due to the motivation of national identity and its often restrictive frame, relations with the other may quickly become conflictive in times of tension. Threat perceptions and conflictive relations then hinder efforts to build a peaceful global order. This highlights the importance of differentiating between threat constructions motivated by national identity and those motivated by actual indicators of threats. Though this is not an easy task, especially in the homogenizing atmosphere of often closed policy-making circles and under stress, the worth of a clear understanding of what motivates threat constructions cannot be overstated. Threat constructions should be critically questioned in the process of policy discussions, so that alternative interpretations are not automatically ignored. Policy formulation can benefit from active attempts to widen the frame of interpretation by provoking alternative explanations for the other’s behavior and recognizing the self’s contribution to a given situation. Discourse and policy towards other states should then also be guided by a critical view of the self’s interests and of implemented measures to safeguard these.