With the breakdown of American relations with China after 1989 and the rapid growth of Chinese power in the 1990s, the American policy of engagement attempted to encourage China to become a moderate participant in the international status quo through the building of economic interdependence, participation in international institutions and strategic dialogues. The widespread belief in the failure of this policy has helped to drive the spiraling conflict between the two states. Drawing on Habermas's distinction between strategic and communicative action, this article argues that the unacknowledged rationalist theoretical foundations of the policy of engagement explain its empirical experience. Engagement rested on a strategic mode of action, in which the building of interdependencies and dialogues were instrumental policies to change the target state. Rationalist signaling models demonstrate effectively why engagement is likely to fail within such a strategic mode of action. The policy of engagement carries within it the potential for a communicative mode of action, however, in which states enter into public dialogues in order to more effectively communicate, discover and shape preferences, and arrive at mutually acceptable institutions. Communicative engagement, designed to allow for the free exchange of reasoned argument under conditions which minimize the direct application of power, provides a superior means to achieve the avowed goals of engagement. Through an analysis of an important potentially conflictual strategic relationship, this article advances the emerging dialogue between rationalist and critical theories by focusing on communication, uncertainty and the transformative potential of public discourse. It draws on a theory of communicative action rooted in Habermas to evaluate the empirical record of engagement in the 1990s, and to articulate theoretical foundations for a communicative engagement which more effectively communicates and shapes state preferences.
Abbott, Kenneth W.
and Duncan Snidal (1998) `Why States Act through Formal International Organizations', Journal of Conflict Resolution42(1): 3-32.
2.
Adler, Emmanuel
(1997) `Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics', European Journal of International Relations3(3): 319-363.
3.
Archibugi, Daniele
, David Held and Martin Köhler (eds) (1999) Re-Imagining Political Community. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
4.
Armstrong, Tony
(1991) Breaking the Ice. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace.
5.
Barnett, Michael
(1998) Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order. New York: Columbia University Press.
6.
Berejikian, Jeffrey
and John Dryzek (2000) `Reflexive Action in International Politics', British Journal of Political Science30(2): 193-216.
7.
Bernstein, Robert
and Ross Munro (1997) The Coming Conflict with China. New York Alfred Knopf.
8.
Bohman, James
(1996) Public Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Bohman, James
(1998) `The Globalization of the Public Sphere', Philosophy and Social Criticism24: 199-216.
10.
Bohman, James
(1999) `International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions', International Affairs75: 499-513.
11.
Bohman, James
and William Rehg (eds) (1999) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Calhoun, Craig
(ed.) (1993) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Checkel, Jeffrey T.
(1997) `International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist-Constructivist Divide', European Journal of International Relations3(4): 473-495.
14.
Checkel, Jeffrey T.
(1998) `The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory', World Politics50(2): 324-348.
15.
Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2001) `Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change', International Organization55(3): 553-588.
16.
Christensen, Thomas J.
(1999) `China, the US-Japan Alliance, and the Security Dilemma in East Asia', International Security23(4): 49-80.
17.
Christensen, Thomas
(1997) `Chinese Realpolitik', Foreign Affairs75(5): 37-53.
18.
Cortell, Andrew
and James Davis (2000) `Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda', International Studies Review2(1): 65-90.
19.
Cronin, Audrey K.
and Patrick Cronin (1995) `The Realistic Engagement of China', The Washington Quarterly19: 141-169.
20.
Deng, Yong
(1998) `The Chinese Conception of National Interests in International Relations', The China Quarterly154: 308-329.
21.
Deng, Yong
and Fei-Ling Wang (eds) (1999) In the Eyes of the Dragon: China Views the World. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
22.
Downs, Erica
and Phillip Saunders (1998/99) `Legitimacy and the Limits of Nationalism', International Security23(3): 114-146.
23.
Dryzek, John
(1992) `How Far is it from Virginia and Rochester to Frankfurt?', British Journal of Political Science22: 397-417.
24.
Economy, Elizabeth
and Michel Oksenberg (1999) China Joins the World: Progress and Prospects. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
25.
Elster, Jon
(1995) `Strategic Uses of Argument', in Kenneth Arrow (ed.) Barriers to Conflict Resolution, pp. 237-257. New York: W.W. Norton.
26.
Elster, Jon
(1997) `The Market and the Forum', in James Bohman and William Rehg (eds) Deliberative Democracy, pp. 3-34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Elster, Jon
(ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Eyerman, Joe
and Robert A. Hart, Jr (1996) `An Empirical Test of the Audience Cost Proposition: Democracy Speaks Louder than Words', Journal of Conflict Resolution40(4): 597-616.
29.
Fearon, James D.
(1994) `Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes', American Political Science Review88: 577-592.
30.
Fearon, James D.
(1995) `Rationalist Explanations for War', International Organization49: 379-414.
31.
Fearon, James D.
(1997) `Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs', Journal of Conflict Resolution41: 68-90.
32.
Ferguson, Charles
(2000) `Sparking a Buildup: US Missile Defense and China's Nuclear Arsenal', Arms Control Today (March).
33.
Final, Bernard and Kristen Lord
(eds) (2000) Power and Conflict in the Age of Transparency. New York: Palgrave.
34.
Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink
(1998) `International Norm Dynamics and Political Change', International Organization52(4): 855-886.
35.
Foot, Rosemary
(1998) `China in the ASEAN Regional Forum', Asian Survey38(5): 425-441.
36.
Foot, Rosemary
(2000) Rights Beyond Borders: The Global Community and the Struggle over Human Rights in China. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Garofano, John
(1999) `Flexibility or Irrelevance: Ways Forward for the ARF', Contemporary Southeast Asia21(1): 74-86.
Gill, Bates
(2001) `Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Dynamics of Chinese Nonproliferation and Arms Control Policy-Making in an Age of Reform', in David Lampton (ed.) The Making of Chinese Foreign and Security Policy, pp. 257-288. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
40.
Gill, Bates
and Evan Medeiros (2000) `Foreign and Domestic Influences on China's Arms Control and Nonproliferation Policies', The China Quarterly161: 66-94.
41.
Glaser, Charles
(1992) `The Political Consequences of Military Strategies', World Politics44(3): 497-538.
Gordon, Michael R.
(2001) `Rumsfeld Limiting Military Contacts with the Chinese', New York Times (4 June): A1.
44.
Gries, Peter Hays
(2001) `Tears of Rage: Chinese Nationalist Reactions to the Belgrade Embassy Bombing', The China Journal46 (July): 25-43.
45.
Haacke, Jürgen
(1996) `Theory and Praxis in International Relations: Habermas, Self-Reflection, Rational Argumentation', Millennium: Journal of International Studies25(2): 255-289.
46.
Haass, Richard
and Meghan O'Sullivan (eds) (2000) Honey and Vinegar. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
47.
Habermas, Jürgen
(1984) Theory of Communicative Action, volume 1. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
48.
Habermas, Jürgen
(1987) Theory of Communicative Action, volume 2. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
49.
Habermas, Jürgen
(1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
Habermas, Jürgen
(1998) On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
Heath, Joseph
(2001) Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
HRIC (Human Rights in China) (1998) From Principle to Pragmatism: Can `Dialogue' Improve China's Human Rights Situation? HRIC Report (June 23). Available at http://www.igc.org/hric/reports/dialogue.html
53.
Hurd, Ian
(1999) `Legitimacy and Authority in the International System', International Organization53(2): 397-408.
54.
Jervis, Robert
(1970) The Logic of Images in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
Jervis, Robert
(1976) Perception and Misperception in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
Johnson, James
(1991) `Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action', Political Theory19: 181-201.
57.
Johnson, James
(1993) `Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation Between Critical Theory and Rational Choice', American Political Science Review87(1): 74-85.
58.
Johnston, Alastair Iain
(1996) `Learning versus Adaptation: Explaining Change in Chinese Arms Control Policy in the 1980s and 1990s', The China Journal35: 27-61.
59.
Johnston, Alastair Iain
(1999) `The Myth of the ASEAN Way? Explaining the Evolution of the ASEAN Regional Forum', in Helga Haftendorn (ed.) Imperfect Institutions: Security Institutions over Time and Space, pp. 287-324. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
Johnston, Alastair Iain
and Paul Evans (1999) `China's Engagement with Multilateral Security Institutions', in Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert Ross (eds) Engaging China, pp. 235-272. New York: Routledge.
61.
Johnston, Alastair Iain
and Robert S. Ross (eds) (1999) Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging Power. New York: Routledge.
62.
Kagan, Robert
(1997) `The End of Engagement', The Weekly Standard (10 November).
63.
Kagan, Robert
(1999) `Clinton's Sorry Excuse for a China Policy', The Weekly Standard (22 March): 9.
64.
Kagan, Robert
and William Kristol (2001) `The “Adults” Make a Mess', The Weekly Standard (14 May).
65.
Katzenstein, Peter J.
(ed.) (1996) The Culture of National Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
66.
Katzenstein, Peter J.
, Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner (1998) `International Organization and the Study of World Politics', International Organization52(4): 645-686.
67.
Kent, Ann
(1999) China, the United Nations, and Human Rights: The Limits of Compliance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
68.
Knight, Jack
and James Johnson (1994) `Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy', Political Theory22: 277-296.
69.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V.
and John G. Ruggie (1986) `International Organization', International Organization40(4): 753-775.
70.
Kupchan, Charles
(1998) `After Pax Americana: Benign Power, Regional Integration, and the Sources of Stable Multipolarity', International Security23(2): 40-79.
71.
Kydd, Andrew
and Duncan Snidal (1993) `Game-Theoretical Analysis of Regimes', in Volker Rittberger (ed.) Regime Theory and International Relations, pp. 112-138. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
72.
Lake, David
and Robert Powell (eds) (1999) Strategic Choice in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
Lampton, David M.
(2001a) Same Bed, Different Dreams: Managing US-China Relations, 1989-2000. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
74.
Lieberthal, Kenneth
(1995) `A New China Strategy', Foreign Affairs74(6): 35-49.
75.
Lim, Robyn
(1998) `The ASEAN Regional Forum: Building on Sand', Contemporary Southeast Asia20(2): 115-137.
76.
Lynch, Daniel
(1999) After the Propaganda State: Media, Politics, and `Thought Work' in Reformed China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
77.
Lynch, Marc
(2000) `The Dialogue of Civilizations and International Public Sphere Theory', Millennium: Journal of International Studies29(2): 307-330.
78.
Mann, James
(1997) `Clinton's Berlin Wall Theory Steeped in Paradoxes', Los Angeles Times (12 February): A5.
79.
Mann, James
(1999) About Face: A History of America's Curious History with China. New York: Alfred Knopf.
80.
McCarthy, Thomas
(1994) `Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue', Ethics105: 44-63.
81.
Moravcsik, Andrew
(1997) `Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics', International Organization51(4): 513-553.
82.
Moravcsik, Andrew
and Jeffrey Legro (1999) `Is Anybody Still a Realist?', International Security24(2): 5-55.
83.
Morrow, James D.
(1999) `The Strategic Setting of Choices: Signaling, Commitment, and Negotiation in International Politics', in David Lake and Robert Powell (eds) Strategic Choice and International Relations, pp. 77-114. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84.
Müller, Harald
(2001) `International Relations as Communicative Action', in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen (eds) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, pp. 160-178. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
85.
Nathan, Andrew
and Robert S. Ross (1997) The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress: China's Search for Security. New York: W.W. Norton.
86.
Papayouanou, Paul
and Scott Kastner (1999/2000) `Sleeping with the (Potential) Enemy: Assessing the US Policy of Engagement with China', Security Studies9(1/2): 157-187.
87.
Payne, Rodger A.
(2000) `Habermas, Discourse Norms, and the Prospects for Global Deliberation', paper presented to the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA (March).
88.
Polenbaum, Judy
(2001) `China's Media: Between Politics and the Market', Current History (August): 269-277.
89.
Powell, Robert
(1999) In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
90.
Price, Richard
and Christian Reus-Smit (1998) `Dangerous Liaisons? Constructivism and Critical International Theory', European Journal of International Relations4(3): 259-294.
91.
Rachman, Gidon
(1995) `Containing China', The Washington Quarterly19: 129-140.
92.
Risse, Thomas
(1999) `International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Area', Politics and Society27(4): 529-542.
93.
Risse, Thomas
(2000) `Let's Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics', International Organization54(1): 1-39.
94.
Ritter, Jeffrey
(2000) `Know Thine Enemy: Information and Democratic Foreign Policy', in Bernard Final and Kristen Lord (eds) Power and Conflict in the Age of Transparency, pp. 83-114. New York: Palgrave.
95.
Ross, Robert
(1987) `International Bargaining and Domestic Politics: US-China Relations Since 1972', World Politics40(2): 255-287.
96.
Roy, Denny
(1995) `Hegemon on the Horizon? China's Threat to East Asian Security', International Security19(1): 149-168.
97.
Roy, Denny
(1996) `The “China Threat” Issue', Asian Survey36(12): 758-772.
98.
Rustin, Charles
(1999) `Habermas, Discourse Ethics, and International Justice', Alternatives24: 167-192.
99.
Saunders, Harold
(1999) A Public Peace Process. New York: St. Martin's Press.
100.
Saunders, Philip C.
(2000a) `China's America Watchers: Changing Attitudes Towards the United States', The China Quarterly161: 41-65.
101.
Saunders, Philip C.
(2000b) `Supping with a Long Spoon: Dependence and Interdependence in Sino-American Relations', The China Journal43: 55-81.
102.
Schiemann, John W.
(2000) `Meeting Halfway Between Rochester and Frankfurt: Generative Salience, Focal Points, and Strategic Interaction', American Journal of Political Science44(1): 1-16.
103.
Schimmelfenig, Frank
(2000) `International Socialization in the New Europe: Rational Action in an Institutional Environment', European Journal of International Relations6(1): 109-140.
104.
Schultz, Kenneth
(1998) `Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises', American Political Science Review92(4): 829-844.
105.
Schultz, Kenneth
(1999) `Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War', International Organization53(2): 233-266.
106.
Schultz, Kenneth
(2001) `Looking for Audience Costs', Journal of Conflict Resolution45(1): 32-60.
107.
Shambaugh, David
(1996) `Containment or Engagement of China? Calculating Beijing's Responses', International Security21: 180-209.
108.
Shambaugh, David
(1999/2000) `China's Military Views the World: Ambivalent Security', International Security24(3): 52-79.
109.
Shambaugh, David
(2000) `Sino-American Strategic Relations: From Partners to Competitors', Survival42(1): 97-115.
110.
Shambaugh, David
(2001) `China or America: Which is the Revisionist Power?', Survival43(3): 25-30.
111.
Shinn, James
(ed.) (1996) Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
112.
Stein, Janice Gross
(1991) `Reassurance in International Conflict Management', Political Science Quarterly106(4): 431-451.
113.
Suettinger, Robert L.
(2000) `The United States and China: Tough Engagement', in Richard N. Haass and Meghan L. O'Sullivan (eds) Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, pp. 12-32. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
114.
Vogel, Ezra
(1997) Living With China: US-China Relations in the Twenty-First Century. New York: W.W. Norton.
115.
Waldron, Arthur
(1997) `How Not to Deal with China', CommentaryMarch.
116.
Wang, Fei-Ling
(1998) `To Incorporate China: A New Policy for a New Era', The Washington Quarterly21(1): 67-81.
117.
Wendt, Alexander
(1999) Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
118.
Xiang, Lanxin
(2001) `Washington's Misguided China Policy', Survival43(3): 7-23.
119.
Zhang, Yongjin
(1998) China in International Society Since 1949: Alienation and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press.
