The author has introduced the term, anti-hegemony in 2022 and 2023 in several essays and a book, Hegemony and Anti-hegemony and U.S.-China Relations, to characterize China in contrast to the U.S. hegemony behavior. Although the concept of anti-hegemony was introduced, the description of anti-hegemony behavior given the current U.S.-China confrontation needs more clarification. Usually, China’s diplomatic behavior in the past is mostly reactionary to the U.S. diplomatic actions. Hence, to have a clear understanding of anti-hegemony (and China’s reactionary diplomatic behavior), one must first have a complete understanding and characterization of the U.S. diplomatic behavior (as a hegemon) which enhances China’s anti-hegemony reactions.
 
There are many senior distinguished American scholars such as R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor, John Mearsheimer (1947), of Chicago University, University Professor Jeffrey Sachs (1954) of Columbia University, G. John Ikenberry (1954), the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Christopher Layne (1949), Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, have devoted considerable scholarly effort to hegemony theory in their field of studies on international relations. Prof. Layne in a review essay, The Waning of U. S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? (JSTOR.org 2009) discussed the post-Cold War unipolar world and the coming multi-polar system in the context of U.S. hegemony and its consequences.
 
Yet the U.S. hegemony behavior continues as reviewed by younger scholars, for example, Salvatore Babones (Born 1969, PhD 2003 John Hopkins University) at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia, an associate professor at the University of Sydney. He published an essay in The National Interest (2015): American Hegemony Is Here to Stay, concluding that the passing of U.S. hegemony is greatly exaggerated. Is this still true, today? On May 31st, 2023, Foreign Policy published an eye-popping paper, ‘Stop Worrying About Chinese Hegemony in Asia – – U.S. fears are not only irrational – – they’re a potential self-fulfilling prophecy, authored by Stephen Martin Walt (1955), the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International relations at the Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University. Professor Wait is a political scientist and a member of the realist school of international relations; no doubt, this essay appearing in Foreign Policy, will have a significant impact.
 
Unfortunately, Prof. Wait’s paper is based on a wrong assumption (from this author’s view: China is an anti-hegemony, not a hegemony nation). Prof. Wait’s essay also carried out a faulty analysis (The success of U.S. hegemony and the rise of China are incorrectly analyzed). Most seriously, Prof. Wait’s paper ended with a dangerous conclusion. This author will argue that the U.S. must understand China’s rise under the concept of anti-hegemony, the more the U.S. practices hegemony the more China will succeed with anti-hegemony, fulfilling the U.S. fear. In the following, the above argument will be explained with specifics.
 
Prof Wait claims, “The U.S. and its Asian partners want to maintain a balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, ostensibly to prevent China from becoming a regional hegemon there. They worry that Beijing will gradually persuade its neighbors to distance themselves from the U.S.” The Asian nations do not want to see a U.S.-China confrontation forcing them to take sides. The more the U.S. applies hegemony actions, the more China will use anti-hegemony reactions which include rational and realistic ways to bind its neighbors and make them distance from the U.S. hegemony behavior. Prof. Wait had a wrong understanding of Ming history and the causality of Ming’s tribute states. China’s approach in the South China Sea (SCS) to develop SCS residents’ rule of conduct agreement and co-development opportunities is anti-hegemony diplomacy whereas the U.S.’s freedom of navigation and military exercises with allies are hegemony actions only creating more successful anti-hegemony strategy practiced by China.
 
China never started with any ‘expelling the U.S.’ strategy but acted more reactionary to U.S. hegemony behavior. The fact that the U.S. failed to be a hegemon in Asia-Pacific, Middle East or mid-Asia should not and could not be extrapolated to China wanting to emulate the U.S. (and ultimately fail) as a hegemon. The U.S. must understand that China does not want to be a hegemon (like the U.S. desires to practice hegemony behavior) as evidenced by its effort in making peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran or assisting mid-Asian states to have access to the world economy. Sure, China will have more influence in the world, but that is the result of her anti-hegemony behavior, not hegemony actions. The U.S. must understand their differences and consequences.
 
Prof. Wait feels that hegemony is desirable and, therefore, assumes that China will pursue that route. This is wrong. A great nation that desires and enjoys its influence and power on the world stage cannot rely on hegemony behavior supported by the military (Prof. Wait cited historical evidence himself.). Military bases are costly to maintain as evidenced by the U.S. military budget problems and the need to increase allies’ defense share. China does feel insecure in its region. But China does not take a hegemony approach because it prefers peace and its history proves that security and co-prosperity are achievable through an anti-hegemony strategy, which only requires the ability to prevent any state from taking a hegemony action against her. This is precisely the anti-hegemony theory China is practicing.
 
We can summarize the main theme of Prof. Wait’s essay as follows: Hegemon is desirable with political and economic benefits and the U.S. is fortunate to have benefitted from hegemony. The U.S. worries about the rise of any hegemon who would challenge it and thus assumes that China may be the next challenger. Prof. Wait suggests that the U.S. should not make China feel the need to pursue hegemony. He argues that the chance for success is small, one out of four as history showed that France, Germany, and Japan all failed, only the U.S. succeeded with luck and her geopolitical advantages. China, not like the U.S., is surrounded by many neighbors, who, some with industrial power, would stop China from becoming a hegemon.
 
This author argues that the geopolitical advantage for the U.S. vanishes in the era of nuclear weapons. The U.S. cannot successfully maintain its hegemony strategy against China and a unipolar world. China is a great nation with a different geopolitical advantage for mutual trade and practicing its anti-hegemony strategy. (Its BRI program is a clear example.) China is big enough to be able to adequately defend itself with one-third or fewer nuclear weapons or military budgets than that of the U.S. (SCS stand-off is evidence.) So, using a hegemony strategy against China will not succeed. A more rational approach is to understand China’s anti-hegemony behavior and collaborate with China for a win-win outcome!
 

​