John Mearsheimer says he hopes future China-US ties could prove him wrong on tragedy of great power conflict

In mid-October, 77-year-old University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer visited China. He delivered lectures at Chinese universities and engaged in a debate on global order and US-China relations with Yan Xuetong, director of the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua University. During book signings and photo sessions, he was warmly welcomed by Chinese readers.

Mearsheimer is a prominent realist scholar in international relations. He gained recognition for his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, which argues that conflict between great powers is inevitable. This viewpoint has sparked significant debate about great power relations.

More than 20 years later, the international landscape has shifted dramatically, but Mearsheimer's views remain unchanged. In an exclusive interview with the Global Times reporters Liu Xin, Zhao Juecheng and Yang Sheng in Beijing, Mearsheimer shared his concerns about current issues like China-US relations and the Ukraine crisis, criticizing US foreign policy. He also predicts that security competition between the US and China will intensify.

As a scholar rather than a politician, Mearsheimer is confident in his theory, but he emphasizes his openness to debate, and looks forward to future China-US ties proving him wrong. The following is part of the interview with Mearsheimer.
US foreign policy fosters chaos

GT: In recent years, China has described the global situation as a "major change not seen in a century." What are your thoughts on this?

Mearsheimer: I think it's true. The structure of the system has changed fundamentally.

When I was young, the world was bipolar. The US-Soviet competition defined international politics in large part. The Soviet Union disappeared in December 1991, and we went from a bipolar world to a unipolar world. In around 2017 that unipolar world came to an end, and we moved into a multipolar world. We went from a world where the US was the only great power on the planet to one where the US, China, and Russia were all great powers.

This is the first time that we have faced a multipolar world since World War II when you go from unipolarity to multipolarity.

The change in China-US relationship has also been huge. During the unipolar period, China-US relations were generally very good. Then when we went from unipolarity to multipolarity, which meant China was now a great power, it was a peer competitor of the US, and relations between the US and China fundamentally changed and became much more conflictual.

GT: What is your primary concern regarding complicated international relations at this time?

Mearsheimer: I'm concerned about three big issues. One is I'm concerned about the China-US relationship. I have long argued that relationship would be intensely competitive. I'm concerned that competition might turn into a war, and I don't want that to happen.

I'm also deeply concerned about the war in Ukraine and the possibility of escalation where the US, and NATO more generally, come into the conflict. Conflict between Russia on one side and Ukraine and the West on the other side will go on for decades… The US has done a terrible job handling the situation in Ukraine. The US is principally responsible for causing the war in Ukraine.

Then I'm concerned about the Middle East, and the wars that are taking place there. As is the case with Ukraine, it is possible that the US and Russia could be pulled into a war in the Middle East, although that's not likely.

GT: Do you think US foreign policy is contributing to global stability or fostering chaos?

Mearsheimer: I think it's fostering chaos if you have to choose between those two descriptions. It's fostering chaos in Ukraine and the Middle East. The US should have acted in fundamentally different ways.

The principal cause of the war in Ukraine was the West's efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO. The US was the driving force behind that decision. And the Russians made it clear from the very beginning that was unacceptable. Nevertheless, we continue to push to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Instead of trying to shut the war down, the US has, if anything, sought to push it forward, aiming to keep it going so Ukraine can defeat the Russians. The US should not have tried to bring Ukraine into NATO. Once the war started, the US should have gone to great lengths to prevent it.

With regard to the Middle East, the US should have gone to great lengths to push Israel to accept the Palestinian state, which is the root cause of the problem in the Middle East. The US should now be trying to prevent the war in Gaza, shut down the war with regard to Hezbollah, and make sure that the war that is unfolding involving Iran on one side and the US and Israel on the other side is brought to an end immediately. But the US is not doing that. The US is helping the Israelis to cause greater and greater trouble in the Middle East.

If you look at our performance on the world stage, we have been fostering chaos, not contributing to international stability.

GT: The advancement of technology has repeatedly altered the course of human history. Another renowned realist, Henry Kissinger, also began focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence on international relations in his later years. Do you think AI or other emerging technologies could change the "tragedy of great power politics?"

Mearsheimer: I don't think AI would transform the tragedy of great power politics. Why do we have this tragedy? It's because there is no higher authority in the international system that can come to the rescue of a state if it gets in trouble. At the same time, in the international system, you have powerful states that sometimes have bad intentions toward you.

AI doesn't solve that problem. What we need is a higher authority. We need a night watchman that can protect you. As long as you don't have a higher authority, AI doesn't matter.

AI could significantly influence how security competition is waged. Nuclear weapons did exactly that. Nuclear weapons, in a way, were revolutionary weapons. They are weapons of mass destruction. We've never seen anything that creates destruction on the scale of nuclear weapons. And nuclear weapons have all sorts of consequences on how states interact with each other.

However, nuclear weapons do not change the fundamental nature of international politics. We live in a nuclear world today. Yet we have a China-US competition, just like we had a US-Japan competition in the 1930s and early 1940s when there were no nuclear weapons.

Competition not 'bad guy' games

GT: In 2001, you published The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. According to your theory, known in academic circles as "offensive realism," competition and conflict between China and the US are inevitable during China's rise, and the US will strive to contain China. What led you to this conclusion?

Mearsheimer: I've long argued that once China rose and once China became powerful, the US would move in to make sure that China didn't become too powerful. This is the tragedy of great power politics.

The US and China had excellent relations during the unipolar period. The US pursued a policy of engagement. I argued at the time that once China became really prosperous, it would translate that economic might into military might which China should have done. I'm not being critical of China. The US would fear China and you would have this security competition set in. This just happens with great powers. It's not peculiar to China or peculiar to the US.

A lot of Chinese people think that the root of the problem is American behavior. The Americans are the bad guys. Many Americans think the root of the problem is the Chinese are the bad guys. This is not my view.

This is just how international politics works. When you have two very powerful states, they are going to end up fearing each other, and they are going to end up competing with each other. There's no way around that.

GT: You discussed Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan island and its negative impact on China-US relations with Chinese media. You mentioned that while a clash in the Taiwan Straits is unlikely in the near future, competition over the island will continue. What led you to this conclusion?

Mearsheimer: It was not smart for Nancy Pelosi to come to Taiwan and make provocative remarks. It is in America's interest to not speak loudly when it comes to Taiwan, because Taiwan is such a hot-button issue for China. What Pelosi did and others have done and will do is not smart.

I think the Taiwan question is a remarkably dangerous situation. Because for China, Taiwan is sacred territory. At the same time, the US wants to keep Taiwan on its side of the ledger, because Taiwan is strategically important to the US. If the US gave up on defending Taiwan, that would have negative strategic consequences. What we have here is a situation where Taiwan matters enormously to China, and it matters enormously to the US.

My view is that despite this dangerous situation, it's not likely that we will have a war anytime soon over Taiwan. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's not likely.

GT: Could you share your predictions for the future of China-US relations?

Mearsheimer: We already have an intense security competition. It has been somewhat dampened by the fact that the US is pinned down in Ukraine and pinned down in the Middle East. If the US was not pinned down in Ukraine and in the Middle East, the security competition in East Asia would be more intense.

Moving forward, this security competition is not going to go away. We will likely have some major crises in the decades ahead. But let's hope that leaders from both China and the US act smartly and find diplomatic solutions to the crises and don't end up in a shooting war with each other.

I just want to be very clear I'm not happy about the tragedy of great power politics. With regard to China-US relations, I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that over the next five years, the US and China work out harmonious relations and we all live happily ever after. Obviously, I don't think that's going to happen.

What would prove me wrong is if we had good relations. In other words, if China could rise peacefully. Let's hope that I'm wrong.

Not 'a dinosaur' in China

GT: You assert that the US cannot accept China emerging as a peer power. What motivates you to engage in these exchanges with China?

Mearsheimer: I don't think the root of the problem is Chinese behavior. I don't think the Chinese are the bad guys, and the Americans are the good guys. I think this is just how international politics works. And although I'm an American, the fact is that this is a case of a tragic situation.

I think it's very important that people hear my argument and think about it. You don't have to agree with me, but it's very important to understand the argument. Because if you're interested in maximizing our prospects of avoiding a hot war, understanding the nature of the conflict really matters.

GT: What's the difference between your Chinese audience and your US audience?

Mearsheimer: From the Soviet Union collapsed until about 2017, when we moved into a unipolar moment, the US foreign policy was all about what I call liberal hegemony. What we were trying to do was spread liberalism around the world. We were very powerful. And we had all these liberal ideas about international politics.

I was considered to be a dinosaur in the US. Nobody was interested in listening to me. Most people in the US said that my thinking about international politics was outdated and that liberal ideas were the wave of the future.

I first came to China in 2003 and I came numerous times after that and would talk to the Chinese people about my theory and about great power politics, they did not think I was a dinosaur in large part. Chinese thinkers were interested in great power politics.

Now, with the end of unipolarity and the coming of multipolarity, and the fact that we now have this security competition between the US and China, I think more people in the US pay attention to me.