How Do We Prevent Obstacles Facing China-US Relations?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 11 July 2014
by Yu Tao (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Anthony Chantavy. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The latest round of China-U.S. strategic and economic negotiations, along with high-level cultural talks, took place on July 9 and July 10 in Beijing. Reports indicate that these meetings were intended to discuss a wide range of issues related to strategic interests such as exchange rates, investment and trade. Given that China and the United States remain at odds over issues relating to the East and South China Seas, as well as the Internet, these discussions may significantly mend bilateral relations between the two nations.

Against this background, American scholars James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon analyzed current problems in U.S.-China relations and ways to enhance ties between the two countries in their recent book “Strategic Reassurance and Resolve: U.S.-China Relations in the Twenty-First Century.” Steinberg, who worked as President Obama’s deputy secretary of state before returning to academia, and O’Hanlon, a senior fellow and the director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, are experts whose work is particularly instructive.

Steinberg and O'Hanlon believe that although China and the United States have recently taken a series of steps to enhance mutual trust, a lingering suspicion between them could lead to greater friction and conflict. The main source of this distrust lies in vast major reform taking place in the Asia Pacific regions and in China’s emerging role in regional and international affairs, which has made neighboring countries suspicious.

For example, China has taken a series of steps to defend its territorial rights, a move which the United States views as a restriction of American influence and interests in the Western Pacific. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has openly revised U.S. strategy, calling for Asia-Pacific rebalancing. Although the U.S. government claims that this decision is aimed at promoting regional stability, people will inevitably regard it as an American attempt to restrain China.

According to Steinberg and O'Hanlon, such reactions by China and the United States are completely rational, but failure of this approach to produce effective U.S.-China foreign policy could lead to long-term mutual distrust, or to the kind of strategic misjudgment that can cause one country to misinterpret another’s determination to protect its core interests. To avoid these consequences and strengthen understanding, Steinberg and O’Hanlon recommend that the United States and China should adhere to three principles:

First, the countries should exercise self-control, so when each country takes measures to enhance its own security, it strives to avoid actions that appear threatening. For example, by limiting the number of nuclear weapons, China has fulfilled a promise to use its weapons for defense only. Similarly, the U.S. should limit its deployment of anti-missile weapons to guarantee a strategic balance with China. In addition, Steinberg and O'Hanlon recommend that China and the United States agree on establishing a reasonable distance between their satellite orbits, guaranteeing that both countries have a reasonable amount of self-defense power, and also ensuring that one country does not misread such actions as provocation.

Second, there is a principle of acting in the interest of each other’s mutual benefit which requires deeper understanding between the two countries, and in this case, requires particular understanding of self-restraint as tolerance rather than weakness. In addition, Steinberg and O’Hanlon say the countries should maintain positive and healthy competitive relations, and avoid placing restrictions on each other to gain strategic advantage. For example, China and the U.S. are highly interdependent economically, which makes it unlikely that either country would deliberately act to interfere with each other’s Internet communications, but there is the chance that terrorists or hackers could act on their own but pretend to be acting on behalf of China or the United States and in turn stir up conflict and even war. Thus, China and the U.S. should work toward a mutual understanding that will help avoid attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Finally, the principle of honesty and transparency in areas such as national defense, space exploration, electronic network communications and regional security will lead to greater mutual cooperation and avoid mistrust. Steinberg and O’Hanlon recommend the establishment of more direct communications between each country’s militaries to respond to crises that may arise. In the event of such a crisis, China and the U.S. would work to remain flexible, exercise restraint where practical and avoid exacerbating conflict. More importantly, China and the U.S. should strengthen their ability to cope with risks. In the case of network security for example, if each country works toward understanding and strengthening each other’s ability to withstand sudden network attacks, they can prepare for terrorists and hackers who want to stir up trouble between the countries, thereby avoiding being dragged into regional conflict by a third party’s network attack.

The key to ensuring lasting stability of China-U.S. relations lies in encouraging the countries to see each other’s "red line" and the price both have willingly paid to defend their own core interests. This requires not only continued communication, but the need for each country to take practical actions. Steinberg and O'Hanlon point out that in order to remove the obstacles that impede China-U.S. relations, the two nations should send stronger and more trustworthy signals to avoid misunderstanding. China should understand that the United States’ concerns reach far beyond its territory, and the United States must face and respect China's determination to safeguard its own interests.


第六轮中美战略与经济对话、第五轮中美人文交流高层磋商,于7月9日至10日在北京举行。消息显示,此轮中美高级别会晤将广泛讨论汇率、投资、贸易等一系列关乎双方战略利益的议题。考虑到今年以来中美在东海、南海及网络等问题上多有龃龉,此次会议对修补双边关系或有重大意义。

  在此背景下,美国学者斯坦伯格和奥汉隆最近联合撰文,分析中美关系现存的问题,并对确保中美关系健康良性发展提出了诸多政策建议。斯坦伯格重返学界前,曾在奥巴马政府任常务副国务卿,奥汉隆则是顶级智库布鲁金斯学会的外交政策研究主任。两人深谙美国对外政策及其运作过程,因而观点特别值得重视。

  斯坦伯格和奥汉隆认为,虽然中美最近为增强互信采取了一系列措施,但彼此之间依然存在深刻的怀疑和顾虑,两国发生摩擦和冲突的可能性甚至有所上升。造成这一切的重要原因,在于亚太局势正发生着巨大而深远的变革。崛起的中国在地区和国际事务中必然要发挥更大作用,但周边一些国家出于种种原因,对中国所宣称的“和平崛起”充满疑虑。

  在这种情况下,中国与一些国家的疆域争端浮出水面;中国为保卫自身领土主权完成而采取的一系列行动,则往往被美国视为对其在西太平洋利益和影响的限制。与此同时,奥巴马政府高调调整美国战略重点,要求“亚太再平衡”;虽然美国政府宣称此举旨在增进地区稳定而非针对中国,但人们难免将其看作美国为谋求维护自身霸权而试图遏制中国的举动。

  在斯坦伯格和奥汉隆看来,中美对彼此的上述看法在短期内完全理性,但若不能得到有效应对,则可能导致两国长期互疑,甚至造成战略误判。这种误判既可能表现为无端将对方的某项举动视为威胁,也可能体现为未能有效体察对方保卫其核心利益的决心。为避免上述恶果,他们建议中美同时采取约束克制、互惠互利、坦诚透明和富有弹性的切实行动,增强理解,消除误解。

  具体而言,需要坚持以下三个原则:

  约束克制原则是指双方在采取旨在增强自身安全的措施时,应努力防止给对方造成受到威胁的感觉。例如,通过限制自身拥有的核武器数量,中国表明了“只将此类武器用于防御”的诺言切实可信;美国则应自觉限制反导武器的部署,确保两国间保证一定程度的战略平衡。此外,斯坦伯格和奥汉隆建议中美就卫星轨道的合理间距达成共识,这样既能保证彼此都具有合理的自卫实力,又可防止一些举措被误解为刺激或挑衅。

  互惠互利原则要求中美善意理解对方的举措,特别是将对方主动采取的约束克制行动,正确理解为宽容而非软弱;此外,两国应保持积极的良性竞争,而不该通过打击压制对方来获取战略优势。例如,中美在经济上高度互赖,因而目前不大可能采取摧毁对方互联网的行动,但一些恐怖分子或黑客出于种种目的,可能伪造身份发动攻击,试图挑起双方的冲突甚至战争。因此,中美应采取联合行动,确保不攻击对方民用基础设施的承诺真实可信。

  坦诚透明原则有助于中美正确理解对方的行动与立场,从而避免无谓地臆测对方在善意行动背后窝藏着何种不良用心。在斯坦伯格和奥汉隆看来,中美在国防、太空、网络和区域安全等多个领域,都存在需要落实坦诚透明原则的地方。他们特别建议中美军方之间建立更为明确而直接的交流机制,用以应对可能出现的危机。而面对可能出现的危机,中美则应保持弹性,避免危机恶化为冲突,并努力推动双方不断贯彻落实约束克制、互惠互利和公开透明等原则,形成良性循环。更为重要的是,中美要强化各自应对风险的能力。以网络安全为例,如果中美抵御网络突然袭击的能力不断加强,那么就能在恐怖分子与黑客发起可能导致两国冲突的袭击时赢得时间,从而避免被第三方伪造的网络突袭拖入冲突。

  确保中美关系长期稳定的关键,在于促使两国认清对方的“红线”以及对方为保卫自身核心利益所决心付出的代价,这不仅需要中美继续沟通交流,更需要两国分别采取实际行动。斯坦伯格和奥汉隆指出,为防止双边关系触礁,中美应释放更多积极而可置信的信号,减少无谓而可能造成误解的噪音,中国应理解美国的关切远在其领土之外,美国则须正视和尊重中国维护自身利益的决心。(作者是“政见”观察员,本专栏由“政见”团队供稿)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Colombia: The Horsemen of the New Cold War

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Topics

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle