By Kim Won-soo
The overdue summit between the two leaders of the two most powerful states, the United States and China, finally took place, though virtually. This was the first "in-person" meeting in 10 months following the inauguration of President Joe Biden in the U.S. In the meantime, almost all channels of dialogue between the two countries have been virtually frozen.
The outcome of the summit was neither as exciting nor disappointing as expected. It was largely bland and business-like without much immediate tangible outcome. But in my view, it sets a welcome tone for the future of the U.S.-China relationship in the following three ways.
First, the virtual summit this time was largely meant to restart the practically frozen bilateral dialogue. Sending out a top-down signal to working level entities is particularly important given the party-dominated decision-making process in China.
Secondly, the summit set the minimum common denominator for a follow-up dialogue. The two leaders recognized differences on a number of critical issues. But they also agreed on the need to prevent a worst-case scenario which is their intensifying bilateral competition veering into a conflict, intended or unintended. How to set up the guardrails for that purpose will be an immediate priority. The focus of future dialogue will be on responsibly managing the elements of growing competition and emerging confrontation in their bilateral relationship.
Thirdly, the two leaders engaged in frank and direct conversation on their differences. The U.S. side described it as a "healthy" debate. This engagement must have allowed them to understand each other's bottom-lines on critical issues including in particular peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the East/South China Sea. This mutual understanding will help the two countries reduce the risk of inadvertent conflict spiraling out from a misunderstanding of each other's intentions.
Likewise, existing mutual misperceptions need to be addressed urgently. Washington tends to overestimate the rise of China and its aspirations to change the status quo. On the other hand, Beijing tends to overestimate the decline of the U.S. and its overseas commitments. These mutual misperceptions are dangerous as they are likely to lead to misjudgments about each other's intention.
Of course, the virtual summit last week was not meant as a magic bullet to untangle the increasingly thorny relationship between the U.S. and China. Some scholars call the two countries the G-2. But it seems that term is not liked by both for different reasons. The U.S. does not think of China as yet on a par with the U.S. in aggregate national power indexes. China thinks it is too early to be exposed to the international responsibility of providing global public goods.
The current situation is more akin to the uni/bi-polarity where the U.S. still maintains the dominant position with China catching up fast and outpacing other powers like the EU, Japan and Russia. For the moment, I think, there is low risk of falling into the so-called Thucydides trap under which a major conflict takes place when the rising No. 2 power challenges the previous No. 1 power.
But I am afraid that uncertainty is growing globally and regionally in East Asia mainly due to the lack of global leadership by both the U.S. and China in meeting emerging global and regional challenges. The international community is facing the unprecedented perfect storm of existential threats which are weapons of mass destruction, climate change and new disruptive technologies.
But the global response to this perfect storm is drifting without clear stewardship. The main fault lies with the inability of the U.S. and China to work together to steer the international community toward a global solution. If this continues unaddressed, it is likely to bring the world into a greater chaos in which both the U.S. and China will share the blame for causing G-0.
The virtual summit last week provided a breathing space for the two governments to figure out a new modus operandi for resetting their bilateral relationship. The future of the U.S.-China relationship is bound to be complex with the mix of the three C's, cooperation, competition and confrontation in constant evolution, depending on the changing nature of the issues at hand.
Now the leaders of the two countries need to identify: 1) where they must cooperate; 2) how they can manage responsibly the negative impact from their growing competition; and 3) how they should mitigate the risks of inadvertent conflict arising from possible confrontation through a pre-established crisis-management mechanism. They need to live up to the expectations of the international community to steer the world out of existential threats toward a world, safer, more secure and better for all. Failure is not an option ― for them and for the world.
Kim Won-soo (wsk4321@gmail.com) is the former under secretary-general of the United Nations and the high representative for disarmament. As a Korean diplomat, he served as secretary to the ROK president for foreign affairs. He is now the chair of the international advisory board of the Future Consensus Institute (Yeosijae) and a member of the Group of Eminent Persons for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBTO).
 |
The outcome of the summit was neither as exciting nor disappointing as expected. It was largely bland and business-like without much immediate tangible outcome. But in my view, it sets a welcome tone for the future of the U.S.-China relationship in the following three ways.
First, the virtual summit this time was largely meant to restart the practically frozen bilateral dialogue. Sending out a top-down signal to working level entities is particularly important given the party-dominated decision-making process in China.
Secondly, the summit set the minimum common denominator for a follow-up dialogue. The two leaders recognized differences on a number of critical issues. But they also agreed on the need to prevent a worst-case scenario which is their intensifying bilateral competition veering into a conflict, intended or unintended. How to set up the guardrails for that purpose will be an immediate priority. The focus of future dialogue will be on responsibly managing the elements of growing competition and emerging confrontation in their bilateral relationship.
Thirdly, the two leaders engaged in frank and direct conversation on their differences. The U.S. side described it as a "healthy" debate. This engagement must have allowed them to understand each other's bottom-lines on critical issues including in particular peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the East/South China Sea. This mutual understanding will help the two countries reduce the risk of inadvertent conflict spiraling out from a misunderstanding of each other's intentions.
Likewise, existing mutual misperceptions need to be addressed urgently. Washington tends to overestimate the rise of China and its aspirations to change the status quo. On the other hand, Beijing tends to overestimate the decline of the U.S. and its overseas commitments. These mutual misperceptions are dangerous as they are likely to lead to misjudgments about each other's intention.
Of course, the virtual summit last week was not meant as a magic bullet to untangle the increasingly thorny relationship between the U.S. and China. Some scholars call the two countries the G-2. But it seems that term is not liked by both for different reasons. The U.S. does not think of China as yet on a par with the U.S. in aggregate national power indexes. China thinks it is too early to be exposed to the international responsibility of providing global public goods.
The current situation is more akin to the uni/bi-polarity where the U.S. still maintains the dominant position with China catching up fast and outpacing other powers like the EU, Japan and Russia. For the moment, I think, there is low risk of falling into the so-called Thucydides trap under which a major conflict takes place when the rising No. 2 power challenges the previous No. 1 power.
But I am afraid that uncertainty is growing globally and regionally in East Asia mainly due to the lack of global leadership by both the U.S. and China in meeting emerging global and regional challenges. The international community is facing the unprecedented perfect storm of existential threats which are weapons of mass destruction, climate change and new disruptive technologies.
But the global response to this perfect storm is drifting without clear stewardship. The main fault lies with the inability of the U.S. and China to work together to steer the international community toward a global solution. If this continues unaddressed, it is likely to bring the world into a greater chaos in which both the U.S. and China will share the blame for causing G-0.
The virtual summit last week provided a breathing space for the two governments to figure out a new modus operandi for resetting their bilateral relationship. The future of the U.S.-China relationship is bound to be complex with the mix of the three C's, cooperation, competition and confrontation in constant evolution, depending on the changing nature of the issues at hand.
Now the leaders of the two countries need to identify: 1) where they must cooperate; 2) how they can manage responsibly the negative impact from their growing competition; and 3) how they should mitigate the risks of inadvertent conflict arising from possible confrontation through a pre-established crisis-management mechanism. They need to live up to the expectations of the international community to steer the world out of existential threats toward a world, safer, more secure and better for all. Failure is not an option ― for them and for the world.
Kim Won-soo (wsk4321@gmail.com) is the former under secretary-general of the United Nations and the high representative for disarmament. As a Korean diplomat, he served as secretary to the ROK president for foreign affairs. He is now the chair of the international advisory board of the Future Consensus Institute (Yeosijae) and a member of the Group of Eminent Persons for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBTO).
