Increased understanding through dialogue may be helping China and the United States establish a more collaborative relationship
　　
　　SENIOR DIALOGUE: These talks help Beijing and Washington to bridge gaps, better understand each other and establish
　　
　　reasonable, effective policies
　　
　　At first glance, China and the United States are about as far from each other politically, economically and culturally as they are geographically. The two nations have vastly different historical origins, and many of their values and traditions bear no likeness. Yet, the people of these two nations share a strong sense of interest and respect for each other.
　　This human connection is at the root of the recent series of bilateral talks between the governments of China and the United States, and has helped them to bridge gaps in understanding in an effort to strengthen ties and establish reasonable, effective policies. Increased understanding, say U.S. Sinologists, is helping to reshape the relationship between the two countries from the competitive to the collaborative. The evolution of Washington’s China policy, experts say, is evidenced in the language of process of the talks.
　　The “senior dialogues,” as the United States has labeled them, lack the political fanfare of a summit meeting or an official state visit and allow for foreign policy experts on both sides to roll up their sleeves and hash out their differences. According to foreign policy experts at the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., the first two meetings between Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, held in early August and December 2005, respectively, were very successful and set the pace for more groundbreaking discussions to follow later this year.
　　Jing Huang, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, said the purpose of the senior dialogues is three-fold: to understand the most important problems that exist between the two countries; to understand the specific concerns of both countries in regard to the bilateral relationship; and to foster a greater personal understanding between the key figures involved in the discussions.
　　“The senior dialogues are about increasing understanding, not about defining policy,” said Jeffrey Bader, Senior Fellow and Director of the China Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
　　“China is an ‘insider’ now. Its development can be positive for the international system and for the United States. The emphasis now is on how we can induce China to take the right direction.” ---Jing Huang, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution
　　Whereas summit meetings are limited by the busy schedules of the top leaders, the senior dialogues allow both sides to delve more deeply into the matters that concern them, sometimes over a period of several days, and to get to know each other better, Bader said. It is the kind of format that enables both sides to better understand the implications behind their rhetoric.
　　Rhetorical issues have come up repeatedly in past years as the United States and China define the terms of their relationship. In September 2005, there was a debate over whether a planned visit to the United States by President Hu Jintao would be considered a state visit by Washington, and what it implied if it was not so. Even the naming of the current senior dialogues has come into question. Whereas China continues to call the series of discussions “strategic dialogues,” the United States has chosen to refer to them as “senior dialogues.”
　　“The term ‘strategic dialogues’ is reserved for allies of the United States,” explained Huang. “Our relationship with China is not defined in those terms.”
　　From the perspective of the United States, if China is not an ally, then what is it? “A stakeholder,” said Huang.
　　
　　Becoming a stakeholder
　　
　　This brings up yet another subject of bilateral rhetoric. In his speech made last September to the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations in New York City following the first round of senior dialogues, Zoellick redefined U.S.-China relations by repeatedly referring to China as a “stakeholder.”
　　“It is time to take our policy beyond opening doors to China’s membership in the international system: We need to urge China to become a responsible stakeholder in that system,” said Zoellick.
　　Heretofore, the United States had considered China to be a developing “outsider,” said Huang. The notion that China is a stakeholder in the international system is an important step in the progress of the bilateral relationship. It implies that the United States is looking at China as an international partner. But, at first, the term was confusing to the Chinese, Huang said. Shortly after Zoellick made his remarks, Bader and Huang traveled to China to explain to various officials what the term “stakeholder” means in the context of bilateral relations.
　　“The senior dialogues are about increasing understanding, not about defining policy.” ---Jeffrey Bader, Senior Fellow and Director of the China Initiative at the Brookings Institution
　　“We went to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and different think tanks to explain it,” said Huang. “The Chinese were happy to be considered qualified to be a stakeholder.”
　　And in the United States, according to Huang, the view of China as an “outsider” has totally changed.
　　“China is an ‘insider’ now,” said Huang. “Its development can be positive for the international system and for the United States. The emphasis now is on how we can induce China into the right direction.”
　　Beyond the rhetoric of the talks are the real topics of discussion. These are the issues that define the relationship between China and the United States. But, in the most recent round of talks, in December, the two sides stayed away from any detailed discussion of the most sensitive topics. These include the trade deficit, the value of China’s currency and intellectual property rights. Instead, they focused on more external issues, including foreign policy, nuclear proliferation, energy and combating terrorism. These are important issues, no doubt, but not the most troubling areas of dispute between China and the United States.
　　Of course, the talks are not over and the relationship will continue to develop.
　　“These talks will continue for as long as they are considered useful,” said Gerrit Gong, Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic Studies and professor of political science at Brigham Young University. “It’s an ongoing process that lays the groundwork for real progress at summit meetings.”
　　
　　A row over trade
　　
　　“These talks [senior dialogues] will continue for as long as they are considered useful. It’s an ongoing process that lays the groundwork for real progress at summit meetings.”---Gerrit Gong, Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic Studies and professor of political science at Brigham
　　Young University
　　As bilateral talks continue, experts agree that the two nations will inevitably come head-to-head over the issue of trade. Bader said it is only a matter of time before friction over trade between the United States and China erupts just the way it did between the United States and Japan in the 1980s.
　　Huang was a little more specific in his projection. “It’s a ticking time bomb and I predict it will explode around the mid-term election [in November 2006],” Huang said. As U.S. Congressional leaders and hopefuls make their bids for office throughout this year, they will take with them to Washington the concerns of the local business owners and workers they represent.
　　With concern about job outsourcing to China and inexpensive imports hitting the U.S. markets, experts are anticipating growing anti-China sentiment to be given voice in local media. But, what may seem like a projected shift in the relationship, they said, is just a change in focus from the White House to Congress. The White House has been consistently welcoming to China, said Bader, whereas Congress has been historically combative. In a political environment where the Bush administration has been weakened, Congress is effectively stronger, Bader said. Add to that the limelight of an election year and the result is a projection for heated trade disputes between the United States and China in 2006.
　　“Before the election, the issue of trade is a campaign issue; after the election, it is a political and economic issue,” said Huang. “Either way, it’s a serious matter that has to be addressed.”
　　And it will be, say the analysts. One way or another, they predict the disputes will have to be resolved peacefully because both sides value the other too highly to let it escalate into more serious political tension. Even the Taiwan issue, experts predict, will remain stable for the foreseeable future.
　　According to Gong, China is not in a position to act on Taiwan without risking a direct conflict with the United States and Taiwan does not have the support of the United States to move toward independence. At least for the near term, concluded Gong, the cross-strait situation will remain quiet. In the meantime, if the talks continue, China and the United States will continue to deepen their understanding of each other and further their interdependence.
　　Whether they are called “strategic dialogues” or “senior dialogues,” the format of current talks and their emphasis on promoting deeper bilateral understanding has experts in the United States agree that dialogue is a good thing.
　　Zoellick’s remarks on the meetings demonstrate what experts say is a clear U.S. policy of positive engagement; a policy that shows respect for China as an emerging political and economic power. It is a policy that is consistent with its initial position, while remaining open to further evolution, one that can only come out of a commitment to maintaining that human connection through dialogue. “These talks are still at an early stage,” said Gong. “It’s very constructive to have them. The people involved are very competent strategists.”
　　

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Bridging Gap Ｂｒｉｄｇｉｎｇ　ｔｈｅ�。牵幔� bridge the gap意譯 gap year