附：詹姆斯·斯坦伯格演讲英文全文

Opportunities and Challenges in Sino-US Relations

James Steinberg

I have had many jobs in my life working as analyst and in the government，but one of the greatest honors and pleasures is that I have used to be a teacher，so it is such a great honor to have chance to speak with you today and to be able to talk along with this professor （Mr.Huang）. Thank you all so much for this great honor.

I come to speak to you about this both as a person who has been working in the government and as an analyst/professor，so you will hear in my talk some of each of these elements. I think it is very important to understand issues of China-USA relations from the perspective of a policy maker who has been involved in managing China-USA relations for many years. There are also some subjects I approach as a teacher and writer about US-China relations. So for students here you will hear both voices in the comments I have for you today.

I always think it is a special occasion to come back on the verge of 25^th anniversary of my first trip to China. I came here first in 1994. I was the head of the Policy Planning Department of the State Department working on US-China relations. It is fully a point of departure for the topic that I am going to discuss with you today because when I came here，it was after the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency. I think it is fair to say that the US-China relations were experiencing a very difficult time for a number of reasons that I am going to talk about following the 1992 election. The purpose of the first visit that I made with Warren Minor Christopher，the Secretary of State，was to try to find a way，after a period of considerable difficulty，to stabilize the relationship and to find a path better forward. And I think it is fair to say that in the years that followed that first visit in 1994，US-China relations had a long period of increased engagement between US and China，both at the level of our governments and equally important at the level of our people，greater economic interaction，greater people to people interaction，including very importantly the dramatic increase of the number of students who were trying to study initially from China to the United States and to some extent from the United States to here in China. For a number of years，we began to believe that there was a great and very bright future for US and China relations. I regret to say as I came here on the 25^th anniversary that some of the bright futures seem to look dimmer than when I first came here；there are a lot of questions about the nature of US-China relations. So today you see great challenges in US-China relations. I think all of you have followed the news recently；you heard the speeches which were given by US and Chinese officials at APEC. We see that there is a question mark over what is happening now in US-China relations，perhaps an even greater question mark about our future.

What at one time appeared to be the strategic progress and the improvement of relations between our two countries，now we see considerable difficulty across the full range of the relations and the uncertainty about the directions that are taking place. So what I am going to talk about is how we started on this path，and why for a time we believed in the possibility of a great future and constructive US-China relations，and why today there is a great question mark and great uncertainty about that future. Reviewing this history can help us understand what was the theory and logic of the relationship，why we were able to walk on this path for many years and why we have come to stumble in recent years.

The story is of course well known about how we started in our early years after the founding of the PRC. The USA and China had great difficulties in the early years of this relationship，for reasons that have to do with the nature of both societies and also as part of the international environment. At the beginning of 1970s，the US and China began to deepen our engagement with each other. The reason was based on the premise that we saw opportunities for both countries to benefit from improved relationships with each other，and for that to take place，we had to believe that each other’s success benefited not only our own country but the other as well. For many years，the understanding of the the relationship was，as my friends in China like to call it，a win-win relationship. It was the cornerstone of why we are able to cooperate together. The nature of the win-win relationship has to do with what was happening in our two countries but also with what was happening in the world. In the context of increasing globalization and interaction，it became possible to believe that our two societies need each other if we are going to achieve prosperity for both our people. It’s appropriate，as we mark the 40^th anniversary of opening up and reform in China，that China’s decision to embrace reform and opening up was central to the dynamic that led to improved relations between the US and China. It proceeded from the premise that having close interactions between our two economies and our two societies will both benefit China and help China achieve its goals by being more engaged in the world and more engaged with the US. But equally important is the understanding on the part of the US，that China’s success，the economic prosperity of China is not threatening to the US，but actually benefits the US. So both our countries began to adopt our policies that wished each other well，and understood that mutual success was critical to each other. US began to embrace the idea that a stronger and prosperous China was not only good for China but also good for the world including the US. And successive US presidents adopted the notion that China’s prosperity is not something that has to be achieved against that US，but should be pursued by working with the US. And China’s leaders embraced the view that China could be successful and prosperous and secure not by challenging the US but by partnering with the US，and dealing with challenges together.

That was a very promising basis for working together. We saw each other’s success as mutually beneficial. There was no reason to see China’s success as necessarily a threat to the US and there is no reason for China to challenge the international system and order that the US created after World War II. China saw that by participating in that system，not only the economic system，but a broader international system. China could achieve its own objectives. That view largely held through the 1970s，1980s，and 1990s and the first decade of the 21^TH century. Of course we had significant difficulties and challenges during those years. We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue，especially about our views on governance，about issues on human rights and freedom of expression，on territorial issues，and the way security in region was going to be managed，including our alliance relations. From time to time we had to deal with difficult issues like issues of proliferation，the South China Sea and Taiwan，but despite those tensions，and despite those challenges，the relationship thrived based on both sides’ conviction that underneath it all，we need each other and we benefit from each other. Therefore we need to manage these difficulties. We didn’t pretend the differences didn’t exist but we recognized that they should be managed because otherwise it will be harmful to both sides.

Yet，today something seems to have changed；the idea that the relationship is of win-win benefits is suddenly under question. For many people in the US and many people in China，there is considerable uncertainty about the premises that the relationship is mutually beneficial，that China’s success benefits the US，and that the world created by the US leadership is conducive to China’s success. That premise is now being challenged from both sides. So why is the idea of mutual benefits being replaced by increasing suspicion and accusation about the goals and objectives that each side is？

I think there are a number of reasons for that and we need to exam them to understand the logic behind this change. Without understanding why the relationship has deteriorated，we cannot begin to think about what if anything we can do to turn it around.

I will start by talking about the US perspective，both as a scholar and as a practitioner，to share with you some of the perspectives that are common in the US，and then I will try to describe what I think is the perspective of many in China，about what the reasons are for the growing uncertainty and doubts about the nature of our relationship. I want to suggest that there are at least five reasons why some in America have come to question whether the relationship is，or ever was，a win-win relationship. Actually we are seeing it as a zero sum game between two countries.

The first reason that is advanced by some American analysts is the US policy was based on a misguided belief that as China became wealthier and more successful，China’s political system would change，and therefore by encouraging China’s success and its growth and prosperity，China would become more like the US，and so we would have more convergence of the two political systems and convergence about the way we saw the world，and as a result the antagonisms between us would disappear over time. According to this critique，the past twenty years have disproved this view：China has been enormously successful economically and grown dramatically，seen tremendous improvements of the people’s standard of living in China，but the political system has not changed in China，and has remained pretty much the same. These analysts argue that since in their view，the “engagement strategy” was based on the belief that China would change politically，the lack of political change now requires to abandon the idea of whether we should welcome China’s success.

The second reason will be familiar to the students of international relations here，which is a view based on the so-called “realist” view of international relations，which argues that the whole notion that countries can have win-win relations is fundamentally mistaken，that it is not the nature of international system. The international system is a competition，and everyone seeks its improved position at the expense of others. This has been called the tragedy of great power relations：an inevitable feature of the international system that there will be competition of powers，and that is not possible for two nations，irrespective of their forms of government，to have a win-win relationship.

A third reason and related reason that have gained considerable attention lately focus on the particular features of relationship between the established dominant power and a rising which Graham Allison has called the Thucydides trap. According to this view，it is inevitably the case that the rising power wants to challenge the established power and change the global order to better protect the interests of the rising power. As the two powers become more equal and the rising power becomes closer to the established power，the risk of conflict increases. The advocates of this view argue that global history is largely the repeated story of clashes between the rising power and the established power. That is the third reason why some people said that this evolution of US-China relations in a less positive direction comes from the nature of the way China is rising in the contemporary system.

The fourth reason focuses less on the power relationships between our two countries，but rather on the ideological differences between our two countries. Under this view that persistence of the Communist Party and authoritarian governance model in China despite the end of the Cold War has perpetuated is a fundamental ideological tension between the democratic liberal government politics in the United States and the one of here in China. This view is very much embodied by the Trump Administration’s national security strategy which says that China，along with Russia，is challenging American power influence and attempting to erode American national security and influence，and relationship between America and China is a contest between who value dignity and freedom and those who oppress individuals and enforce uniformity. Language very much reminiscent of the Cold War is expression of a zero sum clash between two competing and incompatible ideologies.

The fifth reason has to do with the nature of globalization. According to this view，globalization is not a phenomenon where interdependence creates shared interests，but rather interdependence produces winners as well as losers. Globalization has created competition；it is not a world where everyone gains，but rather some will gain at others’ expense. As the the world becomes more open and more connected，that will inevitably cause more of the clashes between powers.

Each of these theories comes from a somewhat different view of the nature of the international system，but each has in common a pessimistic view about the opportunities for cooperation between our two societies. Each sees that there are deep forces that make it inevitable that we will be competitors or even adversaries.

On the Chinese side there is a similar，pessimistic turn of view emerging. Here of course，I speak with less of authority than when I try to describe what is happening in the US，but I perceive a similar sense that the nature of the international system may not as much of a win-win system as we had hoped for a long time，and equally the relationship between US and China is less of a win-win relationship. Why do I say that？First，because I see a growing，widespread view in China that the objective of the US is to contain China，keep China weak，prevent China from playing its rightful role in the international system，and to hamper China’s ability to reach its economic and security objectives-in other words，despite all the talk in the past，the US doesn’t really welcome a strong and prosperous China and that deep down，the US has never really been willing to accept the idea of having a country which is a peer or a near peer. The US，once being the top dog，wants to keep the top dog position and will not tolerate anybody challenging him. This view is not specific to China，but simply a strategy to assure that the US is trying to keep its unchallenged position in the international system.

The second reason that many Chinese seem to be moving away from a belief in the “win-win” concept of Sino-US relations stems from the growing confidence within China，about the Chinese Model，the idea that the path of economic development which has been successful for China can be successful for others，and it represents an alternative to the model spread by the US and its partners，a model even more successful than the liberal democratic model that the US and its partners are spreading. In this view China can now confidently say that we have an alternative，and we should be willing to present the alternative to the world as a different approach，and a better approach for the international governance than the one that has been advocated by the US. Under this view，if China was the “top dog”，the world would be more peaceful and stable than the world that has been dominated by the US. Advocates of this view point to the history of China，arguing that when China was strong and in power，it was a benign power-a vision encapsulated in the stories about the voyages of Zheng He，the days when Chinese sailors traveled the world and had the power to exert China’s well，but did not exercise its power to subjugate anybody else. The view that the Chinese dominance is preferable increases the willingness of China to challenge the order that the US created rather than try to work within in terms of the order that the US and its partners created after World War II.

The consequence of these two theories is each side may begin to believe that it is possible to succeed without the other，and maybe only possible to succeed at the expense of the other. That is the worst case，but even in the best case，the idea is that we don’t need each other to be successful. It is a policy that some analysts have called the policy of disengagement，the idea that we don’t need to work together to be successful；it may be useful for some cases，but it is not necessary for success. If each side comes to believe that it doesn’t need the other to succeed，each may be more willing to challenge the other when we have differences on issues in the South China Sea and Taiwan，human rights and the economic and trade system-we are less willing to compromise and to find solutions because we don’t really need to.

There are many reasons for why I believe this is a very worrisome result. The first is that I believe that the nature of the global economy is such that we do need each other. We need each other’s markets，and we need each other’s innovation and investment to be prosperous and successful. Second，and perhaps more importantly，if we stop working together，we cannot deal with problems such as terrorism or the proliferation of nuclear，biological and chemical weapons or climate change，the environment and public health-the great challenges to peace，security and prosperity for the 21^TH century. They are problems we cannot possibly deal with on our own；they are not the kind of problems that one country can solve by itself. Finally there is a third reason. If we stop believing that each other’s success is important to our success，then if we face future crises，which will inevitably occur as a result of choice or accident，our ability to manage those difficulties becomes very small. We know that accidents will happen，misunderstandings will occur，as happened frequently in the history of our relationship over the past decades. If we don’t have the conviction that we have shared interests and mutual dependence，then our desire to solve those problems，to compromise，to find the common ground becomes much less，and we are more likely to simply stand our ground and risk conflict. We know from the history that conflict comes not deliberately from acts of aggression；sometimes it emerges from the mistrust and suspicion that permit small crises to escalate into big ones-a danger we see today in the South and East China Seas or in managing the North Korea nuclear problem. So we should worry about the growth of these theories in both countries of seeing the world as a zero sum game，seeing the world as one where one can succeed at the expense of the other’s success.

Then the questions become，if this development is not in either of our own interests，how we get back to a world in which we see our interests are joined together，to understand that differences exist and will continue to exist，but we recognize that real choices are not between who wins and who loses，but rather between win-win or lose-lose.

The challenge is very difficult，given the prevailing dynamic logics that have fueled distrust：how do we rebuild a world in which each side of us really believes in the value of relationship？There is a lot of vague discussion about how to build trust between our two countries，but words by themselves are unlikely to reassure to each other that the US doesn’t want success at the expense of China，and China doesn’t want success at the expense of the US. We need to work out an approach that is convincing about this perspective，to convince each other that we don’t seek ill for each other. It doesn’t come through conferences and signing documents；it happens in a very labor intensive process，in which each side begins to identify to the other what are the things that you are doing that are worrying us，what are the steps you are taking that we think that are signs that we think you don’t want us to be successful，that you want to succeed at our expense. By identifying those very concrete things，and then trying to find a solution for those very specific problems，we can begin to make progress.

I realize this is a very general prescription，so let me give you an example. As you may know，for the US，one of the major concern is the question about cyber security. China is using cyber technology in many ways that the US is concerned about that China is using cyber tools to benefit at the expense of the US. In order to solve the problem of cyber espionage，it is not enough for China to simply deny that these acts are taking place；we need to build the mechanism where the US can raise its concern about a certain case and we can jointly work together and find out what the facts are，identify together that what measures should be taken. If we are willing to take seriously each other’s concerns and make the effort to deal with them，either by disapproving or addressing the allegation，then we will have greater confidence that each side is willing to solve the problem.

Can this approach work？Yes，it can work. Let me give you an example from my own experience. When I first came to China in 1994，it was a very difficult time in China-US relations and one of the issues at the time was the belief in the US that China was providing technologies to countries to help their nuclear and missile programs，a particular concern being that China was providing technology to the Pakistan government and other countries to develop nuclear weapons. This conviction in the US was based on evidence to support this concern. Over the years，the US had raised this concern to our counterparts in China and the answer that came back was no，we don’t believe in nuclear proliferation，trust us. But that answer was not good enough given the concrete evidence we had. As a result，the US Congress began to insist we impose the sanctions mandated by the US laws for transferring this knowledge. We in the Clinton Administration knew that imposing sanctions would have a negative effect at a time when we were trying to build the relationship，but we had no choice but to act unless China addressed the concerns we had repeatedly raised. To head off this looming confrontation，my boss，Secretary of State Warren Christopher，and his counterpart，Foreign Minister Qian Qichen，met，and Secretary Christopher told Minister Qian that we have a problem here，we see evidence of the nuclear technology transfer going on and we need to solve this problem The two ministers decided to work out a mechanism to let both governments work together，jointly investigate to find the facts and reach a common understanding. If we were able to see through the investigation that the Chinese side was right，or that the problem had occurred because it was some rogue companies，not the Chinese government，that were responsible for transferring the technology，and the Chinese side itself had taken effective actions to stop the transferring，sanction need not be imposed. Together，we found a mechanism to jointly work out the problem，and give us the confidence in each other’s intentions and goals. It was a pragmatic solution，which allowed us to avoid a very bad result，and restore confidence in our mutual commitment to non-proliferation.

This is an illustration of my idea that our two sides work together to solve problems that produce mistrust. It may not be success in every case，but it will help enough to demonstrate that we take each other’s concerns seriously. In some cases，the concerns are real and not simply misunderstandings-the fact is there are real differences between us：we simply see the world in different ways and have different conceptions of what should be done. The approach I have outlined won’t solve these problems. But if we can solve the problems where we do have shared interest but we don’t trust each other，we will be in a better place to manage the real differences. The great German sociologist Max Weber described good policy making as “the slow boring of hard boards”-the success requires us to work hard and make incremental progress. We don’t often produce dramatic changes，but over time the small boring of hard wood can produce confidence and can turn around the dynamic. We have to take each other’s concern seriously，not simply dismiss them out of hand and say it is your problem，not mine；we should give credit to each other’s concern even when we disagree-it is the only way to stabilize our relationship. I do believe we can get back to the positive view that we had for so many years and we and the world at large would benefit a lot from it. I cannot promise this will happen，but we should make clear to our leaders，from the top to the middle and the bottom，that is the responsibility for all of us to do our part to try to understand why our relationship has come to this point and what we can do to change the situation. Thank you so much.