POST-EVENT SUMMARY
2022 marks the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s visit to China, which is widely regarded as an ice-breaking visit after decades of contention and complete distrust between the two countries. It was also during this visit that the Shanghai Communique was released, which constitutes one of the essential pillars to China-US relations. President Nixon’s visit was one of global significance and directly led to a new chapter in developing China-US ties and the world at large. Just as Dr. Henry Kissinger predicted when laying the groundwork for President Nixon to meet Mao Zedong, opening the door to thawing US-China relations would profoundly change the entire world. During the past 50 years, due to the unremitting efforts of leaders during different periods, the China-US relationship has brought concrete benefits to people of all walks of life on both sides, even despite the difficulties being faced today.
On this special occasion, the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD) and the Institute for China-America Studies (ICAS) jointly held an online dialogue to reflect upon the outstanding political wisdom of leaders in the past, drawing experiences from history and more importantly, to find enlightenment for the future development of China-US relations under President Biden’s administration. Conducted under Chatham House Rules, both ICAS and CPAPD were truly honored to have met with a distinguished panel of leading scholars to participate in this dialogue under the belief that it is imperative to promote discussion during such a crucial period between the strategic circles of China and the United States. Drawing insights from four Chinese scholars and four American scholars, the dialogue was split between two panels. The organizers and speakers alike hoped that the primary outcome of hosting this professional and rational dialogue would be to contribute to the China-US relationship positively and to honor the legacy of President Nixon’s historic visit to China.
Panel I: The Historical Meaning and Strategic Value of President Nixon’s Visit
In the first panel, the Chinese and American scholars endeavored to reflect on and apply to today the significant lessons learned from negotiations that led to the historic Shanghai Communique. Both sides generally acknowledged that the disputes and contradictions facing the two nations back then were no less contentious than those of today in many cases. In fact, the two nations had very recently fought against each other during the Korean War, so hostilities were even more heightened. The domestic issues faced by both countries during this time were no less perilous. China was embroiled in the midst of its Cultural Revolution and faced severe economic blowback created by the Great Leap Forward that was abandoned in 1961. Despite these significant tensions and the reality that this meeting would not resolve all the serious issues between the two countries, the Shanghai Communique was still able to lay the groundwork for what would become known as the ‘Engagement Policy’. The panelists suggested this was achievable primarily due to both sides having the ability to shelve disputes for later that would derail any meaningful progress in finding common ground, such as the Taiwan issue.
The advancement of the US-China relationship allowed for the period of detente that later developed between the United States and the Soviet Union and allowed for the Vietnam War to begin reaching a conclusion. America and China saw strategic opportunities and, unbeknownst to them, would profoundly change the course of history in a way that was mutually a net positive. The period of engagement that helped solve many of their problems over the last five decades has now become a scapegoat for all of the woes that the two countries have for each other. Yet, the panelists agreed that cultural, structural, ideological, and strategic differences result from diverging paths. It is incorrect to say that one is better than the other or that one must triumph over the other. For instance, the feelings that the US has against China deserve scrutiny as America was not fully prepared for all the changes that globalization brought. But this does not mean that China should be let off the hook either, as there are valid issues that must also be addressed. Coexistence and the pursuit of mutual benefits do not mean that the two countries have to share everything in common.
The discussion portion of the first panel opened with a candid recollection of major events of the last several decades, most notably the contentions and benefits surrounding China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. China undoubtedly benefited from its ‘Open Door Policy’, as popularized during the Deng Xiaoping era, but it was also the United States and global economy that benefitted as well. The US sponsorship of China’s WTO entry was not one-sided in favor of just China. The difference between the conversations held in the Nixon era through the turn of the century to today’s state of affairs was how leadership encouraged the development of the relationship in two dimensions: the private conversations held behind closed doors and the constructive conversations held publicly. Fortunately, it has been acknowledged that even considering the current hardships between the two countries, there is still an intense and robust network of individuals through people-to-people exchanges that remains a vital bulwark. The panel was left with the agreement that today, the two countries have blinded themselves to shared interests and values shared between them and that they would do well to look backward 50 years to how the thawing of relations started in order to find new paths forward.
Panel II: Measures and Pathways to Pragmatically Promote the China-U.S. Relationship
In the second panel, the American and Chinese scholars debated the current realities and worked to break down the difficult next steps needed to tangibly progress the relationship towards a more mutually beneficial direction. Both sides agreed that, while there are similarities to the state of bilateral relations faced 50 years ago and that the event should be studied, there are just as many new factors that prevent what worked in 1972 from succeeding today. Namely, the ever-present element of distrust between the two countries that permeates interactions at almost all levels of society.
All of the scholars agreed that current leaders in both China and the U.S. had developed an inherent–and very public–distrust of their counterparts that virtually blocks any chance of an incremental healing of relations. Much of this disheartening distrust, it was explained, has been propagated and kept alive by the media and lawmakers alike. And even where personal doubt does not exist, and logic is prioritized in interactions, political leaders are often pressured by their domestic constituents and political rivals. In particular, the Chinese side noted the solid and consistent presence of competitive terminology in Washington’s publications, speeches, strategies, and releases. With all this in mind, it was implied that the only natural next step for policymakers and leaders would be to resume holding private bilateral discussions away from public interference and live judgment. Additionally, the importance of people-to-people exchanges cannot be understated, though they acknowledged that this would take time and patience. Both sides agree that leaders need to start with low-hanging fruit within the next 2-to 3 years to rebuild trust and personal connections. For example, one American scholar suggested that China abide by and fulfill its mutually beneficial Phase One trade deal agreements as a sign of logical reasoning and good faith.
Regarding the topic of climate change as a point of cooperation, there was minimal positivity on the likelihood of a partnership coming to fruition, given that discussions on this topic have a history of rarely progressing into tangible action. Conversely, taking the Biden administration’s current focus areas into account, there were concerns brought forward that climate change would soon become a point of contention and competition if no effort is directly made towards joining the U.S. and China together on this issue. For example, one scholar noted that the Biden administration’s work to revamp supply chains impacted by climate change was designed so as to not depend on Chinese manufacturers. If such intentions are not recognized and adjusted, then the opportunity to leverage each country’s respective strengths on climate change could be lost to purely competitive drives. As a general sentiment shared by all the scholars, unless the U.S. relationship with China is prioritized and intentional steps are taken to improve the relationship and the mutual perception of one another, then the current state of the relationship–filled with distrust, hysteria, competition, and decoupling–might become the new normal.
