The Eighth World Peace Forum， a high-level seminar on international security， was held at Tsinghua University in Beijing on July 8-9. Every year， the forum invites political personages， heads of inter
The Eighth World Peace Forum， a high-level seminar on international security， was held at Tsinghua University in Beijing on July 8-9. Every year， the forum invites political personages， heads of international organizations， international think tank experts and multinational executives from different countries to discuss the global situation and related issues. A panel discussion on China-U.S. relationship and the world order this time had experts from both countries share their views and concerns. This is an edited excerpt of some comments：
Chen Xiaogong， former Deputy Director of the Off ice of the Central Leading Group for Foreign Affairs of China
Over the past four decades， the scientific and technological cooperation between Chinese and U.S. governments has been beneficial and fruitful for both. In addition， there has been a great deal of nongovernmental cooperation， such as between research institutes and universities. Those achievements should be acknowledged.
Meanwhile， since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949， U.S. technological sanctions or export controls against China have never stopped. After the end of the Cold War， the U.S. led the signing of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies （a multilateral regime to control export of conventional weapons as well as goods and technologies that can have both civil and military use）， which mainly targets developing countries， including China.
In November 2018， the Bureau of Industry and Security under the U.S. Department of Commerce proposed a new category of export controls on 14 “emerging” and “foundational”technologies. The category matches the 10 priority areas of the Made in China 2025 program（China’s industrial upgrading strategy that aims to shift the economy into higher value-added manufacturing sectors）.
The tightening of U.S. scientific and technological controls against China is not a sudden decision， but a continuation of the long-standing U.S. policy of restricting and blocking China in the fi eld. It stands more for competing with China and the U.S. concern of being overtaken by China.
In short， the trade friction between China and the U.S. is not only the result of the adjustment of the U.S. policy toward China at a time when the balance of power between the two is changing， but also the continuation of the longstanding confl icts and struggles in the fi elds of economy， science and technology.
The global industrial chain will undergo a major adjustment with the continuing tension between China and the U.S.， and China’s economic development will certainly be affected. However， the negative results will also recoil on the U.S. if it continues to intervene in the global industrial and value chain with powerful means， ignoring the rules of industrial transfer and the international division of labor.
Michael Swaine， senior researcher with U.S. foreign policy think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
China has become a more powerful player in the international arena. The concern about what role China will play in the international order has made many people in the U.S. and other countries anxious.
The rise of China has indeed posed challenges to some old power systems and norms， but none of this means that China is trying to overthrow the international order or replace the U.S. role in global governance.
Washington has tended to demonize China over the past years with extremely adversarial policies adopted by President Donald Trump’s administration. The view that considers China as a fundamental threat to the U.S. and the corresponding measures chosen， even threatening to decouple economic relations， are completely wrong. Such misunderstanding and action could backfi re and show devastating effects on both sides.
There are a lot of diffi culties and uncertainties in the relations between the two countries， and the bilateral relationship will remain more competitive for the indefinite future. But the real challenge is to establish a relationship that recognizes that we can compete in some areas， sometimes， in a very sharp way， and yet not be enemies， and where the two sides can also cooperate in many necessary areas. That is， to achieve a kind of bilateral relationship that truly takes into consideration the reality rather than an exaggerated fear and concern of the other side.
In today’s world， hegemonism should give way to more balanced global development that better reflects an integrated world economy， especially in such fi elds as technology， services and cybersecurity. China and the U.S. should try to meet each other half way and achieve a more integrated， balanced and mutually benefi -cial cooperation in the future.
Wang Jisi， President of the Institute of International and Strategic Studies， Peking University
Since 2009， the change in the U.S. attitude toward China has not been abrupt， but there has been a series of negative factors in the strategic positioning of bilateral relations， security and military cooperation， economic and trade ties， political interaction and people-topeople exchanges， which have evolved finally from quantitative to qualitative changes.
The negative view to fully contain China does exist in the U.S. although a certain group， including some offi cials in the Trump administration， has also realized that the development of the Chinese economy can truly bring benefi ts to its country and the world at large.
The rules of the socialist market economy followed by China are seen as state capitalism by the U.S.， which is incompatible with its freemarket norms. But China’s political system and development path are becoming more attractive to some developing countries， which is viewed as challenging the Western ideology and democratic model. The differences in values， political systems and other aspects have generated a sense of distrust between the two countries， leading to misinterpretations and disputes.
Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan addresses the opening ceremony of the Eighth World Peace Forum in Beijing on July 8 In spite of the changes in our respective countries and the international situation， China and the U.S. need to stay committed to what we started out with， and build a China-U.S. relationship based on coordination， cooperation and stability.
China can also be more proactive in pursuing cooperation with the U.S. over issues that concern its national interests， such as the problem of nuclear proliferation， the Korean Peninsula situation， the rise of right-wing politics in Europe and the rise of extremism in Southeast Asia.
David Finkelstein， Vice President of the Center for Naval Analyses， a U.S. nonprof it research organization
Though China and the U.S. agreed to restart trade talks in Osaka， Japan， on the sidelines of the Group of 20 Summit in June， the tension between our two countries might continue even after a trade agreement is concluded. As Chinese foreign policy becomes more proactive， and with its increasing role on the world stage， China’s national interests and the national interests of the U.S. will be intertwined in more areas， which， in some cases， may continue to bring about tension and competition.
China-U.S. relations have entered a crucial new stage full of uncertainties. Currently， competition in several areas has far outweighed cooperation. The balance between competition and cooperation has become a daunting challenge.
Starting from the second presidential term of Barack Obama， some stakeholders in the U.S. suggested that retaliatory measures should be taken against China’s foreign and domestic policies that are detrimental to the interests of the U.S.
The competition between the two is becoming more prominent and will continue for some time. This does not mean that bilateral relations should follow a dichotomous thinking， or that cooperation is no longer possible.
On the contrary， cooperation is still in the interests of both sides. But it means that the contradictions cannot be ignored. Such mechanisms as the U.S.-China comprehensive economic dialogue should be better organized to address and resolve the comprehensive set of economic issues between the two countries.
Although today we are faced with some problems and challenges， the U.S. and China share a profound friendship， and the question is whether our leaders and offi cials are capable of taking advantage of such a deep friendship to properly manage differences.
