China-U.S. relationship at juncture after balloon puncture

Top Chinese IR expert on future of China-U.S. relationship

Before we dive into the newsletter, allow me to insert a small ad. Several of my colleagues are setting up a Mastodon page to update China-related news. Visit 【http://chinanews.social】and follow the gang, so you don't miss the latest.

In Late February, Peking University’s Jia Qingguo spoke with China Review News on the state of the China-U.S. relationship.

Jia Qingguo is a professor and former dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University. He is also a delegate at the CPPCC, China’s top political advisory body.

Below is a translation of his interview.

The Need for Transparency and Pragmatism in Sino-US Conversations

中美战略互疑　需透明务实沟通

Q: The recent balloon incident has cast a shadow over Sino-US relations again. What’s your opinion regarding the impact of this incident? 

A: This incident itself is not such a big deal. Even if the balloon is used for intelligence gathering as the US claims, as its capacity is very limited since the information it can gather can also be collected through satellites, Google Earth, and other means. Not to mention that the Chinese government has clarified that it is a civilian meteorological balloon. This incident has been hyped up unnecessarily, especially by some extreme figures in the US who seized on this opportunity and repeatedly hyped up China’s image as a threatening power, eventually forcing the Biden administration to take on a tough stance on this issue and sending military aircraft to shoot it down. Of course, extreme voices in China also exaggerated this matter. It should be said that this matter has caused a much larger impact than many on both sides expected.

As for Sino-US relations, I think the biggest impact is primarily on the public opinion of each country for the other. The public, led on by the media, perceived the other side as unreasonable without fully understanding the issue. This perception can cause long-term damage to the bilateral relationship. Secondly, it has an impact on the official interaction between the two countries. Due to domestic politics in the US, the Biden administration decided to postpone the visit of Secretary of State Blinken to China, which set back the efforts to implement the consensus between Xi and Biden on stabilizing and improving Sino-US relations.

中评社记者：近期的“气球事件”令中美关系再度蒙上一层阴影，想请问您如何看待这个事件对中美关系带来的冲击？

贾庆国：这个“气球事件”本身并不是那么大的事，因为即使这个气球像美国说的那样是用于收集情报的，它能够收集到情报的价值也非常有限，因为它能收集到的东西通过卫星、谷歌地球和其他的方式都可以收集到，且不说中国政府还澄清说它是个民用气象气球。但是，这件事情这次却被炒得非常大，尤其美国那边一些比较极端的人抓住这个事情不放，反复的炒作中国威胁，最后逼着拜登政府在这个问题上强硬表态并出动军机将其击落。当然，中国这边也有一些极端的人在炒作这个事情。应该说，这件事闹那么大出乎双方很多人的意料。对中美关系而言，我觉得最大的影响首先是对双方民众对彼此看法的冲击，老百姓搞不清楚怎么回事，但受媒体影响感觉对方国家很不讲理，这种情况对中美关系的影响是长远的和负面的。其次是对两国官方互动的影响，由于美国国内政治的原因，拜登政府决定推迟国务卿布林肯到中国的访问，使得两国政府落实中美首脑关于稳定和改善中美关系共识的努力受挫。

Q: The balloon incident seems to indicate that the mutual suspicion between China and the US is difficult to resolve. In the current situation, how do you think China and the US should strengthen communication and resolve their differences?

A: Now, China and the US may need more communication than ever before to avoid more intense confrontations on conflicts in specific issues. First, both sides must take a more proactive approach to stabilize and improve the situation rather than wait for the other side to act. Since stabilizing and improving Sino-US relations are in their own national interests, they should take the initiative to do so. Doing so may invite criticism at home, but I believe that both sides need to withstand domestic political pressure to do the right thing for their respective national interests. China and the US have many issues that need to be clarified, many things that need to be negotiated, many differences that need to be resolved, and many common interests that need to be maintained. Both sides need to make greater efforts to stop the continuous decline in bilateral relations.

中评社记者：“气球事件”似乎显示中美战略互疑积重难返，面对当下困局，您觉得中美双方应该如何加强沟通管控分歧？

贾庆国：现在中美双方可能比以往任何时候都需要通过沟通来管控两国之间的分歧，避免由于在具体问题上的冲突导致两国间出现更加激烈的对抗。具体需要做什么呢？我觉得，首先，双方都需要采取更加进取的态度去做稳定和改善关系的事情，不要等着对方去做，既然稳定和改善关系符合自己的国家利益，那么就应该主动去做。这样做也许会在国内政治上招致观点偏激人的攻击，但是我觉得为了各自的国家利益，双方都需要顶住国内政治压力来做正确的事。中美有很多问题需要要去澄清，有很多事情需要去商量怎么办，有不少分歧需要管控，有许多共同利益需要去维护，双方都需要做出更大的努力制止两国关系持续下滑。

Q You just mentioned the need to stop the continuous decline of the Sino-US relationship. How do you think both sides can avoid negative interactions in the current situation?

A: First, both sides need to increase transparency. Their policies and actions should be more in the open. Second, when issues arise, timely communication with the other side is necessary to explain the situation and control the problem at an early stage. Third, explaining and clarifying to the public as soon as possible when issues arise is important to avoid giving extreme voices the opportunity to manipulate the issue and exploit the hostility between the two countries. Fourth, when both sides make public statements, they should try to take into account the other side's position and avoid making statements that would embarrass the other party or lead to a vicious cycle of interaction. This is especially important in the current situation with the uncomfortable political climate in Sino-US relations. Both sides face various political pressures domestically, so to stabilize the relationship between the two countries, we need to learn to put ourselves in the shoes of the other side, consider their perspective, and interact based on this foundation. If this approach applies to interpersonal relationships, it applies to international politics. No one should expect to solve problems through humiliation and blame.

您刚刚说需要遏制中美关系持续下滑，您认为在当下变局，中美双方如何能够尽量避免负面互动呢？

贾庆国：首先，双方都需要增加透明度，双方的政策、做法都需要更加公开透明。第二，出现问题要及时与对方沟通，向对方说明情况，尽早把问题控制在萌芽状态。第三，出现问题也要尽早向公众说明和做出解释，避免让一些极端人士炒作这个议题和以此绑架两国关系。第四，中美双方公开表态时，在坚持原则的前提下，要尽可能照顾对方的处境，避免说一些让对方难堪的话，避免恶性互动。这在两国政治气氛非常不好的情况下，尤其需要这样做。双方在国内都面临各种政治压力，所以要想稳定两国关系，就需要学会换位思考，英文是叫“Putting oneself in other's shoes”，多从对方的角度想一想，在此基础上进行互动。处理人与人之间关系要想有积极的结果需要这样，处理国家与国家之间的关系也是如此，谁也不要指望通过羞辱和指责对方来解决问题。

Q: How do you think the consensus reached by the Chinese and U.S. leaders can be implemented?

A: The results of the meeting between the Chinese and U.S. leaders were good, and some important and beneficial consensus was reached on managing bilateral relations. However, it also exposed a problem: the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated to the point where it requires the personal intervention of the two leaders to manage it, which is not normal. Sino-US relations involve various aspects, and many agencies at all levels of both governments are responsible and obligated to manage this relationship. For various reasons, many people now feel that they cannot manage the part of the relationship they are responsible for and can only solve problems through summit meetings. Some of the consensus reached in Bali has been reached before. The responsible agencies should have taken the initiative to handle the relationship between the two countries according to the consensus rather than waiting for specific instructions from leaders every time.

Another problem is that some officials at all levels of both sides have overrated domestic political risks when dealing with Sino-US relations, especially when the domestic political atmosphere tends to be extreme. They tend to adopt a more aggressive attitude when dealing with the relationship between the two countries because it is politically safer. However, when both sides adopt a tough attitude, it is difficult for them to handle the problems pragmatically.

中评社记者：您认为中美元首外交中达成的共识应该如何落实到务实层面？

贾庆国：中美首脑会晤的结果还是不错的，双方就管理两国关系问题达成一些重要和有益的共识。但它也暴露出一个问题，那就是两国关系已经坏到了非要通过两国首脑亲自出面才能管控的地步，这很不正常。中美关系涉及方方面面，两国各个层级的许多部门都有管理这个关系的责任和义务。由于种种原因，现在不少人认为自己无法管理自己负责的那部分关系，最终只能通过元首会晤来解决问题，这令人遗憾。这次会晤达成的一些共识其实双方的领导人以前就达成过，具体层面的主管早就应该主动按照这些共识去处理两国关系，而不是每次都等国家领导人对解决这些问题发出具体指示。

还有一个问题就是一些双方的各级官员在处理中美两国关系时都有过度考虑国内政治风险的问题，特别是在国内政治气氛不好的时候，处理两国关系时倾向于采取更加强硬的态度，因为这样做政治上比较安全。但是，在双方都采取了强硬的态度的情况下，双方就很难务实地去处理两国面临的问题。

Despite Washington’s Tough Attitude, Cooperation is Inevitable 

华盛顿对华强硬高度共识　合作现实无法回避

Q: Based on your observation, is there a high degree of consensus in the US between Democrats and Republicans on anti-Chinese topics?

A: Yes, a high degree of consensus may exist in Washington on the tough attitude towards China, but there are different opinions on their respective motives. Based on political realism, the first view believes that China's rise will inevitably challenge the interests and privileges of the US as a dominant power. The US must resist such a change, so conflict between the two countries is inevitable. This is the view of containment. Policymakers who hold this view have long advocated for containing China, believing that the US cannot allow China to rise. The containment camp had been a minority in the US until not so long ago.

The second view stems from ideology and values. After years of engaging with China, some are frustrated that they failed to change China in the way the US expected, and that China is becoming a country that is fundamentally at odds with the US in terms of values, a so-called “rogue state”. The existence of a rogue state itself is a threat, not to mention its rise. For example, North Korea is not particularly powerful, but it is seen as a rogue state, and many countries consider it a threat. Now, some of the people who used to believe in engagement with China in the US believe that China is becoming a rogue state, and with China's rise, it is becoming a huge threat to American values and its way of life. They also advocate being tough on China and hope to find a way to push China to change in the direction the US desires.

The third view is a racist view, which believes that China, as a so-called inferior state, should not be allowed to become powerful. Therefore, China's strength threatens the US as a country ruled by a so-called superior race, and measures need to be taken to contain it. This group of people is not large in number, but they have a lot of energy.

In summary, although there is a consensus to be tough on China, the reasons behind the consensus are vastly different, and most Americans still hold moderate views on China. In their view, China and the US should not be in conflict but should cooperate in areas of common interest. These people go with the flow on Sino-US issues because being tough on China has become a politically correct thing to do, and not going along with the flow is risky. For example, when the US Congress votes on bills and resolutions related to China or Taiwan, they are usually passed with a super high percentage or even a unanimous vote. This is very abnormal because the US Congress is usually divided on any issue, and it is hard to imagine that a major bill would have a support rate of over 60%. However, when it comes to bills related to China and Taiwan, one may be isolated and attacked if one does not vote as the consensus dictates. Therefore, although many legislators may not privately agree with more radical measures, they still vote in favor in the end.

中评社记者：就您观察，现在美国两党是不是在反华或者说遏制中国的议题上有高度共识？

贾庆国：应该说在对中国强硬这个问题上，现在华盛顿政策圈子有高度共识，但是在为什么要对中国强硬问题上，其实也存在不同看法。第一种看法，从现实主义出发，认为中国崛起必然要挑战作为守成大国的美国的利益和特权，美国必然要抵制，所以两国冲突势所必然，这是“遏制派”的看法。基于这种看法，遏制派早早就提出遏制中国的主张，认为美国不能允许中国崛起。遏制派在美国在不久以前还是少数派。

第二种看法从意识形态和价值观出发，对过去一些年美国对中国实行接触政策失败，也就是中国没有朝美国期待的方向变化，感到失望，认为中国正在变成一个跟美国在价值观上截然对立的国家，即所谓的“异类”国家。跟同类国家不同，异类国家的存在本身就是威胁，且不说崛起了。比如说，朝鲜本身并不是那么强大，但是它被认为是个异类国家，所以不少国家认为它是威胁。现在美国过去“接触派”的一部分人认为中国正在变成一个“异类”国家，而且，随着中国的崛起，正在成为对美国价值观和生活方式的巨大威胁，他们也主张对中国强硬，期待换一种方式推动中国按照美国期待的方向改变。

第三种看法是种族主义的看法，他们内心里认为中国作为一个所谓劣等民族就不应该强大，所以，中国的强大威胁到美国作为一个所谓优等民族统治的国家，就需要想办法来遏制。这部分人人数不多，但能量很大。

总之，美国虽然在对华强硬问题上有共识，但是主张对华强硬政策背后的原因是非常不一样的，所以，他们内部也经常争吵不休。应该说，尽管有不同的看法，大部分美国人在对华政策问题上还是所谓“温和派”，在他们看来，中美不应对抗，而应在有共同利益的方面合作。这些人在中国问题上随大流，因为对华强硬变成一种政治正确的事情，不随大流有风险。比如说美国国会在涉华、涉台问题上的法案和决议案投票，基本上都是超高票数甚至全票通过，这是很不正常的，因为美国国会在任何问题上都是很分裂的，很难想象美国现在要通过一个重大的法案能有60%以上支持率，但是在涉华、涉台的法案问题上，好像要是不投赞成票的话，他就被孤立、被攻击，所以，尽管许多议员私下可能不太认同那些比较激进的做法，但最后还是投了赞成票。

Q: In this situation, how can Beijing effectively communicate with Washington?

A: Although taking a tough stance on China is a consensus among policymakers in Washington, there are many practical issues that their decision-makers cannot ignore. First of all, China and the US are two superpowers and nuclear countries that cannot afford to go to war. If they do, both sides will suffer, regardless of who wins or loses, and if it escalates to nuclear war, it means mutual destruction. Therefore, avoiding war is a core interest for both sides, which is a reality that both sides must face.

Secondly, the economic relationship between China and the US is very tight. Both sides have significant trade and investment in each other, and both benefit greatly from an open and free international economic order. Therefore, maintaining the economic and trade relations between the two sides and upholding an open and free international economic order are common interests of both sides. This is also a reality that both sides cannot ignore.

Thirdly, the US is a superpower in terms of both power and influence, and China is also becoming a superpower. Unlike other countries, superpowers cannot protect their interests by hitchhiking the international order but can only do so by maintaining it. Therefore, both China and the US have significant interests and responsibilities in maintaining the international order and promoting global governance. There are many problems and challenges in the world today, such as protectionism, terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear and mass destruction weapons, climate issues, public health, etc. These problems cannot be solved by a single country or a few countries but require the cooperation of all countries. International cooperation cannot be achieved without the leadership and promotion of these two superpowers, so there is still a strong demand for international cooperation between China and the US. This is also the reality faced by both countries.

In the face of these realities, China and the US must manage their relationship pragmatically from their respective interests. So although there is a so-called consensus on taking a tough stance on China in Washington, the US government cannot ignore these realities and needs to deal with China responsibly. In this context, there is a mutual benefit for the two countries to cooperate and manage conflicts.

中评社记者：那么在这种情况下，北京方面要怎么去跟华盛顿方面进行一个有效沟通？

贾庆国：尽管对华强硬在华盛顿政策圈子里是一个共识，但有很多现实的问题华盛顿的决策者还是无法回避。首先，中美是两个超大型国家，又是核国家，它们之间是不能打仗的，如果打仗，不管谁赢谁输都是两败俱伤，如果是升级为核战争的话就意味着双方毁灭。所以，避免战争是双方的核心利益，这是双方都不得不面对的现实。

第二，中美两国在经济上关系非常密切，双方贸易额非常大，双方都在对方国家有很多投资，双方都在一个自由开放的国际经济秩序中收获巨大的好处，所以，维持双方的经贸关系和维护一个自由开放的国际经济秩序是双方的共同利益。这也是一个双方都无法回避的现实。

第三，美国是超级大国（这里主要指实力和影响力），中国也正在变成一个超级大国。与普通国家不同，超级大国不能通过搭便车的方式来维护自身利益，只能通过维护国际秩序的方式来维护自身利益。所以，中美双方在维护国际秩序，推动全球治理方面既有重大利益，也有着无法推卸的责任。现在世界上面临很多问题和挑战，保护主义、恐怖主义、核武器和大规模杀伤性武器扩散、气候问题、公共卫生等等，这些问题是单个国家或几个国家无法应对的，需要所有国家合作来解决。而国际合作，离不开中美这两个超级大国的引领和推动，所以国际上要求中美合作的呼声还是很强烈的，这也是两国面临的现实。

面对上述现实，中美两国从各自的利益出发都需要务实地管理两国关系。所以尽管华盛顿有所谓对华强硬的共识，但美国政府也没法回避这些现实，也需要负责任地去处理两国关系。在这种情况下，中美之间管控冲突和解决问题方面合作是有现实的利益基础的。

Taiwan Strait Crisis: A Call for sturdier guardrails

台海局势危险　中美之间的“护栏”要更宽广

Q: In one of your articles, you described the Taiwan Strait Crisis as a "perfect storm." If Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was to visit Taiwan in the near future, would this add to the already precarious situation?

A: If McCarthy goes to Taiwan, it will certainly have a significant impact on Sino-US relations. How should the Chinese government respond? I believe that first, China must resolutely oppose and protest the decision; second, China should respond with diplomatic or even military means. We have already seen a military response during Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. The reason for doing so was to signal that if the US resumes official relations with Taiwan, China will resume a state of war in the Taiwan Strait. Currently, the relationship between China and the US faces a significant challenge as the US has hollowed out the Three Joint Communiques through a series of schemes. Against this backdrop, if McCarthy visits Taiwan, there is the possibility of recalling ambassadors and downgrading diplomatic relations. Some people in the US always have various considerations and are determined to impose their will on China and the US, pushing for confrontation. I think that such behavior is outrageous.

中评社记者：您在一篇文章里将台海议题形容为“完美风暴”的形成，如果美国众议院议长麦卡锡短期内“窜台”，是否是对目前相当危险的局势火上浇油？

贾庆国：麦卡锡如果去台湾，肯定会对中美关系造成重大冲击。中国政府应该怎么应对？我认为，第一我们要坚决反对、要抗议；第二我们要采取外交甚至军事手段加以回应。军事上的回应在佩洛西访台的时候我们已经看到，之所以那样做就是想表达一种态度，就是如果美国恢复和台湾的官方关系的话，我们就恢复台海的战争状态。中美关系目前面临非常大的一个挑战就是美国已经通过一系列的小动作掏空了中美三个联合公报中双方同意的原则。在这个背景下，外交上，如果麦卡锡“窜台”，不排除召回大使，外交降级的可能性。美国国内总有一些人出于各种各样的考虑，执意想把自己的意志强加给中美两国，推动对抗，我觉得这些人的这种做法是令人发指的。

Q: Biden administration's approach to the Taiwan question is becoming more uncertain, and its interpretation of the One China Policy is becoming more hollow. What do you think China should do? How can both sides prevent conflicts on this issue?

A: The US has proposed that the two countries should establish a guardrail through negotiations to avoid full-scale military confrontation or even war due to accidental conflicts. Some people in China believe that the US proposal to establish a guardrail is a trick to restrict China's countermeasures against US provocations. In their view, in a situation where the US is stronger than China, the establishment of a fence limits what both sides can do to some extent, but the US has more ability than China to do other things that are unfavorable to China. This argument has some merit, but I still think it is necessary to establish a guardrail. As I mentioned earlier, China and the US have a common core interest in avoiding war, so the two countries must formulate some rules to prevent accidental military conflicts that neither side is prepared for nor willing to see.

Of course, I also think that the US definition of a guardrail is too narrow and cannot fundamentally solve the war risk faced by both countries. The guardrail currently being discussed only helps to prevent certain military actions from leading to war between the two countries. Still, it cannot prevent other actions from leading to war, such as Taiwan's declaration of independence, the development of WMD and visits by high-level members of the US Congress to Taiwan. Therefore, in order to avoid war and maintain other interests of both countries, China and the US should also consider setting up a guardrail politically. Both countries should not allow things like visits by senior officials to Taiwan to happen again. As individuals, they are entitled to their own political preferences, but as representatives of their countries, they must be responsible and think twice about their actions. Continuously stirring up the Taiwan question, creating crises, and hurting the feelings of the people of both countries pose a serious threat to the security of both countries. Therefore, both sides should also negotiate to establish a guardrail politically and regulate how both sides engage politically.

记者：拜登政府在台湾问题上的做法不确定性正日渐增加，其“一中政策”的解读日趋“去一中化”，您认为中国应如何应对？双方如何能够防范在这个议题上出现意外？

贾庆国：美国方面提出来两国应该通过谈判建立“护栏”以避免因为意外的冲突导致两国全面军事对抗甚至战争。中方有些人认为美国提出建立护栏是限制中国对美国挑衅反制的伎俩。在它们看来，在美强中弱的情况下，建立护栏限制了一部分双方能够做的一些事情，但是美方较中方更有更多的能力去做其他对中国不利的事情。这种说法有一定道理，但是我认为建立护栏还是必要的。刚才说到中美不打仗是核心利益，所以两国完全有必要制定一些行为规范来避免双方因为意外军事冲突而打一场双方都没有准备好也不愿意打的战争。

当然，我也觉得美方对“护栏”的界定过于狭窄，并不能从根本上解决两国面临的战争风险问题。目前谈及的“护栏”仅仅有助于防范军事上的某些做法导致两国出现战争，但它并不能防范其他方面的做法导致两国走向战争，如台湾宣布台独、发展大规模杀伤性武器和美国国会高层访台。所以，为了避免战争和维护两国其他的利益，中美也应考虑在政治上设置“护栏”。两国不应再容许国会高官访台这样的事情发生了。作为个人，他们有自己有政治偏好无可厚非，但作为国家的代表，那就要负责任了，不是什么事都可以做的。不断在台湾问题上挑动两国的敏感神经，不断去制造危机，不断去伤害两国人民的感情，这样做对两国的安全都构成了严重威胁。所以，双方也应该通过谈判来在政治上建立“护栏”，规范一下双方政治交往的方式。

Q: The US has actually been making a lot of small moves regarding the situation in the Taiwan Strait in recent years. Do you think the US is aware of the consequences of provoking China where it concerns its core interests?

A: I think a considerable number of people in the US understand how important the Taiwan question is to China and how sensitive and explosive it can be. However, more and more people, especially young people, do not understand or refuse to understand. Both sides need to help the youths understand their respective interests. For China, the Taiwan question is not a question of whether to retrieve or not retrieve a territory. From the perspective of territorial sovereignty, after the end of World War II, when Japan was forced to return Taiwan to China, Taiwan has always been a part of China's territory. Therefore, the Taiwan question is not a question of China retrieving the territory that was separated from China in history. Rather, it is a problem of the Chinese people not allowing Taiwan's independence and foreign forces to split it from China's territory. Our Anti-Secession Law reflects that Taiwan is a part of China's territory. The current state of cross-strait separation is a continuation of the civil war. China’s aim is to end the state of separation as soon as possible, preferably through peaceful means. This should not be understood as an issue of China reclaiming territorial sovereignty.

The US intervention in the Taiwan question could lead to the splitting of Taiwan away, so we must resolutely oppose it. The DPP wants to promote "Taiwan independence," so we must also oppose it. In short, the Taiwan question at this stage is a question of opposing separation, opposing "Taiwan independence," and opposing interference. At this stage, our main means is to promote peaceful development to ultimately achieve the reunification of the two sides on the issue of governance.

中评社记者：美国这几年来其实一直在台海局势上做很多小动作，您认为美国确实对挑动中国核心利益的后果有清楚的认知吗？

贾庆国：我觉得美国有相当一批人还是瞭解台湾问题对中国有多重要和它的高度敏感性和爆炸性的，但是也有越来越多的人，特别是年轻人，对此不太瞭解、甚至于不愿意瞭解。双方从各自的利益出发，都需要让他们瞭解。对于中国来说，台湾问题不是什么收回不收回领土的问题，从领土主权意义上讲，二战结束日本被迫将台湾交还中国后，台湾就一直是中国领土的一部分。所以，台湾问题不是中国收回历史上从中国分离出去的领土问题，而是中国人民不允许台独和国外势力把它从中国领土分裂出去的问题。我们的《反分裂国家法》反映的就是这样一个现实，那就是台湾是中国领土的一部分，现在两岸的分治状态就是当初内战的一个延续，中国要做的事情就是尽可能通过和平的方式来使得两岸分治的状态尽早结束，不存在收回领土主权的问题。

美国在台湾问题上的干预有可能把台湾分裂出去，所以我们要坚决反对。民进党想推动“台独”，所以我们也要反对。总之，现阶段的台湾问题还是一个反分裂、反“台独”、反干涉的问题，在这个阶段，我们的主要手段还是通过和平发展的方式来促进两岸在治权上最终统一。

China and the US are unable to decouple completely. China needs to think harder about how to breakthrough choking points

中美难完全“脱钩”　要思考更好办法应对“卡脖子”问题

Q: Currently, the US is “choking China’s neck“ in many places and rigorously calls for decoupling with China. What do you think of this issue?

A: This issue is relatively complex, involving at least several layers of problems. The first layer involves technological competition. The US is concerned that exporting high-tech products from the US to China will help China surpass the US in high-tech research and development. Therefore, it restricts the export of some high-tech products to China. The second layer involves security. The US is also concerned that China's electronic products and software exported to the US have been bugged. Therefore, it restricts some electronic products and software produced by Chinese companies from being exported to the US, including Huawei's electronic products and some software. Some hardliners in the US even want to ban TikTok and WeChat from operating in the US for the same reason. The US also restricts Chinese companies from investing in certain fields in the US, such as those related to security and high tech. The third layer involves supply chain security. The US is worried that the global production of goods is overly dependent on China, so it advocates diversifying the production locations to reduce the potential impact of China's policies on its production supply chain. It is actively pushing some companies producing goods in China to move at least part of their production capacity outside China.

Of course, the decoupling promoted by the US government also has limits. After all, China is a very large market, and completely decoupling from China would cause not only serious harm to the Chinese economy but also cause huge losses to the US economy. Therefore, in the field of high tech, the US implements a policy where it mainly restricts the export of some cutting-edge technology to China while generally allowing the export of high-tech products to China. In terms of imports, it mainly restricts enterprises that it believes are associated with the military and intelligence agencies, not all Chinese enterprises. In terms of investment, it restricts fields related to high-tech research, development and security, not all fields. After all, it hopes that US companies can maintain their market share in China and import those goods that are high in quality, cheap and irreplaceable from China while hoping that Chinese companies can invest in the US to develop the economy and increase employment. This is also the fundamental reason why, despite the decoupling being so popular in the US in recent years, the total volume of trade between China and the US is still increasing.

Of course, the US decoupling policy also poses a very serious challenge to China, especially in terms of the impact on our high-tech development, which has caused so-called "chokehold" issues. One domestic view about this is that we need to increase investment to solve all the chokeholds and achieve independence from the US. However, can we solve all the chokehold problems? Will a large amount of investment achieve the expected results? Unfortunately, it is unlikely. The advantages of the US and some Western countries in many fields are the result of long-term accumulation, and China is unlikely to surpass them in the short term. Second, there are many chokeholds for various reasons, and our resources are insufficient. In this situation, the probability of success is even lower. Even when the US was at its strongest point, it was still unable to solve all the chokeholds it faced. Today, our chance to achieve it is even slimmer.

Even if a miracle occurs and we are able to produce all products independently and self-reliantly through hard work, what would the result be? The most likely outcome is that other countries will no longer have economic relations with us, which means we will be cut off from the rest of the world. If China does not have external connections, Chinese companies will lose the global market, lose economies of scale, and reduce production efficiency, leading to a decline in our global competitiveness. This is not what China wants.

Therefore, to address the chokehold problem, we still need to think of better solutions. For example, we can identify one or several of our best products and technologies in every production chain or within main high-tech research clusters and make them the best in the world, rendering it impossible for others to replace them. This way, we can form a kind of deterrence against other countries and greatly increase their cost of implementing a chokehold on us. This may be relatively easier to achieve and can maintain our economic and trade relations with the rest of the world, allowing us to utilize our comparative advantages and maintain our corporate competitiveness fully. Of course, further study is needed on how to achieve this.

中评社记者：目前美国在很多方面对中国“卡脖子”，似乎越来越强调“与中国脱钩”，您怎么看这个问题？

贾庆国：这个问题比较复杂，至少涉及几个层面的问题。第一个层面涉及科技竞争力。美国担心中国从美国进口高科技产品会帮助中国在高科技研发方面超越美国，所以限制一些高科技产品向中国出口。第二个层面涉及安全。美国担心中国输出美国的电子产品和软件有后门，中国可以通过这些产品和软件获取美国的信息，所以限制中国一些电子产品向美国出口，如包括华为公司生产的电子产品和一些软件，美国国内有些极端人士甚至要禁止Tik Tok、微信在美国运行，也是这个理由。美国还限制中国企业在美国投资某些领域，如涉及安全和高科技的领域。三是跟上面相关的供应链安全问题，美国担心商品生产过度依赖中国，所以主张商品产地多元化，从而减少中国政策对其生产供应链造成过大的潜在冲击，同时在积极推动一些在中国生产的公司至少将其部分产能移到中国以外的地方。

当然，美国政府推动的“脱钩“也是有限度的。毕竟，中国是一个很大的市场，跟中国完全脱钩不仅会给中国经济造成严重伤害，也会给美国经济造成巨大损失。所以，在高科技领域，美国实行的是“小院高墙”的政策，也就是说它限制向中国出口的主要是一些最前沿的技术，一般高科技产品还是允许向中国出口的。在进口方面，主要限制的还是一些它认为与军方和情报部门有关联的企业，并不是所有中国企业。在投资方面，它限制的是涉及高科技研发和安全的领域，不是所有领域。毕竟它还指望美国企业保持在中国的市场份额，还指望从中国进口那些物美价廉，无法替代的商品，还指望中国企业去美国投资，发展经济和增加就业。这也就是为社么尽管脱钩问题这几年在美国炒的那么热，中美贸易总量还在增长的根本原因。

当然，美国的“脱钩”政策对中国来说也构成非常严峻的挑战，特别是对我们高科技领域的发展冲击还是挺大的，出现了所谓“卡脖子”的问题。面对“卡脖子“问题，国内一种观点就是我们要加大投入，解决所有“卡脖子”问题，做到不再受制于人。但现在的问题在于，第一，我们能不能解决所有的“卡脖子”问题？大量的投入会不会达到预期的效果？恐怕不能。美国以及西方一些国家在很多领域的优势都是很长时间积累的结果，短期内中国很难超越。第二，由于种种原因，“卡脖子“问题很多，我们的现有的资源远远满足不了需要，在这种情况下，成功的概率更低。应该说，美国最强大的时候也无法决不了它面临的所谓卡脖子问题，我们今天能做到的可能性只能是微乎其微。

即使奇迹发生，我们能通过努力能够生产所有的产品，都独立自主、自力更生了，结果会是什么样呢？大概率就是别的国家不再跟你发生经济关系了，也就是自己跟别人脱钩了。如果中国不跟外部世界发生联系，中国企业就会失去世界市场，就会丧失规模效益，导致生产效率降低，全球竞争力下降，这也不是中国想要的。

所以，应对“卡脖子”的问题，我们还需要想一些更好的办法。比如说我们可以选择在每个生产链或者是主要高科技研究生态中确定某个或某几个我们做的最好的产品和技术把它做到极致，别人无法替代。那我们就可以对别的国家形成某种威慑，大幅提高它对我们实施“卡脖子“的成本。这样做可能会既相对容易些，也可以保持我们与外部世界的经贸关系，使我们还可以充分利用我们的比较优势和保持我们企业的竞争力。当然，具体怎样做还需要进一步的思考。

Promoting People-to-People Exchanges: Governments Can Offer More Support

中美人文交流要积极推动　政府可多支持

Q: In the post-pandemic era, where quarantine is no longer necessary, how do you think China and the US should strengthen people-to-people exchanges?

A: In the past few years, people-to-people exchanges between China and the US have been greatly hindered due to epidemic prevention and other reasons. For a period of time, the number of students and teachers from each other's countries has decreased significantly. This situation is abnormal and has a negative and long-term impact on the bilateral relationship. Without face-to-face communication between people, both sides can only rely on media that fall short of objectivity, rampant rumors on the Internet, and personal imagination to understand each other. Against the background of different ideologies, different political systems and hostile political atmospheres, both sides tend to speculate about each other negatively, which is very detrimental to the development of the bilateral relationship.

Now that the pandemic has entered a new stage and both sides have made significant adjustments to their epidemic prevention policies, it is time to actively promote people-to-people exchanges between the two countries. Specifically, I hope that first, both sides can cancel unreasonable travel restrictions that hinder exchanges and allow citizens and young people from both sides to visit and communicate with each other's countries easily. Second, both governments can take measures to encourage exchanges with each other and provide financial support for experts, scholars, and students to visit and study in each other's countries.

On the Chinese side, the government can consider taking measures to encourage experts and scholars to go abroad for exchange and research. With China's rise and increasing influence in the world, our experts and scholars need to have a deeper understanding of the world and provide more and better suggestions for our country based on better understanding, helping our country play a more responsible, constructive, and effective role in world affairs. In addition, the government can relax its restrictions on experts and scholars speaking out, including the restrictions on attending various international conferences, accepting foreign media interviews, and writing articles in overseas media, giving our experts and scholars the opportunity to tell China's story and let the world hear the voice of China. Moreover, the government can consider setting up a special fund to support experts, scholars, and students in their foreign exchanges.

中评社记者：在无需隔离的后疫情时代，您认为中美两国应该如何加强民间人文交流以改善对彼此的刻板印象？

贾庆国：过去几年，由于疫情管控和其他方面的原因，中美双方的民间交流受到很大阻碍，有一段时间双方的校园里对方国家的学生和老师的数量大幅下降，这种情况很不正常，给两国关系的影响是负面和长远的。在缺乏人与人之间面对面的交流的情况下，双方对对方的认识只能凭那些不那么客观的媒体、谣言满天飞的网络，和个人的想象。在两国意识形态、政治制度不一样，政治气氛又那么恶劣的背景下，双方都倾向于从坏的角度去揣测对方，这对于两国关系的发展是非常不利的。

现在疫情进入一个新的阶段，双方防疫政策都有很大的调整，可以说，现在是应该积极推动两国民间交流的时候了。具体而言，我希望，第一，双方取消那些阻碍交流的不合理限制，让双方的老百姓、年轻人能够便利地去对方国家访问和交流。第二，双方政府还可以采取一些措施鼓励与对方交流，为两国专家学者和学生去对方国家访问和学习提供一些财政上的支持。

中国方面，政府可以考虑采取一些措施推动专家学者出国交流和做研究，随着中国的崛起和在世界上影响的增加，我们的专家学者需要更深入地去认识、去瞭解这个世界，并在此基础上给国家提供更多更好的建议，帮助我们国家更加负责任地、建设性地和有效地在世界事务中发挥作用。此外，政策上放宽专家学者对外发声的限制，包括参加国际上的各种各样的专业会议、接受外媒采访和在海外媒体撰写文章的限制，让我们的专家学者有机会对外讲好中国故事，让世界听得到中国人的声音。还有，政府可考虑设立专门基金，支持专家学者和学生对外交往。

Q: Do you have any stories to share with us during your exchange at Stanford University?

A: I think there are two main points. First, American universities also face domestic political pressures when dealing with China, including some forces accusing them of being too close to China. For example, I saw an article in a small American newspaper accusing Stanford University of being too close to China, citing Stanford’s invitation of Chinese experts to participate in the international forums they organized, including myself. Second, although the relationship between the two countries is not very close now, there are still many people in the US who hope for stability and improvement in Sino-US relations. Among the experts, scholars, and students I have contacted, many people still believe that stability and improvement in Sino-US relations are in line with the fundamental interests of both countries.

中评社记者：您在斯坦福调研交流时有什么让您印象深刻的故事可以和我们分享吗？

贾庆国：我觉得最大的感受有两点。第一，美国的高校在跟中国打交道时也面临不少国内的政治压力，包括一些极端势力指责他们跟中国走得太近。比如说，我看到美国有个小报的文章指责斯坦福大学跟中国走太近，包括邀请中国专家参与他们组织的国际论坛，其中也包括我本人。第二，我觉得尽管两国关系现在不好，但美国希望中美关系稳定和改善的人还是大有人在，在我接触的专家、学者、学生里面，许多人还是认为中美关系的稳定和改善是符合两个国家的根本利益的。

Disclaimer: This is an official translation of Jia’s interview. Please refer to the original text for its precise meaning.