By Tao Wenzhao

Princeton Professor Thomas Christensen was made the US deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in July. Christensen is a China expert, and his best-known book about the China-US conflicts between 1947-1958 was a standout from his many other works. He has been frequently involved in academic exchanges on Sino-US ties and recently, the United States' Taiwan policy. He also offers counseling to the Bush administration. All this combines to pave the way for him leading to the US State Department.

It was widely believed that Robert Zoellick oversaw the formulation of Bush government's China policy when he was deputy secretary of state. With the term "stakeholder," Zoellick leaves his personal mark on the United States' China policy. However, when he left the office, not a single China expert could be found among the State Department's top-ranking officials.

Now in office, Christensen becomes the only China expert from the secretary of state on down to the officials of his rank. Before his entry into the State Department, speculation circulated widely that Christensen was likely to shoulder the responsibility of charting the United States' policy towards China.

When Zoellick quit, people believed the Bush administration's China policy would not shift with the changes in personnel. Now, Christensen's remarks in front of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission on August 3 show that he will go along the road mapped by Zoellick.

Although Zoellick came up with the term "stakeholder," he did not say if China was already a "responsible stakeholder" as he envisioned. Instead, Zoellick emphasized that the United States should focus on urging China to become such a "responsible stakeholder." Again, the central theme of "responsible stakeholder" runs through Christensen's speech.

In spite of what has already been said about "stakeholder," this author, would like to add something more on this important issue.

First, this author agrees with the statement that China has benefited substantially from the current international system. China's reform and opening up is, in a sense, a process of becoming integrated to the global system, which provides the country with opportunities for development. Moreover, the accelerated economic globalization facilitates China's luring foreign capital and advancing its foreign trade.

While being a beneficiary of the international system, China, in the opinion of this author, is a committed member of the global system. Also, China seeks to help improve the existing global system, which has many defects, so that the vast majority of developing countries will benefit from the system.

In view of all this, China's vital interests are already closely associated with the global system.

Second, all members of the international system should be responsible for the system. No country should require others to be responsible while setting no requirements on themselves to "be responsible."

While being responsible for the international system, different countries have different policies, which are dictated by different interests. This is only natural.

Take the abortive Doha Round of trade talks. The United States and the Europe Union point fingers of blame at each other. The former charges that the latter refuses to cut tariffs on agricultural products while the latter claims that the former is reluctant to reduce its US$22-billion subsidies on farm produce each year.

The episode shows that seeking balance between pursuing national interests on the one hand and being responsible for the international system on the other is by no means easy.

The key tone of Christensen's remarks sounds positive. He said: "China's global emergence is a natural consequence of its economic growth and development and need not be seen as a threat to the United States." He also emphasized the importance of maximizing areas of common interests and co-operation. These areas include co-operation at various international organizations on issues of nuclear bidding of North Korea and Iran. There are also the subjects of Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Myanmar and Sudan and serious matters of global health and energy security.

Christensen also touched upon the areas in which the United States has disputes with China human rights, religious freedom, trade imbalance, nuclear non-proliferation, the alleged lack of transparency in China's military modernization and so on. He said: "This is in fact the crux of US policy toward China, a policy that combines active engagement to maximize areas of common interests and co-operation along with a recognition that we need to maintain strong US regional capabilities in case China does not move down a path consistent with our interests."

This means "hedging stakes" in Zoellick's words. Or in our words, "engaging as well as guarding against." Christensen's remarks indicate the United States will seek a balance between engaging and checking.

China-US relations have been growing over the past 28 years to cover increasingly wider scopes and involve many regional and global issues. The examples cited by Christensen in his speech also bear this out. The China-United States relationship is becoming more and more regional and global by nature.

China's responsibilities as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council grow with the country's strength. This determines that China will play a bigger role in maintaining regional and world peace and helping promote the global prosperity.

Therefore, the common interests of China and the United States in maintaining regional and world peace and stability are getting bigger instead of smaller.

Sino-US ties are complex bilateral ones. They are complex because the two countries have common interests and disputes simultaneously in virtually all fields. Overall, common interests outweigh disagreements. This is true of the Taiwan question, trade disputes and non-proliferation issues, for example.

The trade imbalance between China and the United States, which Christensen mentioned in his speech, particularly stood out sharply in the spring this year. But this does not necessarily mean that a trade war will break out between the two countries.

As a matter of fact, trade and business ties constitute a very important pillar propping up China-US relations and help bring about a win-win situation for both. For example, Chinese products, which are good and cheap, help the United States maintain a low rate of inflation, enabling each American family to save US$600 each year.

The bilateral economic ties are part of the economic globalization. As long as globalization moves on, the two countries will become more and more interdependent economically. This is a trend that cannot be rolled back.

Understandably, the United States hopes that everything China does is in the interest of the US. The real situation is, however, much more complicated than one expects. Two different nations, for example, are bound to have different national interests. In case disputes arise, it is better to keep the channels of communication open and unblocked. The best attitude is: "agree to disagree."

Christensen sounded optimistic about the China-US relations, He said in his speech: "We have already seen that the areas of mutual interest have grown over the past 27 years. I would argue that they will continue to grow." This author appreciates his optimism very much. As long as the two sides make efforts to keep the current momentum of improving ties, Sino-US relations will certainly have a promising future.

The author is a researcher with the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(China Daily August 28, 2006)