Introduction

On March 7, 2012, in a speech to mark the fortieth anniversary of President Nixon's historic trip to China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton observed that "the U.S.-China project of 2012 ... is unprecedented in the history of nations. The United States is attempting to work with a rising power to foster its rise as an active contributor to global security, stability and prosperity while also sustaining and securing American leadership in a changing world. And we are trying to do this without entering into unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict."

With these sentences, she encapsulated what may be the most consequential foreign policy challenge of the twenty-first century. While there is a wide range of views in both the United States and China on how to manage bilateral relations, few dispute the assertion of leaders on both sides that the U.S.-China relationship is the most consequential bilateral relationship of our time, as China's spectacular economic growth, its military modernization, and its increasingly active role on the regional and global stages have focused attention on the prospects for cooperation or conflict between the United States and China in the coming decades.

China's leaders have responded to the challenge with a formulation of their own: the call for a "new great power relationship," implicitly endorsing Secretary Clinton's argument that China and the United States must chart a novel approach in order to avoid the dangers of conflict that have characterized relations between established and emerging powers so often in the past.

Both are responding to commonly held views among both policymakers and many academic international relations theorists that China, as a rising power, is bound to challenge America's regional and global hegemony and that America, the dominant power, is destined to resist. Although the outcome of the contest is not foreordained, in this view the inevitability of it is. The immutable structure of the international system is based on states pursuing their national interest by seeking absolute or relative power dominance. For the proponents of this view, the coming contest is largely independent of the character and history of the two countries in question and of the choices made by their leaders.

Their views find inspiration in Thucydides' explanation of the cause of the Peloponnesian War: "What made the war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused Sparta." The United States may not be fearful of China, per se, but its leaders certainly recognize the tectonic implications of the rise of the People's Republic China (PRC) for international relations in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. In any event, the tragic record of conflict over the centuries between rising and established powers has only reinforced Thucydides' argument since then.

For those who embrace this view, the policy implications are clear. On the U.S. side, proponents argue that the core goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to sustain American dominance to ward off the inevitable challenge of emerging powers. It was embodied in the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States." The concept has been further underscored by leading academic strategists.

Their views are mirrored on the China side by academics and former officials (primarily from the People's Liberation Army [PLA]) who share the view that conflict is inevitable and that China should not shirk from the challenge of taking on American interests.

Others are less deterministic, but not much less pessimistic. Although conflict between China and the United States is not inevitable, they argue, it is highly likely. These analysts draw their pessimistic forecasts from a number of factors. Some point to the difficulty of achieving cooperation and avoiding conflict under uncertainty. Drawing on insights from game theory, they note that rational actors often compete even when they would be better off cooperating because they cannot "trust" the other side to keep any bargain between them rather than defect, as the game theory lexicon would phrase it. Others point to the problems of misperception—what appears to one side as a legitimate strategy of self-defense may look to the other as preparations for offensive actions (the so-called security dilemma). A third group focuses more on the specific traditions and cultures of the two countries themselves, each of which has a strong sense of unique mission and superior values. In the case of the United States and China, this can be depicted as the City on the Hill versus the Middle Kingdom. These self-images give each a legitimate claim, at least in its own eyes, to act as the dominant power—not only for its own narrow self-interest but for the greater good.

Of course, these are not the only views. Practitioners tend to reject deterministic accounts, not least because adopting such a view implies that the choices made by individual leaders are irrelevant to the future course of events. They are supported by historians who look at periods where power shifts have not been accompanied by war. They are further buttressed by theorists who argue that the so-called iron laws of state-to-state relations are really context dependent (with contemporary factors such as nuclear deterrence clearly being relevant) and finally by those who argue that in the globalized world of increasing interdependence, power shifts need not lead to zero-sum competition.

This book proceeds from the premise that the future is not fully determined by factors beyond the control of policymakers in both countries; otherwise there would be little point in considering policy options at all. This is a modest assumption; our analysis does not depend on adherence to a particular school of international relations theory. As a number of academics have noted, even adherents of the so-called realist school have argued in favor of an optimistic view of the future of U.S.-China relations, while some liberal internationalists find a potential cause for pessimism from the application of their theory to the Sino-American case.

Our core contention is that the outcome is contingent. It is contingent on a variety of both external developments and domestic factors in both countries—and in other places, particularly those in the Asia-Pacific region. To a large degree, the outcome of those interacting forces will be shaped by the conscious policy decisions of each country.

This debate has enormous consequences for the United States, for China, for East Asia, and for world as a whole. If the pessimists are right, we are doomed to a rivalry that will at a minimum produce a costly and dangerous arms race and strategic competition that will imperil the prosperity and security of both nations and could even lead to war. If the optimists have the better argument, we have a chance to manage our relations to achieve important degrees of cooperation in common interests from promoting global economic prosperity to combating common challenges such as terrorism, international crime, climate change, and pandemic disease while mitigating the risks that come from areas of inevitable competition.

In our view, the pessimistic outcome is not inevitable. But there are powerful forces that make it quite possible, and perhaps even likely, in the absence of a comprehensive strategy by both countries to resist them. This book sets out an approach that seeks to bound the competition and reinforce the cooperative dimensions of our bilateral relationship.

Competition is inevitable in the U.S.-China relationship, just as it is in any relationship among states. The goal cannot realistically be a Kantian peace. The United States competes and occasionally has serious disagreements with even its closest allies—including those in Europe, as well as Japan and Canada. But few worry that these competitive dimensions of our relationship will lead to outright conflict. It may be too much to aspire to an equally cooperative relationship with China. Yet it is entirely plausible that the competition can be limited in ways to avoid the worst outcomes, particularly armed conflict, and to provide space for an important degree of cooperation on issues of common concern. Given the potential benefits of such cooperation and the costs of failing to work together on issues that no one country can solve by itself, there are powerful reasons to work toward this outcome.

To achieve this, China and the United States must directly address the most dangerous areas where competition can produce conflict: the military and strategic spheres. In this book we focus on core strategic areas—nuclear, conventional military, space, cyber, and maritime issues—that could trigger destabilizing arms races, foster crises, and eventually lead to conflict. This focus is not intended to shortchange the importance of other elements of competition and rivalry, particularly in the economic sphere as well as differences in values. These can both contribute to mistrust and provide their own sources of potential conflict, especially given the powerful political impact of economic concerns in both countries. Managing the strategic interaction is a necessary but not fully sufficient requirement for stable U.S.-China relations.

Much of the contemporary discussion concerning U.S.-China relations focuses on building mutual trust. Indeed, this is the formula adopted by President Obama and former Chinese President Hu. Trust of course is valuable. From Kissinger's extraordinary conversations with Zhou En Lai in 1971 and Nixon's subsequent dialogue with Mao to Scowcroft's secret visit to Beijing following Tiananmen in 1989 to President Clinton's unprecedented eight-day trip to China in 1998, candid high-level discussions and personal diplomacy have played a critical role in shaping Sino-American relations. But trust building of this kind suffers from important limits—both horizontal (among diverse constituencies) and vertical (over time). Even if the two countries' leaders develop personal trust from repeated mutual interactions, as President Obama and President Xi have sought in their summit in Sunnylands, California, in June 2013 and elsewhere, it is far more challenging to extend that trust to all those who shape national policy. These various actors range from political critics of incumbents to the two nations' militaries to their publics at large. It is noteworthy that despite the personal relationship developed between Presidents Clinton and Jiang during their repeated interactions, the Chinese leadership as a whole (and especially the PLA) was reluctant to accept Clinton's personal assurances concerning the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo in 1999. In addition, active media in both countries tend to magnify disagreements—a factor especially important today, when public opinion in both countries exerts powerful constraints on the actions of policymakers. And even if there is contemporary trust, it is hard for today's leaders to bind the actions of their successors. The persistent anxiety in America over the true meaning of Deng Xiaoping's famous "hide and bide" exhortation of a generation ago—suggesting to some that China intended to conceal its strategic ambitions until powerful enough to pursue them effectively—is emblematic of this problem. This concern is mirrored on the Chinese side by those who point to past presidential campaigns and contemporary congressional actions to question the long-term reliability of current assurances that the United States does not seek to contain China. Put more bluntly, achieving true trust is a high bar and may not be attainable in a comprehensive sense.

For this reason, there is deep insight behind President Reagan's admonition to "trust but verify." The core concept in this book, which we call strategic reassurance, is to identify concrete measures that each side can take to allay the other's concerns about its strategic intentions.

At its core, the goal of strategic reassurance is twofold: first, to give credibility to each side's profession of good intentions by reducing as much as possible the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with unilateral security policies; and second, to provide timely indicators and warnings of any less benign intentions to allow each side adequate time to adjust its own policies to reflect a new reality.

The concept has its root in theoretical work developed in the context of the Cold War, which led to concrete measures to achieve stability (both arms race stability and crisis stability) in the otherwise conflictual U.S.-Soviet relationship. It took many forms, ranging from agreements on transparency and information exchange to limits on certain military modernization efforts and deployments. In each case the goal was both to provide credibility to claims of good intentions and to protect against "breakout" should those professed intentions prove false or change over time.

Some may argue that an approach that has its roots in the Cold War is both inapposite and inappropriate for a bilateral relationship that is less rooted in ideology. We disagree. If ideological adversaries like the United States and the USSR could find ways to stabilize their security competition, then surely the United States and China should be able to agree on steps to avoid the worst consequences of the security dilemma—and in doing so, to pave the way for a more constructive relationship beyond the "peaceful coexistence" of the Cold War era. At the same time, it is important to recognize the many ways in which the strategic interaction between China and the United States differs from the Cold War paradigm. Some of these (e.g., the absence of a global ideological competition, the degree of economic interdependence) facilitate strategic reassurance. Other factors (China's growing economic clout, the complex geopolitics of the Western Pacific, including the historic U.S. relationship with Taiwan) complicate the challenge.

There are a number of tools available to the United States and China that can contribute to strategic reassurance.

Restraint

Neither the United States nor China can be expected to weaken its commitment to what each country sees as its fundamental national interests. Nor do we advocate that the United States exercise restraint by pulling back from a region of the world, the Asia-Pacific region, where it has important interests and allies. But there is still much that can be done.

By forgoing potentially threatening security options each side can help reinforce the credibility of its intentions. Restraint can take the form of agreed limitations or voluntary moves communicated either explicitly or implicitly to the counterpart. The credibility of restraint is greatest when it comes in response to explicit expressions of concern by the other side, though for political reasons (the danger of appearing to provide "concessions") it is often based instead on an implicit understanding of the other's needs.

Restraint is a particularly powerful tool given that the U.S.-China relationship is a "multimove" strategic interaction. If voluntary restraint produces reciprocal response, trust is built; if instead the other side seeks to take advantage of restraint, its counterpart can adjust expectations accordingly. Similarly, the failure to exercise restraint in the face of explicit or implicit requests can justify more pessimistic conclusions about intent. Each side's reactions (or lack thereof) to the other's restraint can be seen as an opportunity for "learning," an important feature of managing U.S.-Soviet relations during the Cold War.

In each of the sensitive areas discussed in this book, leaders on both sides should take into account the likely reaction of the other side before acting and weigh it against the anticipated benefits, keeping in mind that the relationship is a multimove strategic interaction rather than a one-move "game."