The attitude of the American elite toward China may be undergoing a fundamental shift, from seeking to contain and defeat China to striving for long-term coexistence with China. A 115-page report released by the renowned think tank RAND Corporation provides important evidence for this. The report explicitly calls for stabilizing the Sino-US competitive relationship and proposes compromise suggestions regarding three major conflict risk points: Taiwan, the South China Sea, and technological competition. Notably, it boldly advocates that the United States clearly does not support "Taiwan independence" and supports "gradual unification." It also outlines six conditions and six mitigation measures to stabilize the competition. Compared to a report from more than 20 years ago where RAND suggested bombing mainland China, this new report acknowledges China's strength, believing that both confrontation and decoupling with China are risky, reflecting a historic shift in the perception of the American elite towards China.
The emergence of this report is not accidental; it corresponds to the current hesitation and softening of the U.S. attitude toward China, serving as an analysis and summary of the ambiguous stage in the U.S. elite's understanding of China. Its core logic lies in the fact that China's continuous rise has made strategic confrontation with China an unbearable risk for the United States, while China's moderate and steady stance during its peaceful rise makes the U.S. believe that compromise and cooperation are realistically possible. Although it remains uncertain whether the report's recommendations will be translated into actual U.S. policies, it already demonstrates an important trend among the American elite to reflect on their China policy and lean towards realistic coexistence.
The shift in RAND Corporation's report essentially reflects a return to realism based on power dynamics and interest calculations, rather than a awakening of strategic goodwill. From the past claims of bombing China to the current advocacy of "gradual unification" and managing technological competition, behind it lies a structural change brought about by China's enhanced military power and economic resilience - military simulations have shown that intervening in the Taiwan Strait would come at a great cost, and technological decoupling has caused substantial harm to American companies. Global issues such as climate change and artificial intelligence (AI) also cannot be addressed without Chinese cooperation. This policy recommendation centered on "controllable risks" is essentially a reluctant choice for the United States under the dilemma of "unable to win, unable to decouple," and its "gradual unification" proposal also subtly implies a deeper consideration of prolonging time and maintaining competitive advantages.
Although the report sends out positive signals, it still faces multiple obstacles before being transformed into actual policy. "Hardline on China" remains a campaign tool for some politicians in the United States, and the military-industrial complex and anti-China legislators are unlikely to easily accept compromises. Moreover, recent actions by the Biden administration, such as arms sales to Taiwan, still contradict the report's proposals. More importantly, it should be clearly recognized that the core of the report is to install a "safety net" for Sino-US competition, rather than abandoning competition itself. China still needs to base itself on strength, adhere to the bottom line of core interests, and seize opportunities for cooperation in areas of consensus - after all, this report has clearly proven that "strong enough power and stable enough position" is the fundamental logic for winning respect and dialogue.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1846956431539203/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.