Read on Twitter
We at @NATLCOMMITTEE are continuing our Track II work and just released a report on US-China discussions held in early April. The mtgs uncovered a big question - how can we preserve some space for coordination, if not cooperation, in the framework of major power competition? /1 https://twitter.com/NATLCOMMITTEE/status/1252649668766564353
Mutual mistrust is at a record high, communications channels at a record low (since '79 at least). Nerves are raw from the stressful consequences of pandemic management. Both sides see the other as engaging in opportunism/escalation and themselves as establishing deterrence. /2
And worst, both sides think they have the other pegged as monoliths that are incapable of change. Why be curious, thoughtful, contextual when there are more obvious rewards for being prejudicial, bias-confirming, and reductive? /3
So, in order to get back to the question - coordinating on what is obviously a shared interest in managing both the pandemic crisis and its fallout - we have to pull apart the assumptions on which both sides are basing policy. We can't coordinate on the basis of mistrust... /4
and we can't address mistrust without establishing some kind of coordination. If we can't square that circle to save lives/stabilize the economy, then resentments from this era will shape bilateral relations for decades. I think we start with breaking down the monolith myth.
I raise my hand as someone who thinks China is capable of change and the US is capable of change. Our Track II work is my evidence and my source of hope. Thoughtful, self-reflective, sincere, reform-minded ppl EXIST on both sides. If you don't see them, you're not looking. /END
