If there was any hope for a thaw in the U.S.-China relationship when top diplomats met in early 2021, the first few minutes stamped it out. With cameras rolling, the U.S. delegation accused China of threatening global order and security. A Chinese diplomat shot back: “The United States does not have the qualification … to speak to China from a position of strength.” His response went over so well back home that people put it on T-shirts.
The exchange provided a public spectacle of the suspicion and fear that has come to dominate the U.S.-China rivalry. It underscored the need for additional efforts—more than the usual high-stakes high diplomacy—to cut through the atmosphere of distrust.
In a recent study, researchers at RAND identified nearly two dozen ongoing, lower-level dialogues between the U.S. and China that could help. They involve scholars, policy analysts, and experts often working behind the scenes, away from the glare of big government-to-government meetings. They cover topics ranging from human rights to climate change to artificial intelligence. And while they might not produce a thaw in the relationship, either, RAND's study shows how they can start to break the ice.
“There's a phrase in Chinese, 'like a chicken speaking with a duck,'” said Amanda Kerrigan, a policy researcher at RAND. “They might be trying to speak with each other, but they don't understand each other. We have a chicken-and-duck problem in U.S.-China relations. These lower-level dialogues are an opportunity to get around that problem, get past the talking points, and start to build some mutual understanding.”
A few years ago, RAND researchers looked at what factors can help keep a great-power rivalry from spiraling into conflict. They found that almost every indicator was pointing in the wrong direction for the U.S. and China. Despite continuous diplomatic efforts to ease tensions since then, the rivalry has continued to intensify in potentially dangerous ways.
Chinese President Xi Jinping recently accused the United States of trying to contain and suppress his country's progress. He challenged his generals: “Dare to fight!” or “Dare to struggle!” The United States, meanwhile, has described China as a menace to its neighbors, an economic predator, and the pacing threat of the 21st century. It has built up its military accordingly.
Neither side has a win–win vision for the future, one in which they both can pursue their national interests without eventually colliding. That's what's needed now, RAND researchers argued in their recent study. And an unofficial dialogue, away from the pressures and politics, might be the way to get there.
In diplomatic circles, those are known as Track 2 dialogues—as in, not involving the government officials working on the inside track. They provide breathing room for experts to meet and hash out ideas without having to look tough or stand firm behind official talking points. Their record shows, if anything, how hard it is to actually budge official policy from that outside track. But there have been some notable exceptions. The 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization can be traced back to a Track 2.
At least 30 of these unofficial or quasi-official dialogues are currently underway between the U.S. and China, researchers found. They might not make headlines, but they are quietly hammering away at some of the iciest parts of the relationship. Maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Business, health care, and human rights. Nuclear security.
At least 30 of these dialogues are currently underway between the U.S. and China. They might not make headlines, but they are quietly hammering away at some of the iciest parts of the relationship.
“For all the talk that there's no dialogue going on, we actually found a significant amount, at least at the nongovernmental level,” said senior political scientist Michael Mazarr. “These dialogues can help create an environment of mutual understanding and awareness. They can help stabilize the relationship. So in that sense, they're part of a larger process that you hope will be successful.”
Yet one question that could define the U.S.-China relationship for decades has so far gone unanswered. Can the two countries find a way to coexist, to pursue their national interests without sliding into conflict? That should be the focus of a new Track 2 effort, RAND's study concluded. Coexist, here, does not mean putting aside their differences and linking arms as friends, the researchers are quick to point out. It means not ending up in a shooting war.
The researchers interviewed more than a dozen veteran Track 2 organizers to think through what it would take to make such an effort work. It would require getting the right people into the room—“big shots with good intentions.” They would need to be willing—and able—to tackle even the most difficult problems, to “hug the cactus.” The effort would require careful planning, an ability to adapt and evolve, and a direct line to the official policymakers on the inside track.
And it would take time. The experts in one U.S.-China dialogue on nuclear security needed several years to build trust and develop a mutual understanding of such basic terms as “deterrence.” Only then were they able to move beyond what they described as “conference banter.”
“That's one of the big lessons from our interviews,” Kerrigan said. “This is not a one-and-done, we had a nice talk. If your goal is to influence the actual decisionmaking process, it can't just be an academic conversation for fun. It's years and years of working and building relationships.”
With those elements in place, a new dialogue focused on a shared vision for the future would be both viable and valuable, the researchers concluded. It would give the two sides something they don't have when the cameras are rolling: the freedom to make progress. It could generate new ideas—and, with a lot of planning and a little luck, those could “gradually gain traction and work their way into the policy bloodstream” of both countries.
