When China’s economic output eventually surpasses America’s some time in the next decade, it will be the first time since the reign of George III that the world’s largest economy belongs to a country that is not western, not English-speaking and not a liberal democratic state. Yet, in the asymmetric world that is emerging, the US will remain the dominant military force. The fulcrums of economic and military power are separating. Can these changes in the distribution of power occur peacefully?

在下一个十年，当中国的经济产量最终超越美国的那一天，将是自英王乔治三世(George III)统治时期以来，首次出现世界最大经济体的桂冠归属于一个非西方、非以英语为母语、且非自由民主制的国家。不过，在即将出现的不均衡世界中，美国将仍是主导性的军事力量。经济实力与军事力量的支点正逐渐分开。权力分配的改变能否和平地实现？

It will be difficult. In Beijing’s eyes, the US is deeply opposed to China’s rise. A document circulated among the Communist party leadership last year summed up the consensus view. American strategy towards China, it said, had five objectives: to isolate the country, contain it, diminish it, divide it and sabotage its political leadership.

这将颇为困难。在北京方面看来，美国极力反对中国崛起。去年在共产党领导层内传阅的一份文件总结出了这点共识。文件称，美国对华策略有5个目标：孤立中国、遏制中国、削弱中国、分裂中国并破坏其政治领导。

These conclusions sound strange to a western audience. They reflect the conviction of Communist party leaders that the US has not, and never will, accept the political legitimacy of the administration in Beijing because it is not a liberal democracy. They also reflect the Chinese view that the US will never willingly cede its status as the pre-eminent power in Asia and the world.

在西方民众听来，这些结论很奇怪。它们反映出共产党领导人确信一点：美国尚未、也永远不会接受北京当局的政治合法性，因为它并非自由民主制。这些结论还反映出中国人的看法，即美国永远也不愿意放弃其在亚洲乃至世界的超级大国地位。

For America, rising China is no longer business as usual. Instead, the US sees

对美国来说，崛起的中国今非昔比。相反，美国把中国视为一个实力不断增加、正与美国争夺在亚洲的政治、外交及安全政策空间的竞争对手。据此看来，北京方面的长期政策旨在将美国完全逐出亚洲，并打造一个覆盖整个地区的中国势力圈。

a rival that is growing in strength

中国和美国对彼此均有战略性表述。双方缺少的是对于两个大国应该如何共存的共识。它们需要建立一个共识，以防两国关系恶化，陷入充满敌意、危机、乃至冲突的两败俱伤的长期阶段。

and competing for political, diplomatic and security policy space in Asia. On this view, Beijing’s long-term policy

这样一个共同框架应该包含3个元素。第一，对于无法在可预见的未来解决的双方关系领域，要有现实的认识，同时要在不允许破坏或摧毁整个关系的协议内，管理这些关系领域。

is aimed at pushing the US out of Asia altogether and establishing a Chinese sphere of influence spanning the region.

两国争执点包括领土问题，如东中国海、南中国海以及台湾问题（北京方面称这座自治岛屿为中国不容分割的一部分）；还包括**问题——北京方面认为这纯粹是内政问题，而西方国家认为这是国际规范秩序的核心问题。

Both China and the US have strategic narratives about each other. What they lack is a shared view of how the two powers should coexist. They need one to prevent the relationship deteriorating into a long and mutually costly period of rancour, crisis, or even conflict.

第二，对可以通过高层政治努力解决的困难领域，抱建设性的态度。从中美双方看，这可以以中美投资条约的形式实现。以地区来看，中美可以共同努力，将现有的东亚峰会(EAS)等机构发展为更广泛的“亚太共同体”(Asia Pacific Community)。以全球来看，可以是在气候变化问题上扩大现有合作，可能还包括印度。

Such a common framework should have three elements. First, be realistic about the areas of the relationship which cannot be resolved within the foreseeable future, while managing them within a protocol which does not allow the entire relationship to be derailed or destroyed.

第三，对于随着时间推移逐步建立互信，达成共同目标。宣告式的声明不能代替解决共同问题的实际行动。

These points of contention include territorial matters such as the East China Sea, the South China Sea and the status of Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing claims as an inalienable part of the People’s Republic. They also include human rights, which Beijing sees as a purely internal affair but westerners see as a core element of the international normative order.

美中关系的未来并非预先决定，而需要两国领导人共同打造。两国拥有的共同利益比看上去的多。当今世界面临着越来越多的艰难挑战，即便最强大的国家也无法独自解决。国际机构往往也无法完成这个任务。这是为了共同的目标而联手起来的机会。

Second, be constructive about those difficult areas that could be resolved with high-level political effort. Bilaterally, this could take the form of an investment treaty between China and the US. Regionally, this could include the US and China working together to develop institutions such as the existing East Asia Summit into a more expansive Asia Pacific Community. Globally, expand existing co-operation on climate change, possibly including India.

共同的战略框架不同于就实质问题达成的协议。它本身不足以解决美中关系中的所有紧张环节。战略框架的作用在于，在我们寻求平安渡过中国崛起的挑战性时期时，将双方的剑拔弩张减轻至更加可控的水平。

Third, agree a common purpose to build trust, step by step, over time. Declaratory statements are no substitute for practical action in resolving shared problems.