Article
Uri Dadush, Vera Eidelman, Taiya M. Smith
{
"authors": [
"Taiya M. Smith"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Why Go Strategic?: The Value of a Truly Strategic Dialogue Between the United States and China
While the United States and China—the world’s two largest economies—are becoming increasingly interdependent, there is a growing risk of misunderstanding or even clashes. The two powers need a dialogue to provide strategic vision to their relationship.
Published on Jul 28, 2010
While the United States and China—the world’s two largest economies—are becoming increasingly interdependent, there is a growing risk of misunderstanding or even clashes. In a new paper, Taiya Smith says the two powers need a dialogue to provide strategic vision to their relationship.
Smith, who led the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue for Treasury Secretary Paulson, draws on examples from her experience to analyze the recent history of strategic dialogues and recommends steps for Washington and Beijing to take to improve the broader bilateral relationship.
Recommendations for policy makers to effectively benefit from the dialogue:
- Understand the purpose of strategic talks: The strategic relationship should not be overshadowed by today’s news and short-term bilateral issues.
- Ensure effective communication: Strong personal relationships between the leaders of the dialogue and their representatives are critical for building trust.
- Leverage the wider benefits: Discussions and enhanced ties should create new ways to fix key problems outside bureaucratic norms.
“What the U.S.-China relationship needs is a truly strategic discussion to steer a critically important, yet increasingly complex, bilateral relationship while still managing the time-sensitive issues of the day,” writes Smith.
About the Author
Taiya M. Smith
Former Senior Associate, Energy and Climate Program, Asia Program
Smith has spent the last decade working in international negotiations. Most recently, she served as a member of Secretary Hank Paulson’s senior management team from 2006 to 2009 as the deputy chief of staff and executive secretary for the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
- After Copenhagen
- President Obama's Chances of Success in CopenhagenQ&A
William Chandler, Taiya M. Smith
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Less of America is MoreCommentary
Middle Eastern states should welcome an accelerated U.S. disengagement from their region.
Michael Young
- Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Performance Art or Meaningful Collaboration?Commentary
Xi, Putin, and other regional leaders are back-slapping in Bishkek, but the SCO has yet to answer the most serious questions about continental Asia's economic future.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- Europe’s Self-Confidence ProblemCommentary
The EU’s responses to two recent incidents expose the gulf between European perceptions and capabilities. Unless the union can bridge that gap, it will never become a real geostrategic power.
Rym Momtaz
- A Strategic Disaster that Devalues U.S. Military ProwessCommentary
In an interview, former ambassador Charles Freeman assesses the Trump administration’s war against Iran.
Michael Young
- Gas and Peace: Can Energy Trade Contain Egypt-Israel Conflict?Commentary
Can economic ties help contain conflict between Egypt and Israel, or do they simply postpone confrontation? Drawing on the German-Russian experience, the article examines how the gas deal creates mutual dependence, keeps channels of cooperation open, and raises the cost of conflict, without necessarily delivering lasting peace.
Nourhan Hefzy
