The recently concluded US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue was neither an absolute triumph for international amity nor a downturn for regional stability. The chasm between the world’s established hegemony and Asia’s rising dominion neither widened nor contracted.

The meetings, held under the scrutiny of global analysts, served more as a catharsis to diffuse tension and moderate contention. A cyclic diplomatic contrivance to ensure the objects of competing interest do not descend to become subjects of mutual hostility.

The strong US delegation led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner played both the role of suitor and prosecutor in the dialogue. Shying away from the megaphone diplomacy which had become symptomatic of US diplomacy of past administrations, the US delegation adopted a more restrained approach in their concerns over China’s policies.

A tread lightly, but stand firmly approach advocated by the Obama administration has won much respect, but little headway. A sign of China’s established influence as a peer on the global stage.

The talks closed on a rhetorical high with the obligatory pledges of cooperation in market access, environmental and other measures to promote cooperation.

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan called the two economies “increasingly inseparable”, while Clinton described the dialogue as being “very productive”.

But the surface niceties belie the inherent contrasts that the respective countries are pursuing.

With every positive that came out of the meeting, there seemed a caveat. Such as when Clinton told China Central Television (CCTV) that “we’re not going to agree on every issue”. Or when President Hu Jintao said that China would reform its exchange rate regime, but at its own pace.

Alas, the humdrum of future “follow-up talks” — a cipher for “agree to disagree” — was the most often touted explanation when the crunch issues of China’s currency controls, US investment rules and the Korean Peninsula were at an impasse. Ultimately, the nervous niceties were somewhat of an odd spectacle. Like two in-laws meeting for the first time to negotiate their offspring’s marriage.

A case where top officials from two powerful nations tried so hard to portray public amity, yet were betrayed by the subtle nuances of suspicion and faint enmity. For the region, both China and the US are monolithic objects that impress every aspect of strategic and economic thinking.

We welcome the conclusion of the “positive” talks in Beijing, yet yearn, and wonder, how contentious key strategic issues can be brought to closer finality. Indonesia and ASEAN should continue to make its good offices available to engage and reduce budding tensions to a minimum.

Everyone understands that most will gain, and all will lose. Ratcheting up tensions is a disastrous strategy.

But we also see how regional powers must come to terms with themselves and play a role becoming to their present-day global status. The United States must realize that it can no longer push and shove, while China should be more forthcoming and yielding if she is to be accepted as a responsible power.

More importantly both have to, and probably do, realize that their concurrence require the support of the forest as a whole. The clutching claws of the eagle and the fiery dragon’s breath only bring destruction to a forest that needs generation.

Popular

To my horror, it’s just a movie!

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Pentagon chief congratulates Prabowo on being elected President