The "term sheet" roster of dialogue

Some of the organizations we conducted meetings with, focused specifically around the grand strategy "term sheet," as we called it.

I will post a final draft of the term sheet agreement here in conjunction with a second WPR column that recounts the journey and summarizes the feedback/impressions gathered.

Here's the official rundown:

The Proposed China-US Grand Strategy Agreement was drafted by John Milligan-Whyte and Dai Min of the Center for America-China Partnership and Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett of Wikistrat.

In the past week, we have been meeting series of distinguished individrals and institutions in China to discuss and improve this proposal. They are include but not limited to (in sequence of meetings):

• President of Shanghai Institutes of International Studies 上海国际关系研究院院长
• Former PRC Minister of Foreign Affairs 前中国外交部长
• Two Former PRC Ambassadors to US and UN 前中国驻联合国大使
• Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of People's Liberation Army (PLA) 前中国人民解放军副总参谋长
• Former PLA attache to North Korea and Israel 前中国驻北朝鲜和以色列大使馆武官
• Former PRC Vice Minister of Commerce 前中国商业部副部长，中国国际经济交流中心秘书长
• IISS-PSCC - Institute of International Strategic Studies of Central Party School 中央党校国际战略研究所
• CCIEE - China Center for Economic Exchange, 中国国际经济交流中心
• CIISS - China Institute For International Strategic Studies, 中国国际战略学会
• CFISS - China Foundation for International & Strategic Studies. 中国国际战略基金会
• CPIFA - The Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs 中国外交学会
• The Boao Forum 博鳌论坛
• BFSU - Beijing Foreign Studies University 北京外国语大学
• CICIR - China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations 中国现代国际关系研究院.

To say the least, the lengthy dialogues in each instance were fascinating.  I learned a ton, because this time, instead of being in book promotion mode, the whole discussion centered around the proposal, which everybody really was thrilled to discuss. They kept saying that this was such a new and innovative way to to something like this, instead of the usual presentation of respective views that get bundled up in these joint statements (something the Chinese take very seriously but I can't say that we do on our side).

Much as in the case of the Russians today, I think China should be putting its own experts up on American TV rather than having their country interpreted by U.S. experts on China.  I think that if this was the case, Americans would view China very differently.  I just don't think the country's real story gets through.

Comments

[historyguy99]

Tom,

I could not agree more when you write that China needs to send their own voices to articulate their position here in the United States. Where is the Chinese Tom Barnett when you need him or her?
I say that because the most successful Chinese spokesperson who sold the United States on helping China during World War II was Madame Chiang Kai-shek.

[Gary Z]

Tom,
Great to hear the trip gone well in China-Look forward to talking when you are back in USA
I am in China early March

[Dan Hare]

Great point about having the Chinese version of 'Tom Barnett' brand.
I continue to think its easier to train younger minds (like our no smoking and MADD) to a particular view that doesn't have baggage of growing up in a different era.

Global Solutions/Collaboration of Civilizaiton/Future Worth Creating Summit is an exciting idea.

[Ralf Ostner]

With the Whyte-Barnett term sheet two Americans voiced the interests of the CP China and what it could have in common with the US-American side. Isn´t it time now to get a US-term sheet (at best: bipartisan)?Or an EU-term-sheet defining the base on which such strategic partnerships could be realized?The truth could be in the middle of the road--I think both sides have to make compromises.

[Ralf Ostner]

That´s a good question. Why need the Chinese two Americans to voice their ideas, if they could do it by themselve? First possible answer: They want to be friendly and to let two American strategic thinkers getting involved in their demands and use them as some sort of interpreter. als middeleman in a collobartion of civilizations. Second possible answer: They want to have the option to distance themselve from the term sheet, if it should turn out that there is no space for compromises and the win-loose-strategy.becomes dominant.Or as the Indian diplomat said in the Barnett blog "Express to India": It is kyte-flying to test the US reaction.