{"id":15438,"date":"2026-04-19T20:20:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T14:35:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=15438"},"modified":"2026-04-22T00:07:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T18:22:18","slug":"%e0%a4%8f%e0%a4%82%e0%a4%97%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%9c%e0%a4%ae%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%a8%e0%a5%8d%e0%a4%9f-%e0%a5%a8-%e0%a5%a6-%e0%a4%95%e0%a5%8b-%e0%a4%86%e0%a4%b5%e0%a4%b6%e0%a5%8d%e0%a4%af%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%a4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=15438","title":{"rendered":"The Need for \u2018Engagement 2.0\u2019: Failure to Understand China as the Root of Mutual Distrust"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Sanket Kirati<\/strong><\/p>\n

The world\u2014particularly the English\u2011speaking sphere\u2014has struggled to grasp China in all its diversity and complexity. The number of Americans studying Chinese language and culture remains strikingly low. Leaders from both U.S. political parties have acknowledged this weakness and expressed a desire to address it. This lack of mutual learning may well be the root cause of the high levels of public disapproval each nation\u2019s citizens hold toward the other. Broader and deeper engagement could help dismantle such negative perceptions.<\/p>\n

What is now required is \u201cEngagement 2.0\u201d\u2014a smarter, strategically informed approach to bilateral relations. For both the United States and China, engagement must be strategic by design. Fundamentally, both sides must accept that two nations, two political systems, two civilizations, and two distinct roadmaps for globalization do not necessarily have to be competitors.<\/p>\n

Viewed dialectically rather than dualistically, and with a perspective that extends beyond the nation\u2011state, the two countries can complement each other if relations are managed wisely. Such smart consensus already exists between American and Chinese leadership, but it needs to be strengthened and expanded.<\/p>\n

During the era of \u201cEngagement 1.0,\u201d administrations from both Republican and Democratic presidents believed that a peaceful and prosperous China was good for America and the world. Then\u2011Vice President Joe Biden echoed this view in his August 22, 2011 speech in Chengdu and in his September 7, 2011 New York Times op\u2011ed titled \u201cChina\u2019s Rise Isn\u2019t Our Demise.\u201d<\/em> He wrote: \u201cI remain convinced that a successful China can make our country more prosperous, not less.\u201d Chinese leaders, likewise, have long maintained that a prosperous America benefits China. President Xi Jinping has stated that both the Pacific Ocean and the world are large enough for the U.S. and China to coexist and thrive together.<\/p>\n

The two governments could mobilize top talent to collaborate creatively against shared existential threats such as pandemics, climate change, and terrorism, thereby contributing to the management of humanity\u2019s common destiny. While the U.S. and China are competitors, neither poses an existential threat to the other\u2014or to humanity. If cooperative relations are maintained, both nations, and indeed the world, will be better off.<\/p>\n

\u201cEngagement 2.0,\u201d characterized by mutual reflection, bilateral learning, and non\u2011dualistic smart strategy, can overcome the artificial challenges and obstacles created during the Trump era. Without rebuilding U.S.\u2013China relations, America may still rebuild its economy, but not as quickly or effectively. It risks losing a significant share of the global market and perpetuating instability, which would obstruct President Biden\u2019s domestic \u201cBuild Back Better\u201d agenda. In many ways, \u201cBuild Back Better\u201d for U.S.\u2013China relations and \u201cBuild Back Better\u201d for the American economy must go hand in hand to enable a stronger reconstruction of the global order.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t