By Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Again we are awash with advice. With China's President Xi Jinping again meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, pundits the world over are eager to offer their suggestions and proposals to improve US-China relations. This is no altruism: it's not a matter of hoping to help China and the US get along; rather, everyone recognizes that US-China relations affect the stability and prosperity of the whole world.

Though good-willed and appreciated, much of the advice — whether prescriptions, what to do, or proscriptions, what not to do — is repetitive, even soporiferous. Maybe that’s a good thing — because predictability, in sensitive diplomacy as in financial markets, is a good thing. But maybe there’s better advice.

The Xi-Obama meeting took place during the fourth Nuclear Security Summit, held in Washington, D.C. on March 31 and April 1, 2016. While the aim of the Summit is critical — preventing nuclear terrorism — attention focused on the sidelines where the two leaders huddled.

The last time the two leaders met, in September 2015, also in Washington, the summit went surprisingly well — considering the low expectations going in, what with cybersecurity and maritime disputes dominating the agenda. At the time, wise counsel was to focus on areas that unite us, not divide us, so the list stressed climate change, economic cooperation, fighting terrorism and organized crime, preventing pandemics, promoting alternative energy and green technologies, stopping regional wars, and the like.

While nothing in US-China relations is easy, these areas of common concerns are easier to handle — but here not my focus. I prefer to tackle the thorny, contentious issues. How can the sides show mutual respect to each other without compromising their core interests? And how can they accommodate each other without lapsing into appeasement?

Honesty is a place to start, even if not so politically correct. Here's what some on each side, suspicious of the other side, really think.

In China, some say that the U.S. seeks to "contain China" and thwart its historic rise. They see America encircling China by alliances, explicit or implicit, with Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, and India; manipulating Taiwan to keep the motherland divided; coercing China to open its markets in order to control China's industries and exploit Chinese consumers; restricting Chinese companies' operations and mergers and acquisitions in the U.S.; hacking China's computers and sending spy planes to patrol China's shores; fomenting "extremism, separatism and terrorism" in Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous regions; and injecting Western values to overwhelm Chinese values, eroding China's independence and undermining its sovereignty.

In the U.S., some say that China is a looming political and military challenger, an economic superpower that plays by its own rules and whose opaque intentions are intimidating its neighbors. China acts solely in its own interests, critics claim, even to the detriment of the international order. China is a mercantile predator that uses government power to promote commercial interests, boosting exports and stealing jobs, and allows (indeed promotes) nefarious hacking and industrial theft. Moreover, China's authoritarian government limits human rights to maintain Party control, and China's mounting military power, especially its modernizing blue-water navy, betrays expansionist ambitions.

How to deal with such sweeping, invidious suspicions? The normal way is for leaders to emphasize commonalities and manage differences, which seems to work well at first, but then often seems to backslide.

There is no magic solution. While progress is best made incrementally, not precipitously, I like to push for fresh perspectives.

I've been thinking of late about how to characterize differences between China and the US, and a descriptive term I've been playing with is "asymmetric". Because the core interests of China and the U.S. are not the same — which is fortunate — a zero-sum game is not inevitable. We hear about "asymmetry warfare". How about "asymmetric peacefare"!

Contrast US-China disputes with, say, the struggle between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany to control Poland. That was a "symmetric dispute" in that each side wanted precisely the same thing, making the struggle a classic zero-sum game and becoming one of the factors that led to war. This is no such symmetric dispute between China and the U.S. and therein lies the potential for progress.

So what are the kinds of asymmetric disputes found in China-US relations and how can they be handled?

There is an obvious political asymmetry. President Obama is in his last year in office and seeks, in his opinion, what's best for the U.S., without having to worry about the next election. President Xi has yet many years in office and seeks, in his opinion, what's best for China — what it will take to transform his country through economic transition, reform and the rule of law. More important, though, is the China-US asymmetry in core interests.

China would like the US to understand and respect its three core interests: (i) China's political system, which, given the country's historical traditions, huge population and imbalanced development, China's leaders believe it serves the best interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people; (ii) China's development as the country's highest national priority, which leads naturally to the need for social stability, especially during a time of economic complexities when deep and sensitive reforms are essential; and (iii) China's sovereignty over specific land and maritime territories, which reflect, after a century and a half of national oppression, both historic realities and national pride.

The US would like China to understand and respect its three core interests: (i) the sanctity of the international order and the standards of international law; (ii) accepted norms of behavior in foreign affairs and international commercial activities; and (iii) respect for human rights.

It is vital that each side come to appreciate the other side's core interests, not just what they are, but also how they have come to be. Each side should come to discern the ways of thinking that led to the specific development of each core interest, those of your side and those of the other side. In this manner, by discerning different "ways of thinking," one acquires deeper understanding and can make more nuanced and effective judgments.

My claim — perhaps my plea — is that all of these asymmetric core interests should not conflict. My hope is for harmony, which is why my call is for "asymmetric harmony" to help facilitate US-China relations. Perhaps recognizing the reality of the asymmetry and the need for the harmony can transform thinking.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn is a public intellectual, political/economics commentator, and international corporate strategist. He spoke at the launch ceremony of Xi Jinping's book, The Governance of China, and he provided live commentary on CNN for Xi's policy address (in Seattle) during his U.S. state visit in September 2015. Dr. Kuhn is the host of Closer To China with R.L. Kuhn on CCTV NEWS (Adam Zhu, executive producer).

To find more about Robert Lawrence Kuhn at:
http://english.cntv.cn/2014/12/23/ARTI1419321298029803.shtml     

To watch programs of Closer To China with R.L. Kuhn at:
http://english.cntv.cn/2014/12/18/ARTI1418891990154602.shtml  

( The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Panview or CCTV.com. )

Panview offers an alternative angle on China and the rest of the world through the analyses and opinions of experts. We also welcome outside submissions, so feel free to send in your own editorials to "globalopinion@vip.cntv.cn" for consideration.