The U. S. and China have a wide-ranging, deep and relatively mature relationship. The presidents of both countries have repeatedly indicated the value of developing a cooperative relationship for the future. Both sides have a pragmatic awareness of the issues on which they disagree, and both appreciate the importance of not permitting those specific disagreements to prevent cooperation on major issues where cooperation can be mutually beneficial. In addition, the leaders and top working-level officials on both sides have gained substantial experience in dealing with each other and, in many cases, have come to know each other fairly well. 

The above are promising dimensions of U. S. -China relations and should bode (预示) well for the future. There is no more important bilateral relationship, and thus its future direction is of enormous importance to each country, the region, and the world. For regional and global issues such as nonproliferation and climate change, active U. S. -China cooperation or at least parallel actions makes issues more manageable; having the U. S. and China work at cross purposes makes those issues more difficult, or even impossible, to manage.

Despite both sides’ tacit agreement on the above, there are grounds for deep concern about the future. As of early 2012 the U. S. has withdrawn its forces from Iraq and is on schedule to draw down its involvement in the Afghan conflict, and Washington is rebalancing its policy in the direction of Asia and the Pacific. This shift reflects President Obama’ s basic perspective, as America’ s self-described “first Pacific president, ” that because Asia is the most important region of the world for the future of the United States, it is vitally important that America maintain and enhance its leadership role there. In November 2011 the Obama Administration publically committed to devote the necessary resources to sustain this leader-ship role in Asia, even as its domestic fiscal challenges threaten substantial cuts in the overall defense budget and make funding of major overseas commitments potentially more controversial at home.