"Both in China and the United States, there is a growing nationalist narrative that promotes stereotypes about the other side. We need a comprehensive strategic framework to manage the nationalist element so that it can be controlled, rather than allowing it to dominate the relationship."

This is what Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia, President and CEO of the Asia Society, said in his keynote speech at the first Colombia-China Forum (CCF) held by Columbia University on April 24-25, Beijing time, with IFen.com's Dialogue with the World as the exclusive comprehensive communication partner.

Rudd believes that the competition and ongoing confrontation between China and the United States has many facets. Managing Sino-US strategic competition requires a two-pronged approach: first, a potentially deadly conflict, such as a strategic red line - Taiwan. The second is non-lethal regional competition, including foreign policy, trade policy, finance and capital markets, money markets, technology and talent markets, and ideology. Non-lethal competition in these areas does not need to become a trigger for military armed conflicts, and strategic cooperation is a better way for the two countries to engage.

Kevin Rudd: Thank you, I'm in Brisbane, Australia, and I'm honored to have the opportunity to say a few words to you.

A book I just wrote, "The Avoidable war." Five years ago we were talking about the possibility of war. It wasn't that big. The debate, whether in Beijing, Washington, or regionally, is now focusing more and more on the possibility of war. This trend is getting more and more dangerous, so I decided to write this book.

The content of the book has the following aspects. The first is the history of Sino-US relations since the Second World War, including the evaluation of each other in various aspects of history. The second is the worldview of China's leaders. It is well known that most Westerners do not understand the domestic politics of China, especially the internal politics of the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, in order to write this book well, I have introduced the policies, lines, and principles of the Communist Party of China under the leadership of the Chinese leadership, including China's domestic economy, defense, politics, trade, investment, and ideology. The third part is the most important, the biggest problem in China-Us relations is strategic competition. China and the United States should start from the following three points to formulate a regulatory framework to deal with this issue.

The first point is that the two governments, the two political systems, each have their own strategic red lines, Taiwan, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Korean Peninsula and airspace, are all dangerous and sensitive areas.

Second, beyond the five red lines, China and the United States can engage in healthy competition in other areas, including diplomacy, economy, science and technology, national strength, finance, and ideology. For example, China and the West have different views on human rights, and both sides can discuss them peacefully.

Third, we should protect the political space for strategic cooperation. For example, the challenges of the global climate and the pandemic are common challenges beyond politics, and every government must cooperate. International financial stability also requires co-operation.

Here's a Q&A session:

Q: You just mentioned that the strategic competition between China and the United States must abide by three rules. So, could you please share your views on the core interests of the Taiwan question?

Kevin Rudd: The Taiwan issue is the most sensitive of the bilateral security issues between China and the United States. Therefore, we need to be more careful about the details of this issue. On Taiwan, Beijing and Washington have yet to negotiate clear standards, and both sides are pushing and shoving. Through this action and reaction, to test the ultimate bottom line. I am critical of this approach, which removes any political goodwill from the US-China relationship. I advocate determining the location of the strategic red line on the Taiwan question as soon as possible. First of all, regarding the future cyber security between the two countries, this is not only an issue between China and the United States, but also between the mainland and Taiwan. Where does one draw the red line when it comes to cyberattacks on each other's civilian economic infrastructure? How should this red line be defined internally? For example, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said on April 27 that the Taiwan question concerns China's core interests, and we will never allow or resolutely oppose any outside interference. The US side should abide by the One-China principle and the three China-Us joint communiques, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues, and refrain from doing anything that undermines peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait or escalates tensions across the Taiwan Strait. -- Editor's note)

Second, whether the United States and its Allies will take maritime actions against Taiwan in the future, such as trade blockade or trade ban. At what point do these actions become red lines.

Third, the question of future military action against Taiwan.

Finally, from Beijing's perspective, to what extent is political engagement between the Taiwan authorities and the US government unacceptable? Such details should be negotiated in high-level private diplomacy between the United States and China. Specific channels include the national security adviser in the United States and similar senior officials in China, such as Yang Jiechi or the vice chairman of the Central Military Commission.

Q: Dear Mr. Rudd, my name is Tianyu, and I am a student at Brown University studying the Middle East and international relations. How do you see U.S.-China cooperation in the next five to 10 years? As we all know, the political systems of the United States and China are very different, and ideology plays a very different role in the country and society. How would your proposed system of management competition provide a solution to the coexistence of political institutions under these two ideologies?

Rudd: There is no solution to the problem in my book, only a way to reduce the danger in the current environment, particularly with regard to the ideological confrontation between the two systems.

This is a potential ideological conflict, part of a generalized strategic competition between the two countries and even the two systems. Therefore, I believe that the management of strategic competition needs to be approached from two aspects. First, deadly potential conflicts, such as the strategic red line I mentioned earlier - Taiwan. Second, non-lethal regional rivalries include foreign policy, trade policy, finance and capital markets, money markets, technology and talent markets, as well as ideology. Non-lethal competition in these areas need not become a trigger for military armed conflict. In addition, I think strategic cooperation is a better way for the two countries to interact. I have looked at all the alternative ways of managing the U.S.-China relationship. In my opinion, none of them are perfect. My only ambition is to find a gentle way out by studying the history of the 20th century like a historian. Yet politicians are often not in the habit of gentling down problems, which is the root cause of many crises. I want everyone to buy a copy of Avoidable War, it's a great book. Thank you very much!

Question: My name is Barry and I'm also a student at Brown University. Looking back at the past five to 10 years, the problem of nationalism in China and the United States has been deepening. How likely do you think this situation will reverse? Second, will the country's internal problems exacerbate tensions in China-Us relations, or vice versa?

Kevin Rudd: The competition and the rivalry that is unfolding between China and the United States is multifaceted. In addition to military power, there is also economic power. Antagonistic sentiments between different countries, often called nationalism, have historically played a negative role. The difference between nationalism and patriotism is whether to despise another country while loving one's own. My concern now is that both within the Chinese system and in Congress in Washington, there is a growing nationalist narrative that promotes stereotypes about the other side. Therefore, we need a comprehensive strategic framework to manage the nationalist element so that it can be controlled, rather than allowing it to dominate the Sino-US relationship. That's another reason I wrote this book.

Question: I am a freshman at Columbia University. Within the framework of competition and cooperation between the United States and China, can other players, such as neighboring countries in Asia and the European Union, play an active role?

Kevin Rudd: There is a growing discussion about third parties, usually other countries in Asia and Europe. Europeans are now increasingly talking about strategic autonomy. I believe that most people in Asia and Europe do not want to see a duality in China-Us relations.

Moreover, Putin and Russia's decision to invade Ukraine have exacerbated the global binary. In this regard, Europe believes that despite China's technical neutrality, China's refusal to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and maintain normal economic and political relations with Moscow have affected European perceptions of China. I recently wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal. Such behavior leaves fewer and fewer opportunities for other regions to have an independent voice in the U.S.-China relationship, as China moves clearly in the eyes of Europeans in a pro-Russian direction.

Finally, people everywhere, whether in Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra, Delhi, Singapore, or Berlin, Paris, Brussels, or London, believe that the future stability of the world depends 90 percent on two parties: Beijing and Washington.

That's why I wrote this book. I am a friend of the two countries and the two peoples, and the final decision is in the hands of the two peoples.