【英文】国际危机组织报告：风险竞争：加强美中危机管理（41页）

Rising tensions between the U.S. and China, combined with larger military deployments by both powers in the Asia Pacific, have increased the risk of a crisis sparked  by miscalculation or an unintended collision in the air or at sea. Existing crisis management mechanisms have contributed to stability in the relationship, but in the face  of growing competition, heightened by the war in Ukraine, the two sides must identify  ways to bolster them, even if at the margins. In some cases, the most promising option  may be to focus on better implementing existing mechanisms – including hotlines to  communicate during crises and maritime “rules of the road” to prevent incidents.  But there is also room for greater ambition, particularly when it comes to defence dialogues. Resuming and expanding these dialogues, possibly to include joint crisis simulations, would allow Beijing and Washington to signal their intentions more clearly  and, down the line, might advance mutual understanding of possible escalation triggers  that can help both sides manage the associated risks more effectively.

The strategic competition between the U.S. and China is increasingly framed by  both sides as a rivalry between their respective domestic political systems. On one  hand, Washington presents itself as waging a battle for democracy and against autocracy, spurred among other things by President Joseph Biden’s desire to champion  values that his predecessor, Donald Trump, treated with visible contempt. On the other  hand, Beijing casts itself as the defender of China’s Communist Party-led system,  which it says represents a different form of democracy that has delivered huge benefits  for the Chinese people. The competition has intensified amid the conflict in Ukraine,  where Beijing’s backing of Moscow and Washington’s support for Kyiv have reinforced  the mutual sense that the two countries are engaged in a globe-spanning struggle. As  they jockey for position, both sides put forward narratives that raise the stakes of  their sparring, reduce the space for compromise and make it more difficult to limit  the risk of confrontation.