Abstract: the thesis analyzes the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” between the United States and E.U. (European Union) against the rise of China and points out the two parties’ consensus and divergence in relationship with China. The thesis holds that the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” between the United States and E.U. acts as the barometer of the trilateral relationship between China, the United States and E.U. Among the three sides of the trilateral relationship, while the United States and E.U. establishes the closest bilateral relationship, there is still deep divergence and distrust among China, the United States and E.U., and the China-U.S. relationship has in some sense made the China-E.U. relationship even complicated. The “trans-Atlantic dialogue” between the United States and E.U. has profound impacts on China as well as the trilateral relationship between China, the United States and E.U. To maximize the positive effects of “trans-Atlantic dialogue” between the United States and E.U., China shall lay stress on strengthening the China-E.U. relationship while handling issues concerning its relationship with the United States and E.U. and promote the development of China-U.S. relationship.
   Since the 1990s, China’s development has drawn increasing world-wide attention. The “Trans-Atlantic” dialogue between the United States and E.U. that started from the end of the 2001 summer was initiated just under this background. At that time, the Stinson Center of the Untied States and the Research Institute of Foreign Relations Council of Germany organized experts on China issues, East Asia issues and Trans-Atlantic relations from the United States and E.U. to conduct a one-year-long exchange. Presuming that China’s rise would exert fundamental influence on the United States and E.U., the dialogue focused on five major issues, including anti-proliferation, technology transfer and export control, Taiwan and regional security, China’s implementation of WTO rules and  China’s economic and domestic changes as well as the cooperation among the United States and E.U. and China in untraditional security fields, aiming at exploring China’s future trend and its role in international affairs and predicting possible issues that may arise from divergence between the United States and E.U. in China’s rise. It can be safely concluded as the early stage of the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” against China’s rise. After the September 11 Incident, as the focus of the U.S. diplomatic policies shifted, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” was once suspended.
   In early 2005, stimulated by E.U.’s lifting ban on weapons sales to China, the United States and E.U. established a strategic dialogue mechanism for senior decision-making body to cope with China’s rise. From May 2 through May 3, 2005, Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policies of E.U., visited Washington and met Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States, during which the two parties officially initiated the strategic dialogue mechanism. In November of the same year, the United States and E.U. conducted strategic dialogues on the issue of China and Asia again. Thereafter, with the delay of E.U.’s lift of ban on weapons sales to China, especially that the attention of the United States and E.U. was diverted to Iraq, Iran and the internal affairs of the E.U. Union, the strategic dialogue cross the Atlantic correspondingly became relatively slack. The “trans-Atlantic dialogue” under the “second-track” framework jointly participated in by scholars and officials also became inactive. Such institutes as U.S. International Strategy Research Center, German Marshall Fund (of the United States), the Chinese Program Center of the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University, German International Security Affairs Research Institute, the Asia Center of the Political Research Institute headquartered in Paris, the Brookings Institution as well as the Center European Reform headquartered in London sponsored or hosted the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” activities.
   To certain extent, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” embodies the U.S.’s and E.U.’s concern and worry about as well as response to China’s rise. Therefore, discussing this dialogue contributes to a better understanding of the trilateral relationship between China, the United States and E.U. as well as its impact on China.

I. The “Trans-Atlantic Dialogue”: the Common Concern and Divergence of the United States and E.U.

 Both the United States and E.U. show great concern about China’s rise. The “trans-Atlantic dialogue” already underway shows that they have both consensus and divergence in treating China’s rise, and there is a long way for the two parties to go in coordination of issues concerning their policies on China.
(I) The Common Concern of the United States and E.U.
1. Democracy and human rights. Both the United States and E.U. complain about China’s human rights conditions and expect to promote China’s transition to democracy. NATO Committee’s annual report for 2005 entitled China’s Rise and the Trans-Atlantic Economy pointed out that “China’s political evolution cannot stop here...The Western countries shall encourage this kind of evolution and realize at the same time this evolution toward democracy is not accomplished in one move, especially in those societies devoid of democratic traditions; they shall also realize that the form of this evolution also varies. Therefore, the Western countries’ support for China’s democratic reform must be the mainstay for handling their relationships with China”. However, the focus of their concerns differs. The United States shows concern for dissidents, religious freedom and the Tibet issue, etc.; whereas E.U. pays close attention to the abolishment of death penalty, the safety of working sites and punishment reform, etc.
2. Energy and environment. Both the United States and E.U. show displeasure for China’s maintaining energy supply relationship with the so-called “rogue states” such as Burma, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe, etc. and have concern over the environmental problems arising from China’s ever increasing demand and consumption of energy resources. They hold that “the steep rise in the energy demand of Asian countries, especially China and India, is the potential root cause of conflicts, for it increases uncertainties and destroys climate and environment.” Some American scholars even believe that “China is speeding up her acquisition of energy resources, which shall sound the alarm for the United States, for its earth-quaking effect is no less than the former Soviet Union’s launching of man-made satellites in the Cold War Era”.
(II) The Divergence between the United States and E.U.
The United States and E.U. have much more divergences than consensuses in their viewpoints and policies on China. The former is inclined to judge China’s rise by the impact of the continuous increase in China’s hard strength, especially military strength on the United States’ interests in the security of East Asia; whereas E.U. is inclined to judge China’s rise by her internal changes, i.e. her transformation from socialism to market economy, a more open society and a more representative and responsible government. The divergence in views leads to the divergence in the United States’ and E.U.’s policies on China. The document publicized on October 24, 2006 by the EU Committee concerning its policies on China still adheres to the strategy of maintaining contact and partnership with China, whereas the U.S. government has unceasing internal debates over choice of policies on China. The options include: (1) to take China as the focal point of U.S. diplomacy and make her a better partner; (2) to consolidate the U.S.’ relationship with its existing allies prior to its contact with China; (3) to treat China as an enemy. In short, the United States is adopting the strategy of both contact and containment toward China. The specific embodiment of the U.S.’ and E.U.’s divergence in their relationship with China is as follows:
1. Economic relations with China. To sum up, E.U. takes its economic relations with China as an opportunity, whereas the United States’ economic policies on China are swing back and forth between containing China’s strategic competitions and urging China to be integrated into the global economic system. This divergence in cognition leads to the difference in their trade with China: the United States imposes strict restrictions on high-tech product export to China, whereas E.U. is relatively liberal in this aspect. Since 2000, E.U.’s export of machines and transporting equipments to China has taken up 60%~70% of its total exports to China; whereas the percentage of the United States’ export of the said products to China to its total exports to China is on average over 15% or even 20% in recent years lower than that of the EU’s. 
However, the United States and E.U. take a similar stand on such issues as the exchange rate of RMB. The United States’ strict restriction on high-tech product export to China is one of the main causes of the trade imbalance between China and the United States. However, the United States holds that the trade imbalance results from China’s manipulation of the exchange rate of RMB. As a result, the United States constantly imposes pressure on China and demands appreciation of RMB. Moreover, the fact that China holds a large amount of the U.S. national debt also concerns the United States. Since the beginning of 2007, E.U. also started to complain that the over-low appraised price of RMB has led to the ever expanding trade deficit between China and E.U. and intensify its pressure on China, so as to bring about the substantial appreciation of RMB. Besides, neither the United States nor E.U. has recognized China’s market economy position and the two takes identical stand on urging China to further open her financial market and strengthen protection of intellectual property rights.
2. E.U.’s lift of ban on weapon sales to China. In December, 2003, it was decided at the meeting of heads of E.U. that E.U.’s ban on weapon sales to China would be reconsidered. The reason for this move by E.U. is as follows: “regarding China as its future strategic partner, E.U. expects to promote its relationship with China and views the lift of ban on weapon sales to China as a necessary measure to improve the two parties’ relationship.” E.U.’s consideration of lifting the ban on weapon sales to China is strongly opposed by the United States, as the latter has the following concerns over E.U.’s lift of ban on weapon sales to China: (1) it may reinforce China’s military strength and increase the threat against U.S. military actions approaching the Chinese Mainland and Taiwan; (2) with Taiwan’s political position undecided, it may seriously threaten Taiwan’s security; (3) it is harmful for imposing further pressure on China regarding the human rights issue.
3. The Taiwan issue. E.U.’s mainstream opinions on the Taiwan issue is as follows: time is on the side of China, while the United States’ guarantee of Taiwan’s security will be withdrawn in the end and its interests will incline toward China’s favor. Some American scholars believe that E.U. and its member states are keeping their distance from Taiwan on purpose and making the Unites States undertake and deal with the diplomatic and military burdens of this issue, so as to enable themselves to benefit from steadier economic relations with China.
Some U.S. scholars hold that to the United States, the Taiwan issue remains one of the core issues in China-U.S. relationship and U.S. policies on China. The United States’ policy on this issue remains to solve the problem peacefully and oppose unilateral change of the status quo. Taiwan is not only still the beloved of the U.S. rightists but also closely bound up with the United States’ promotion of other strategic interests, which include promoting democracy, the peace and security of East Asia, the credibility of the United States’ security commitments throughout the world and encouraging the peaceful rise of China, etc.
    4. China’s role in the Asia-Pacific region. Since the end of the 20th century, China has been participating in the economic, security and political affairs of the Asia-Pacific region even more actively and strengthening her bilateral and multilateral relationships with other countries in this region, especially supporting and taking part in the East Asian integration advocated by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “E.U.’s view on China’s participation in the regional proposal is on the whole positive.”
   China’s ever increasing influence in Asia has evoked in the United States a debate over this increase’s impact on its economic and security interests in this region. The heart of the debate is to what extent China’s rise will undermine the United States’ influence in this region and whether China’s ultimate goal is to drive the United States out of Asia or not. Although both sides of the debate stick to their own arguments, there is a consensus that China’s future trend is uncertain.
   5. China’s global role. E.U. declared openly that it “expects China to take part in and offer help to actions against great global challenges, such as anti-proliferation and security, the sustainable development of Africa and energy resources, changes of environment and climate.” However, as the only super power in the world, the United States has strong concerns over China’s world-wide activities and her long-term intentions, including concern over China’s intention to establish a multi-polar world order with other big countries.

II. The Relationship between China, the United States and E.U. as Reflected through the “Trans-Atlantic Dialogue”

 The issue of E.U.’s lift of ban on weapon sales to China that emerged at the end of 2003 has even more closely linked together the U.S.-E.U. relationship, the China-U.S. relationship and the China-E.U. relationship, while the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” offers a very valuable perspective for seeing through the trilateral relationship between China, the United States and E.U., as it is the barometer of the China-U.S. relationship, the China-E.U. relationship as well as the U.S.-E.U. relationship to some extent. What kind of trilateral relationship has been reflected through the “trans-Atlantic dialogues” in the past three years? On the whole the conclusions for this question are as follows:
(I) The U.S.-E.U. relationship is the firmest bilateral relationship among the trilateral relationships
 Debates and crisis is always accompanying the Trans-Atlantic coalition. As the Cold War over and the former Soviet Union disintegrated, the Trans-Atlantic coalition has gone through great geopolitical changes and the cohesiveness of the U.S.-E.U. coalition is under test. Since George W. Bush took office in 2001, there have been divergences between the United States and E.U. in such issues as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court as well as the National Missile Defense system, etc. The internal crisis provoked by the Iraqi War is so serious that some American scholars even start to discuss the termination of the Atlanticism.
 However, there is no doubt that the U.S.-E.U. relationship is the firmest bilateral relationship among the trilateral relationships. Both E.U.’s suspended consideration of lifting the ban on weapon sales to China due to the United States’ strong opposition and the existence of the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” against China’s rise have proved this fact. The rapid reconciliation between the United States and E.U. in February, 2005 also indicates that the Trans-Atlantic coalition has a solid foundation, where economic interdependence, common values of democracy and market economy as well as the NATO are powerful ties that maintain the U.S.-E.U. relationship.
 1. Highly interdependent in economy. The report publicized by the European Committee in February, 2007 shows that E.U. and the United States are each other’s most important trade partner and the biggest bilateral trade partners in the world. In 2005, the economic aggregates of E.U. and the United States took up 58% of the global GDP while their trade volume took up 37% of the global trade volume. With products and service included, the bilateral trade value of E.U. and the United States 2004 was about 420 billion euros, i.e. about 1.15 billion euros per day. Between 2000 and 2004, the total amount of mutual investments between E.U. and the United States was about 1,500 billion euros and the two parties jointly created 14 million job opportunities for people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It is especially noteworthy that between 1998 and 2005, “the United States’ investment in East E.U. was 60% more than its investment in China, equal to 16.6 billion U.S. dollars to 10.3 billion U.S. dollars, and the foreign investments attracted by the United States from  E.U. took up 75% of the total amount of its foreign investments.”
 2. Democracy and the market economy. Although there are value divergences between the United States and E.U. in such issues as death penalty, gun control, and religions’ role in the society, etc. both of them regard democracy, human rights, legal rule and free market economy as their common values and foundation for cooperation.
3. NATO and the war against terrorism. On August 11, 2003, the NATO officially took over the command of the international security aid troops stationed in Afghanistan. It was the first time that the NATO fulfilled peacekeeping tasks outside E.U. The NATO’s political will and military capabilities are being tested by its actions in Afghanistan. On November 29, 2006, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of the NATO declared that the establishment of NATO’s rapid response force was completed, which marked an essential step forward of the NATO’s transformation. With the NATO’s capabilities to fight such new security threats as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction strengthened, the security relationship between the United States and E.U. will also be consolidated.
(II) The Divergences and Distrust between China, the United States and E.U.
The “trans-Atlantic dialogue” has reflected not only the divergences between the United States and E.U. and China in democracy and human rights, but also the divergences between the United States and E.U. in judging and responding to China’s rise. To be exact, there are great divergences between any two parties of the China-U.S.-E.U. trilateral relationship which is also troubled by mutual distrust. To be specific, there are divergences between China and E.U. in lift of ban on weapon sales to China, human rights, market economy and trade, etc.; the divergences between China and the United States find expression in the Taiwan issue, the security of East Asian, the missile defense systems, human rights and trade etc.; while there are divergences between the United States and E.U. in such issues as trade, international treaties, international mechanism, anti-terrorism, and the Iraqi Wart, etc. The distrust among China, the United States and E.U. mainly finds expression in:
   1. The United States has doubts of the strategic partnership between China and E.U. The E.U. Union’s consideration of lifting the ban on weapon sales to China has warned the United States against the strategic partnership between China and E.U. On July 22, 2005, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission of the U.S. Congress held a hearing entitled “China, E.U. and the Trans-Atlantic Coalition”. The main issues discussed include what kind of role China would like E.U. to play in the multi-polar world she hopes for? What is the impact of the strategic partnership between China and E.U. on the Trans-Atlantic coalition? It is can be seen from these questions that the United States cherishes doubts of the strategic partnership between China and E.U.
  2. China fears that the United States and E.U. may cope with China jointly. China’s fears and doubts are not groundless. At present, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” underway both on the level of governments on both sides of the Atlantic and on the level of “second-track” diplomacy mainly aims at responding to China’s rise. Moreover, “both the Europeans and many Americans are willing to strengthen the Trans-Atlantic consultation and cooperation over China-related issues”. Although he once cautioned that don’t let the containment of China become a self-realized prediction, Robert Zoellick still emphasized that China, the United States and E.U. are all obliged to ensure that the operation of the existing systems will not make any party feel unfairly treated, so as to preventing the modern political order from making responses no one would like to see. However, the coordination between the United States and E.U. on the rise of China remains an issue that calls for close attention.
 3. The E.U. believes that China attaches greater importance to the United States than to it. Since the Sixth E.U.-China Summit declared the establishment of an all-round strategic partnership in October, 2003, the China-E.U. ties have developed continuously. In the year 2004, the E.U. became the first biggest trade partner of China whereas China became the second biggest trade partner of E.U. The leaders on both sides had a very high opinion of the China-E.U. relationship. In July, 2005, Jose Manuel Barroso, Chairman of EU Commission said on the eve of his departure for a scheduled visit to China that “E.U. is endeavoring to commit itself to developing the strategic partnership with China” and that “it is in line with the interests of both China and E.U. to establish a partnership that is strong enough to respond to the global challenges we are confronted with.” At the Ninth E.U.-China Summit held on September 9, 2006, Wen Jiabao, Premier of China, said that “the Chinese government attaches great importance to its relationship with E.U., supports the European integration, and hopes that E.U. will play a more active role in the international affairs. China and E.U. are two important forces in the world. Further strengthening the China-E.U. cooperation is not only in line with the interests of both parties but also favorable to the peace, stability and development of Asia, E.U. as well as the world.” However, some people on the side of E.U. believe that China attaches more importance to the United States than to it. Ekhud Rokam, chairman of German Asia-Pacific Business Association, said that “China is a promising big state. Seeing from the perspective of a European, I indeed feel that for at least a short or medium term, they will regard themselves as on an equal footing with the United States. I don’t know whether they are treating us the same way.”
  (III) The China-U.S. Relationship Complicates the China-E.U. Relationship
  In connection with the above-mentioned doubt of some people on the side of E.U. over China’s disposal of her relationship with the United States and E.U., some European scholars show displeasure for the status quo of the China-E.U. relationship. “The basic issues of the China-E.U. relationship have something to do with the China-U.S. relationship…the relationship between China and the United States is symbiotic while it is another case with the China-E.U. relationship”, said Francis Godman, director of the Asian Center headquartered in Paris. He emphasized that “E.U. shall explore how to establish relations with China even better.” Seen from this perspective, the close relationship between China and the United States has made the China-E.U. relationship even more complicated. Seeing from another angle, we will find that the complicatedness of the China-U.S. relationship also complicates the China-E.U. relationship. The argument is supported by the fact that the United States stopped E.U.’s consideration of lifting the ban on weapon sales to China so as to hinder the smooth development of the strategic partnership between China and E.U. It can be seen from both perspectives above that the China-U.S. relationship has direct influence on the China-E.U. relationship and makes it even more complicated.

III. The “Trans-Atlantic Dialogue” and Its Impacts on China

   The “trans-Atlantic dialogue” and the trilateral relationship between China, the United States and E.U. reflected through it show that to the United States and E.U., the current external environment of China is relatively good. However, the impacts the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” on China must not be neglected. In some sense, it is due to the establishment and operation of the Trans-Atlantic strategic dialogue mechanism that E.U.’s lift of the ban on weapon sales to China is temporarily “frozen” or even will be “frozen” for a long time. This dialogue mechanism will also expose China to potential risk that the United States and E.U. may jointly impose pressure on China for their common concerns. Therefore, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue’s” impacts on China are worth attention.
   In recent years, the energies of the United States and E.U. have got involved with other issues. The United Stated has been busy with the Iraqi War and the focus of its attention lies in Mideast, Central Asia and East Asia. Since the constitution crisis happened to E.U. in 2005, the attention of E.U. has been concentrated on solving its internal affairs. As a result, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” is inactive either on the level of government or on the level of “second-track” diplomacy, let alone the come-into-being of any Trans-Atlantic policy on China. Nevertheless, with the U.S.-E.U. relationship warming up ever-increasingly after they walked out of the shadow of the NATO crisis, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the pro-U.S. leaders respectively took office in Germany and France in succession, which may create new space for the coordination and cooperation between the United States and E.U. As a result, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” may acquire a new motive force and exert unnegligible influences on China, which can be either negative or positive.
 The possible negative influences are as follows: first, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” may bring China under even greater pressure. As is mentioned above, the United States and E.U. have common concerns over China’ rise. Meanwhile, they also take the same stand on such issues as urging China to further open her financial market, strengthen protection of intellectual property rights and appreciate RMB by a big margin. The accordance of the United States and E.U. on these issues means that China may face joint pressure from the United States and E.U. when these issues are concerned.
 Secondly, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” may set up bigger barriers for China on some issues. At present, China has met with one obstruction after another on the two issues of E.U. lifting the ban on weapon sales to China and her struggling for market economy position. The existence of the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” mechanism and the possibility for its further activation has brought China before even bigger barriers.
 With regard to E.U.’s lift of ban on weapon sales to China, E.U.’s consideration of lifting the ban on weapon sales to China is a makeshift device in essence. It is a political card aiming at getting economic benefits from China. Now Gerhard Schroeder, ex-Premier of Germany, and Jacques Chirac, ex-President of France, who both support the lift of ban on weapon sales to China, have left their posts successively, but their successors have shown on interest in this issue. On the contrary, they have expressed their eagerness to maintain close relationship with the United States. Besides, as the forces against the lift of ban inside E.U. and its member states and still functioning and the common foreign and security policy of E.U. is still in process, it is unimaginable to make the 27 member states agree unanimously to lift the ban on weapon sales to China. Moreover, because of the close military alignment between the United States and E.U. and the existence of NATO, the lift of ban on weapon sales to China is by no means an internal affair of E.U. alone. As a matter of fact, it is controlled by Washington to a large extent. The European Union’s lift of ban on weapons sales to China is the primary concern of the “trans-Atlantic dialogue”. Obviously, Washington wants to use this dialogue mechanism to prevent E.U. from “going out of control” again on the issue of its lift of ban on weapon sales to China.
 With regard to China’s market economy position, as some member states of E.U. are unsatisfied with their economic relations with China, that dissatisfaction has prevented them from giving China due market economy position. Besides, E.U. attempts to utilize the issue of market economy position to impose pressure on China on such issues as market access and protection of intellectual property rights, etc. At the 2007 U.S.-E.U. Summit, leaders from both sides of the Atlantic signed Frame Agreement on Promoting the Trans-Atlantic Economic Integration, which means that the U.S.-E.U. economic integration will further deepen and the stand coordination between the two parties on such issues as market economy position will be strengthened.
  Besides negative influences, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” may also produce positive influences on China; however, it needs us to make efforts to neutralize the negative influences of the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” and give play to their positive role to the fullest possible extent. The most effective way is to continue deepening U.S.-China and E.U.-China dialogue and cooperation, promoting the thorough and sound development of the U.S.-China and E.U.-China relationships, and especially paying attention to strengthen the E.U.-China relationship.
 The “trans-Atlantic dialogue” shows that U.S.’s and E.U.’s views and treatment of China’s rise differ. What concerns E.U. is the internal changes of China whereas the U.S. pays more attention to the foreign threat situation of China; E.U.’s strategy on China is contact and partnership whereas the U.S.’s policy on China is contact and containment. The difference between the two reveals different China contact space.
 Some people on the side of E.U. have misunderstanding over the E.U-China relationship. They lack confidence and are unsatisfied with the status quo of the E.U-China relationship. This kind of understanding and the reality it reflects will undoubtedly jeopardize the continuous development of the E.U-China relationship. It has sent out a strong signal: the E.U-China relationship must be strengthened speedily.
 China’s development strategy has something in common with E.U.’s strategy on China and there is broad space for development between E.U. and China. At home, China is constructing the well-off society on the basis of the scientific outlook on development; internationally, China is committed to build a peaceful, stable and friendly international. The document of E.U.’s policy on China publicized in October, 2004 points out its five strategies on China, i.e. supporting China’s transformation toward a pluralistic society, pushing forward the sustainable development, improving the E.U.-China trade relations, strengthening the bilateral cooperation and promoting regional and international cooperation. Some Europeans feel that “they can offer many assistances to promote the development of China, for instance, they believe that their public welfare system, education system, medical system, protection of environment, fine management and promotion of legal rule are useful patterns for the Chinese who also approve and welcome the Europeans’ assistance in these fields.”
 Healthy E.U.-China relationship helps to promote the development of the U.S.-China relationship. The United States cherishes doubts over the trend of China’s sustained development, especially China’s intentions in East China, which has already hindered the development of the U.S.-China relationship. On the whole, E.U. does not have such doubts, and as a result, it can neutralize the negative effects of the U.S.’s doubts. Currently the strengthening of the trans-Atlantic relationship also provides favorable conditions for E.U. to play such a positive role. The United States will be more willing to listen to E.U.’s opinions on the rise of China when it is fairly confident of the trans-Atlantic relationship. Under such circumstances, the “trans-Atlantic dialogue” will not do harm to China but benefit China instead and thus contribute to the healthy development of the trilateral relationship between China, the United States and the European Union.

  About the author: Liu Deshou is an associate researcher of the American Studies Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.