This is simply not the case. A starting point for an engagement strategy is the assumption that there exists between two nations enough fundamental common interests, or there exists the possibility for the development of important common interests, that dialogue is more rational than conflict. In the case of China, as we have seen, we share at present vital national concerns and must admit to the possibility of constructing a future that could give rise to a more cooperative relationship. This is not to gloss over the very critical differences we have with Beijing's leaders on a wide-range of issues. Engagement is neither a statement of faith nor a belief in idealistic internationalism.
Engagement is simply a more common sense approach.
In cases where there are clear common interests, we act in concert with the other parties to accomplish shared objectives. In cases where there is a mixture of common interests and contradictions, we seek to reach consensus through dialogue, compromise, and efforts to minimize areas of disagreement. Here, we might point to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as illustrative. Thus, although our efforts helped achieve the primary objective, securing China's commitment to join the treaty, we must still work to resolve our outstanding differences related to PRC testing. In cases where there are no common interests, but only contradictions, we seek through dialogue to prevent or minimize conflict.