China's "Belt and Road Initiatives" can be considered an upgraded version of its "going global" policy, something that was discussed by President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart Barack Obama during their meeting last week.

"One Belt" refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt, which Xi proposed during his visit to Kazakhstan last September, and "One Road" stands for the "21st Century Maritime Silk Road" which he proposed in Indonesia last October. With one route extending from China to the central and western parts of Eurasia and the other from China to the Pacific and Indian oceans, the proposed "belt" and "road" are like two wings of a flying eagle.

Since the end of last year, the "belt" and "road" have been an important component of Chinese diplomacy, comprehensive reforms and economic work at the central level. But since it is new, the "Belt and Road Initiatives" are likely to create a perception gap between the United States and China. The two sides, therefore, need to enhance communication to narrow their differences and prevent strategic misunderstandings and their potential negative consequences.

Two differences have already emerged regarding the proposal. One is about the significance of the new Silk Road policy. China considers the policy as the embodiment of its concepts of "community of shared destiny" and "amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness", as well as concrete measures to push forward its "going global" policy. The Party and governments at all levels have placed considerable emphasis on the Silk Road plans. Industrial and financial sectors are using them to create opportunities. New and traditional media outlets are dedicating special columns to them. Civil institutions and non-governmental organizations are working on various exchange programs to make them a success. Think tanks, colleges, and consultancy firms are organizing forums and symposiums to contribute their share of knowledge to the plans.

In contrast, the US administration, leaders, academics and media have shown little interest in the plans, although some American scholars have likened them to a mirage, because their goals are too ambitious, their contents numerous and jumbled.