US Secretary of State John Kerry outlined a vision for what he described as a "Pacific Dream" during his speech at the Tokyo Institute of Technology Monday. Strategists interpret it as the Asian policy for the following four years held by the Obama administration's new team and also as a response to the "Chinese dream." Kerry reiterated the main idea of the US' pivot strategy with a softer stance toward China.

Kerry's speech has reinforced an impression: the core issue in the Asia Pacific is what kind of bilateral ties China and the US can nurture. The US' confidence in policies backed up by its military strength to contain China has been declining.

The US will focus on maintaining economic dominance in the region to ensure its competitive advantage over China. The Trans-Pacific Partnership led by the US will be a stage on which it will compete with China's economic influence.

Kerry didn't want to provoke China the same way his predecessor Hillary Clinton did, which is worth applause. China has maintained a consistent attitude toward the US, while the US' stance toward China has always been the changing factor in bilateral relations.

If the US had not always calculated what geopolitical challenge China's development will pose but focus on how to improve its own economic vitality, the China-US competition would be seen differently. Most Chinese would see it as much better than the US using its military strength as leverage over China.

The economic competition between the two should be fair, or it will continue to be the source of tensions between the two.

In the past few years, the US has accused China of manipulating its currency. Washington also used its political power to influence competition between Chinese and US companies. If the US does not change these acts, the "Pacific Dream" will be no different from the "pivot to Asia."

The US' softening stance may dishearten those advocating a confrontational attitude toward China, as such an attitude represents a realistic evaluation of China's rise.

There have always been, and always will be countries that wish to gain strategic benefits from competitions between China and the US. But subtle changes in the competition will make it hard for them to take the side of either China or the US.

The US' adjustment of its China policy can ease China's pressing international strategic environment seen in the past few years. But it shouldn't be taken as an "initial victory." China is still in a disadvantageous position compared with the US. China's future policy should be to persist with its current strategy. 

China needs to make strategic adjustments according to the US' changes. Meanwhile, it should keep up with developments of the situation in Northeast Asia. It's hard to predict how Sino-US relations will turn out in the next four years. No matter how the US defines the "Pacific Dream," one thing will remain the same: it will continue to try to maintain an advantage over China.