Britain’s approach to China is unrealistic. While seeking a positive trade and investment relationship, it also asserts that China threatens its security, prosperity and values. These two views are incompatible. Having one’s cake and eating it too is a daydream.

China, the United States and India have different strategic goals and so their interests conflict — so much so that strategic suspicion has fostered a negative kind of competition in which the other side is labeled as a primary rival. Of course there is a way to break the impasse. But it boils down to whether the parties really want to.

The U.S. exaggerates the Russian military threat while strengthening the military position of its allies, which shows the American double standard unambiguously. Russia’s proposals for reform of the Arctic Council were dismissed out of hand by Blinken, who insisted on an American approach.

As the Biden administration heads into the second stage, clear steps are visible: Clear out the negative Trump legacy, tighten global strategy, coordinate with allies to curb China and prioritize climate change in China-U.S. cooperation. Some things differ from Trump; others are the same or expanded.

China and the U.S. share misguided illusions of the other that remain unproductive and even dangerous. Both governments must strive to see each other clearly and cooperate in the face of increasing public hostility.

The Biden administration faces many constraints and limitations. And the two sides do not appear to have enough political will to reach a grand strategic bargain. Thus, the summit is unlikely to smooth the bumpy road of bilateral relations.

Using the buzzwords “compete, collaborate, confront” to express the U.S. approach to China is inadequate, as they fail to take nuances into account. In fact, the 3C framework has led to the Chinese view that Biden’s approach is too negative and has only added to the complexity of relations.

It would be a blessing to the world if China were simply supported in its peaceful development. But the opposite is happening. For months, the Biden administration’s approach has attempted to contain China’s rise. Troubling consequences are emerging.

In the 1990s, the famous concept of “soft power” was put forward by Joseph Nye, professor and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. It greatly influenced the foreign policy of the Obama administration and became an important concept promoted by the State Department. In his view, a country’s comprehensive national power is divided into hard power and soft power, which mainly includes “cultural attraction, political value attraction and the ability to shape international rules and decide political issues”.

The COVID-19 crisis in India has created an opening for China to flex its regional influence, while the U.S. intends to draw India into America’s orbit for good.