Conventional logic would say that new leadership should open a broad window to reset relationships between nations. Yet as the first 6 months of the Biden presidency shows, the story is not always so cut-and-dry.

In the year 2034, the United States and China become embroiled in a series of military conflicts that escalate into a devastating tactical nuclear war. Other countries – including Russia, Iran, and India – get involved. Suddenly, the world is on the verge of World War III.

For the United States, the Nord Stream 2 gas project is a reminder of its waning global hegemony. Its ability to control its allies has declined. Bilateral relations have deteriorated. Attempts to block construction have failed. America has become a shadow of its former self.

China and United States should distinguish between strategic competition and a struggle for supremacy, as doing so would help avoid stepping over a boundary line beyond which competition turns into a drive for hegemony and world domination.

During the four decades of the Cold War, the United States had a grand strategy focused on containing the power of the Soviet Union. Yet by the 1990s, following the Soviet Union’s collapse, America had been deprived of that pole star. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, US President George W. Bush’s administration tried to fill the void with a strategy that it called a “global war on terror.” But that approach provided nebulous guidance and led to long US-led wars in marginal places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2017, the US has returned to “great-power competition,” this time with China.

U.S. Deputy of State Wendy Sherman recently talked with Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng and Foreign Minister and State Councilor Wang Yi on her visit to China. As relations remain contentious, it’s important that both China and the U.S. keep communication channels plural, open, and as bilaterally reciprocated as possible.

The narrative on China’s influence is polarizing and provocative - is it based on fact or fiction?

Relations will not move toward a military alliance because, at the core, is a shared understanding forged through many strategic interactions. The two countries share similar basic judgments about international relations and U.S. influence.

Three major matters underpin the future of China-U.S. relations. First, there is no such thing as a destiny of doom as presented in the concept of the Thucydides trap. On the contrary, the future of the Sino-U.S. relationship is largely up to both countries to assess, determine and choose.

China needs to a better job in responding to Western scolding. It may need to express discontent, or even anger, from time to time. But mostly it must be able to deliver a positive, vivid and appealing Chinese narrative.