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.

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 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.

When it comes to participation in international organizations, the objectives of the major powers are not entirely clear. Will there be competition for influence or can China and the United States develop opportunities for cooperation? Only the latter will promote a healthy model of global governance.

Both countries know that confrontation only leads to a dead end in the long run. A mix of cooperation and competition remains the norm that has worked for both countries in the past. But it’s difficult to strike a balance, and competition is likely to overwhelm cooperation, as it always has.