Dialogue is always better than confrontation. The Zurich talks may lead to a virtual presidential meeting and more frequent strategic discussion between the two countries to gradually change the negative narrative of competition. A solid foundation must be built one step at a time, and each opportunity seized.

As US President Joe Biden’s administration implements its strategy of great power competition with China, analysts seek historical metaphors to explain the deepening rivalry. But while many invoke the onset of the Cold War, a more worrisome historical metaphor is the start of World War I. In 1914, all the great powers expected a short third Balkan War. Instead, as the British historian Christopher Clark has shown, they sleepwalked into a conflagration that lasted four years, destroyed four empires, and killed millions.

One positive outcome is that the two presidents, Xi Jinping and Joe Biden, will hold a videoconference before the end of the year. But there have been a number of other good signs elsewhere as well. Bilateral ties have not continued deteriorating but are showing signs of a gradual thaw.

As the United States redistributes resources in response to complex dynamics with regard to China, its approach is likely to be an evolutionary, full-spectrum endeavor that goes beyond the military alone. It’s a posture that will be difficult to maintain and one that could even create chaos.

Though America and China’s governments see eye-to-eye on very little these days, cooperation in the scientific fields is possible and has been happening quietly for some time.

Meng Wanzhou’s release, along with Canada’s two Michaels, breaks a deadlock in a geopolitical tug-of-war. It presents an opportunity to restore mutual trust between China and the U.S. in the sci-tech sector. A crackdown on China now would be ill-timed.

Prominent scientists from renowned universities in the United States are raising their voices to protest the unfair persecution of their colleagues of Chinese origin by the U.S. Department of Justice. Xenophobia is not conducive to maintaining technical leadership.

A three-tier diplomatic architecture is needed under which leaders at the top level can break the ice and remove roadblocks for those below. While there are some grounds for concern of a possible bilateral breakup, this cannot be allowed to happen. There is safety in clarity.

U.S.-Sino ties plunged during the Trump administration, but the downfall has only intensified since Biden’s presidency. Without concrete policy shifts, the tensions, fueled by defense contractors, translate to arms races and elevated nuclear risks in Asia.

The U.S. president’s hands are tied by Democrats’ slim majority in Congress, and Republican are piling on the pressure ahead of elections. So it will be tough for the U.S. to change its policy course anytime soon, so long as those in policymaking circles stick to their views.