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.

The U.S. and China conduct hundreds of billions of dollars worth of trade with each other, yet they remain at odds in the political arena. Although each government can claim their grievances, business operators have more to gain with more open communication.

The arms race between China and the United States is escalating. Though the Chinese government declines to negotiate strategic arms limitations with Washington, the two parties could discuss measures to increase strategic stability.

Recent events in Sino-American relations indicate that China may no longer be willing to work with the United States on managing contentious issues or buffering the rivalry between the two powers. Beijing’s recent interactions with American officials indicate a new uncompromising and “maximalist” approach, based on the belief that America is in terminal decline and its need to compromise or show deference is over.

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.

If the U.S. ally plays politics in its courts, other countries may follow its lead. Canada won’t look good if China and the U.S. decide to cut a deal regarding the extradition of Meng Wanzhou. It will be left out in the cold with a big boomerang knot on its head.

U.S. official’s visit to Tianjin illustrates that America’s intent to deal with China from a “position of strength” will not work. Attempts to force China to change while threatening its core interests will be ineffective in this moment of high competition.

Heightened US-China tensions have raised the prospect of a deep global technology divide, potentially forcing other countries to choose which camp to join. There are plenty of grim scenarios involving irreconcilable splits between core technologies that power a wide range of products and services, from aircraft and automobiles to precision engineering for robotics and payment systems for e-commerce. Should these scenarios materialize, the world’s two largest economies will pour huge amounts of resources into a zero-sum race to control the cutting edge.

Rhetoric at NATO’s recent summit intensified the U.S.-China rivalry in global affairs. Now that the U.S. is in competition with China, will NATO member states follow suit?

There is just one conclusion to be drawn from the geopolitical confusion created by Washington’s maximum confrontation policy: Rather than war, China and America are actually destined for peace. This is the true mega trend in bilateral relations.