Will the Asia-Pacific chart a course forward? Or will it return to the status quo of the Cold War? Mentality matters, and the old thinking inevitably leads to misjudgments. The U.S. sees China through the same prism it once saw the Soviet Union but neglects the fundamental differences of two hugely different ages.

We need to learn how to respect differences and live harmoniously, because not all people or cultures are alike. It’s not healthy for the new Indo-Pacific concept — which works against open regionalism — to replace the traditional notion of the Asia-Pacific.

Despite tensions between the U.S. and China on the economic and political fronts, leaders from both countries found some common ground during their recent meeting in Bali. Presidents Biden and Xi have reiterated their commitment to work together to address transnational challenges, avoid conflict with each other, and maintain open communication.

The systemic challenge for the U.S. is not China but the worst inflation in 40 years. In fact, fragmentation does not seem to be happening in the real world. Even an Asia-Pacific version of NATO will not likely divide the region, as China will continue to be a major trade partner.

The IPEF - a U.S.-initiated trade and development partnership - is poised to bring in enthusiastic participation from several nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Notably, Southeast Asian states are well represented among members, giving the U.S. considerable influence right in China’s backyard.

Thirteen countries in the Indo-Pacific region have joined the initiative, which indicates interest. But there are problems with the framework as presented that raise questions about its ability to succeed and endure.

The goal of the United States in creating the IPEF is to gain an asymmetric technological advantage over China and to create an environment for long-term competition. It wants a new rules-based Indo-Pacific order forged in its own image.

The country is confident that it will meet the emerging trade partnership’s high standards through reforms at home. But the U.S. and others may attempt to derail it through the “poison pill” clause of the USMCA.

U.S. policy-makers must recognize that the most productive path forward is not to maneuver into constant conflict with China but rather to concentrate on our own competitiveness, to restore a sense of national unity, and to re-emerge from the current political cycle as an example of an open market democracy that others are both willing and able to emulate.

Fading is the “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) defining of Cold War rivalries, as great power relations have marinated long enough in globalization to give way to a deep interdependence, one which lends itself more so to Mutually Assured Gains or “MAG”. Such is the case with U.S.-China relations, though the national-level of this relationship offers more of a precarious bag of mixed results.