While Washington has mixed feelings toward China’s rising international status, many American scholars see no convincing reasons for the United States not to support or participate in China’s initiatives like the modern Silk Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That’s a good omen for the concept of “a new type of major country relations,” as proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, to avoid confrontation between big powers and to blaze a new trail of mutually beneficial cooperation.

Despite obstacles, the White House continues to push preferential trade deals in Asia and Europe. But neither can reverse the erosion of U.S. innovation and in Asia Pacific the proposed pact is more likely to divide than unify the region.

The ongoing dispute threatens to drive U.S.-China relations permanently in a far more adversarial, zero-sum direction and destabilize the region.

Beijing’s role in the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC), a multi-nation maritime operation, has become a point of controversy, even leading some U.S. leaders and analysts to suggest revoking an invitation. Losing a RIMPAC invitation may not deter Beijing’s more aggressive movements, and also reaffirm charges of U.S. containment.

South China Sea territorial claims — at least in Reed Bank — is really about energy. If all sides recast dangerous nationalistic posturing to more hard-headed economic calculation, it opens the way for more rational, mutual gain negotiations. These could center upon joint development of South China Sea resources. This, as an alternative to war.

While the US president is the architect of foreign policy, its development is both a top-down and bottom-up process. As the 2016 election approaches, it’s important to listen to those at operational levels within the government and scholars in academic circles, to see how the public consensus about the US-China relationship is evolving.

Policymakers in the United States, China, and other Asian powers must choose whether to deal forthrightly and sensibly with the changing regional power distribution or avoid the hard decisions that China’s rise poses until the situation grows ever more polarized and dangerous.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with congressional approval, is primed to have “fast track” status to avoid public debate. The TPP would provide new incentives to send jobs abroad, increase corporate earnings, remove protections from both overseas and U.S. environments and workers; supporters argue that it is necessary to “outflank” China.

Interactions among China, Japan and the United States have gone far beyond the constraints of political stereotypes. The flow of capital, material, technology and people has brought the countries ever closer together. Embracing common interests, not “balancing power”, is the key to peace and prosperity for all three.

Abe’s visit to the U.S. stimulated Japan’s assertiveness while giving Tokyo a pass on taking serious responsibility for its colonial oppression and aggression against its Asian neighbors. The U.S. could do more to nudge its ally to acknowledge its history and to be a promoter of peace in the region.