The Biden administration’s long-awaited strategic framework for trade with China may not be more effective than Trump’s. But it’s imperative to avoid harm and to push for new engagement consensus.

The domestic and foreign policies of the United States will both return to the pragmatic tradition, partly because of the diverse nature of the country. At the same time, pragmatic diplomacy in a pluralistic world will improve international relations.

Expect China and the U.S. to remain in a state of strategic stalemate for a long time. The most dangerous moments in bilateral ties will be when the two countries strengths bump against one another. We must be fully prepared for that.

Given their mutual economic dependence, both China and the U.S. know they must manage relations. Nobody wants a new cold war. Rational countries are unwilling to choose sides, and there is great pressure for accommodation.

Repairing and protecting American hegemony is a central theme for the White House and Congress. To accomplish these goals they need to create the specter of an enemy at the gates, to imagine an adversary that poses an existential threat.

Containment of China is a long-term U.S. strategy — one that continues to expand. Now guided by the Biden administration’s National Security Strategy, which was released in March 2021, a wide range of government departments are formulating anti-China policies. They are not going to stop.

Despite a meeting of presidents and intensive talks at lower levels, the United States has not fundamentally altered its position. This needs to change. Next year should be characterized by reasonable, constructive efforts — followed by action — to ease the current tensions.

Playing to his domestic audience, the U.S. president must appear tough on human rights. But this has its limits. America’s half-baked Olympic boycott applies only to diplomats, not to athletes. To do more would risk domestic and international blowback.

Oddly, President Biden has claimed on several occasions that he hoped competition with China would not veer into conflict. But Washington-style competition means a race to the bottom — and possible peril.

The United States has begun to consolidate a Western consensus in many respects, but its competitive perspective on global issues will eventually cost it credibility and appeal in the field of climate governance.