A major question with respect to China-U.S. relation has not been answered since it was first raised a few years ago: What are they fighting for? If this cannot be answered to the satisfaction of reasonable people, shouldn’t they just sit down and get on with pragmatic dialogue?

Both sides seem to realize that a paradigm shift in bilateral ties is inevitable and underway. And if it’s not controlled — if it slides toward confrontation — neither party will be served. It should be a footrace, not a wrestling match, President Xi Jinping wisely said.

Progress should not be in perception alone but should translate to real action. There is reason for optimism after three rounds of discussion — in Anchorage, Tianjin and Zurich — yet it appears the Biden administration is not yet ready to fundamentally change Donald Trump’s anti-China policy.

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.

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.

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.

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.