To overcome challenges, several steps must be taken, starting with an update of an outmoded health security concept characterized by the “panic-neglect” cycle, as well as sharing experience so the world doesn’t have to start from scratch in every crisis.

Given the high stakes, both China and the United States have compelling reasons to put aside their differences and work together. This would set the tone for solving other challenges as well.

US-China economic and technology relations are in an unexpected flux since the outbreak of the coronavirus.

As the Trump White House has sought to politicize the virus outbreaks, vital time has been lost and collateral damage is likely to haunt the administration.

While the timing of the coronavirus outbreak is awkward, given the China-bashing realities of an election year in the United States, bilateral and global cooperation remain the only answer.

Cooperation is needed now more than ever. Political stereotypes should be abandoned, joint research should be fostered and critical supply chains should be protected.

Just as the COVID-2019 epidemic appears to be under control in China, new and serious outbreaks have occurred in South Korea, Italy, Japan, Iran and elsewhere. The virus seems to be ubiquitous and unstoppable. While I am hopeful that the epidemic in China will be over by the end of March, I begin to worry about the possibility of overseas visitors to China bringing the COVID-2019 virus back, starting another episode of the epidemic again. China cannot afford to have its hard-won and costly victory over the COVID-2019 virus annulled by a few infected visitors from abroad.

Wild uncertainty lies ahead, and relations with the United States are going to be difficult. China will need to maintain its strategic calm and apply long-term thinking to avoid jumping to rash conclusions.

China’s rich trove of ancient wisdom expands the imagination about global governance. Its perspective deserves a place at the table. After asking what our current world is, we must not forget to ask ourselves what the future world could be.

When I told a friend I had just written a book on morality and foreign policy, she quipped: “It must be a very short book.” Such skepticism is common. An Internet search shows surprisingly few books on how US presidents’ moral views affected their foreign policies. As the eminent political theorist Michael Walzer once described American graduate training in international relations after 1945, “Moral argument was against the rules of the discipline as it was commonly practiced.”