A racially charged speech by a senior US State Department official has revived the controversial “Clash of Civilizations” thesis. But despite the Trump administration’s provocative re-definition of China as a strategic competitor, the long-term benefits of Sino-US cooperation will show this “clash” to be a false narrative.

The ongoing US-China trade war and increased tariffs have raised the prospect of a long-term “decoupling” of the world’s two largest economies. But who would this breakup hurt most? A look at US and Chinese industries shows that the burden for such a harsh strategy would fall disproportionately on American firms and consumers, while failing to stop China’s economic rise.

The outcome of the US-China trade war is anticipated to be quite different from the experience of Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, due to China’s relatively lower dependence on the US and having learned from Japan’s experience.

Over the past two years, American foreign-policy elites have increasingly cast China not only as a competitor to the United States, but as an enemy on a par with the Soviet Union. Although anti-Chinese rhetoric in the US is not new, President Donald Trump’s administration has greatly sharpened and amplified it. This is despite the deep economic ties between the two countries, a multitude of scientific and educational collaborations, and China’s consistent policy of non-intervention in US affairs.

In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, America’s Republicans and Democrats are now on the same page on one key issue: Blaming China for all that ails the United States. China bashing has never had broader appeal.

American policymakers have grown disappointed with forty years of engaging with China and integrating it into the global system. The US should put aside wishful thinking and accept a new, strong China as an equal partner, and aim for improved mutual understanding through greater communication and exchange — rather than vainly hoping to transform China.

China-US relations have deteriorated from “coopetition” into hostility. If China and the US can find a way back to a constructive path, they both stand to benefit from a “G2” world — and shortsighted attempts by America to maintain a “G1” world of US supremacy will only harm both countries’ global standing.

Henry Kissinger has diagnosed a “new paradigm” in China-US relations. While the good old days of cooperation may be over, both powers have a chance to put aside their worst impulses — American paranoia prompted by its decline, and Chinese chauvinism brought about by its rise — steering away from cold war confrontation, instead forging a new path forward.

Driven by anxiety over the success of China’s growth model, the US under Trump has sought to apply “maximum pressure” through its trade war. However, an eventual bargain will serve to cement China’s leadership role not only in economics, but also global governance.

Under Trump the US has abandoned its former strategy of engagement with China, instead adopting a hardline stance. But his “trade war” has not borne fruit, while a recent thaw in negotiations shows the possibilities for renewed Sino-US cooperation.