The U.S. and China represent the most significant – and potentially most perilous – bilateral relationship in human history.  Despite this reality, neither party is able to manage their growing tensions effectively or with a long-term strategy.

This is the only way. Stephen HeintzIt was brought up by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in an interview with me two days ago. This is the same subtext I have used in conversations I had with leaders around the world who are visiting Washington, D.C., this week to attend the IMF/World Bank meetings.

The Cold War was defined by U.S.-Soviet relations, where both sides had unprecedented nuclear capabilities to destroy each other and more. Prior to that the Anglo American relationship was crucial. intense U.S.-British competitionThe 19^{The following is a list of th}Century to an alliance that stopped fascist victory in World War II in 20^ThJahrhundert.

Heintz is persuasive in arguing that U.S.-Chinese relationships have an historically special significance. This is based on the multidimensional nature of their relations that touch on almost every facet of global affairs, both now and for the future.  

It doesn’t matter if you are concerned about war, the global economy or climate change.  The ability of two nations to work together across multiple domains has never been more important.

This week, at the IMF and World Bank meetings, China’s economic data accuracy was a major topic. China is, for many years, the most important driver of global growth. Kristalina Georgieva, IMF’s Managing Director, asked her colleagues for suggestions to improve China’s position in the World Bank’s 2018 Doing Business Report.

Georgieva denied wrongdoing. Eight times, the IMF board met to discuss Georgieva’s fate. concludedThe board concluded that it had not found any evidence that Georgieva played an inappropriate role in reviewing the accusations. While the board expressed confidence in Georgieva as a leader, there is still a lot of controversy.

Subtext: Any international leader of an institution must accept the reality that China may increasingly influence, lead, or replace some of the largest multilateral institutions in the world, such as the global lender-of-last resort. 

Senior government officials from the top economies around the globe, including those in D.C., this week had much else to be concerned about. A growing energy crisis, rising prices, slower growth and climate change were just some of their concerns. 2021 United Nations Climate Change ConferenceCOP26 or COP25, which begins October 31st in Glasgow (Scotland).

Unnamed, a senior U.S. ally spoke out to say that this is all made worse by increasing volatility in U.S.–Chinese relations. These are triggered both by their differences but also their domestic reality.

China moves in a more autoritarian direction, and towards more confrontational foreign policies as it expands its global and regional muscles. Partner questions about U.S. competence, commitment and ability to support global cause in the face of polarizing U.S. policies and an unfinished withdrawal from Afghanistan.

According to a senior official from the Allies, his country is most at risk when rising tensions with China and the U.S. escalate into an economic war that threatens all of his countries. He stated that few of us could afford to choose between China and the U.S. Please don’t demand that we do this.”

It isn’t that America’s allies are naïve about the unfortunate course President Xi Jinping is setting for his country. It’s just that a great many of them have China as their number one trading partner – including the European Union as a whole, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. China accounted for nearly 30% global growth, almost double the U.S.  

The most recent China analysis has focused on two issues immediately: China’s growing economic fragility after decades of double-digit GDP growth and the increased threat and saber-rattling regarding Taiwan. 

These two things could possibly be related.

Analysts are arguing in a growing numbersThe greatest threats could lie in China’s weakness rather than its strength. If President Xi’s economic problems worsen, he might decide to incite nationalism by escalating tensions with the United States, Taiwan being the most attractive target. Apart from the new developments, economic concerns are not immediate. power shortagesThe following has been published: the unravelingEvergrande is a Chinese property firm that has failed to make its bonds payments, and it has incurred debts of over $300 billion.  

 “If China’s policymakers can successfully pivot their economy to be a more productive and dynamic one, the risk to Washington is real,” writes a new Atlantic Council fellow Michael Schuman. “If, however, it turns out that China is more like Evergrande – a glossy growth story with a rotten core – then Beijing’s ambitions will unravel, much like the property company’s.”

David Sacks and Bonny Lin argue this weekAccording to Foreign Affairs, “China’s increasing aggressive behavior toward Taiwan makes a cross-strait emergency much more probable.” But the risk of a crisis stems less from the possibility of an immediate Chinese invasion than from an accident or a miscalculation that turns deadly – a midair collision between Chinese and Taiwanese jets.”

It all feels like the uncertain beginning of an era without any established norms or behavior patterns. China has never been taught how to manage global tensions, while the U.S. seems apprehensive about such new challenges.

Remember that the U.S. and Soviet relationship were most at risk between 1945-1962. After World War II ended, there were 17 years of tension between the sides. The 1962 Cuban missile crisis was the culmination.       

Impressively, Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor, and Kurt Campbell (top Asia coordinator) are two of the top officials in Biden’s administration. laid out theirThinking in Foreign Affairs 2019 about how to navigate U.S.-Chinese relationships

This was long before they realized they’d be taking on the White House challenge. Now they are working to create a virtual U.S. China summit before year end. Both sides have also made great progress towards working-level negotiations on important issues.

Below the headline There is no competition without catastrophe Sullivan and Campbell wrote in 2019, “The starting point for the right U.S. approach must be humility about the capacity of decisions made in Washington to determine the direction of long-term developments in Beijing … (the U.S.) should seek to achieve not a definitive end state akin to the Cold War’s ultimate conclusion but a steady state of clear-eyed coexistence on terms favorable to U.S. interests and values.”

They will determine the future of the world if they are successful.