The sense of fierce competition between the United States and China was evident. Yet this was so alongside cooperation illustrated by the co-sponsorship of the forum between these three organizations, the robust people-to-people exchanges it fostered and represented, and the engaging conversations and opportunity for observation our delegation had while walking the streets of Shanghai and talking (non-stop for 3 hours!) with dedicated, determined, and enthusiastic UVA alumni and “alumni adjacent” attendees at a packed evening UVA reception.

Throughout the conference itself, the U.S. delegates emphasized the challenges of competition between the two countries and the opportunities that could be seized, concurrently, through cooperation.

The Chinese perspective was captured by a CAPRI USA conference summary that described comments from Wu Xinbo, Fudan’s Dean, Institute of International Studies, and Director at the Center for American Studies, “interpreting Trump’s reelection as reflective of entrenched political, economic, and social trends in the United States. He emphasized the potential implications for bilateral relations, noting China’s strategic need to balance assertiveness with caution.”

Following Wu's opening, Bill Antholis, Miller Center CEO and director, offered welcome remarks virtually, “describing how the U.S. views China as its primary strategic competitor in areas such as security, trade, investment, and technology.”

The initial presenter, Scott Miller, cited the Declaration of Independence’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as a fundamental American ethos. This provided a useful starting place for universal ideals around which to begin a conversation, even with those from vastly different political systems and architectures. Most people around the world, including in China and the United States, seek good health, good jobs, better futures for children and grandchildren, and the freedom to pursue these goals, including through accessible education.

Even as U.S. presenters identified commonalities that draw us together, we also acknowledged how many factors hone national competition. We have very different histories: China is one of the world’s oldest civilizations, counting its years by the 1000s; the United States is a year away from its 250th birthday. We have political systems that operate on very different principles and with hugely varied expectations of personal freedoms, government transparency, and ability to challenge our leaders. And we speak very different languages.

The American participants tried to better explain to Chinese participants and the audience how the U.S. works, across administrations. We emphasized the democratic nature of our political system; the fact that our three branches of federal government, regardless of which party holds a majority, are meant to act as check and balance on each other. In fact, we are seeing this in real-time as our federal courts enjoin some of President Trump’s early executive actions, or, as we described at the conference, when President Clinton had to seek approval and funding from the U.S. legislative branch to compensate China for the mistaken U.S. bombing of its embassy in Belgrade in 1999. 

Even with these differences that separate, the UVA contingent also suggested areas ripe for cooperation between our governments and among our peoples. Mimi Riley spoke to shared concerns about health, and the extent to which pandemics and addiction have little respect for national borders. And Riley noted opportunities ahead for needed reform and reorganization in international institutions that address these issues. 

The detrimental impact of social media on young people was another area that hit a common chord of concern. I noted the number of young people in public settings, particularly girls, we had seen posing, often provocatively, seemingly in pursuit of ‘influencer’ status. Americans and Chinese alike worry about the impact of social media on entire generations, and in several side conference conversations we considered what policy solutions might be possible if this was addressed directly by the two governments, together. 

We also discussed economic and security competition between the U.S. and China. For example, energy component minerals – and the supply chains necessary to mine, process, and convey them – are integral not only to Chinese and American economy and security, but also to every country in the world that the U.S. or China courts, threatens, supports, or is supported by. Our Chinese counterparts at the conference were quick to cite the power China holds by its control of such a substantial portion of global supply chains for key minerals, for example; most recently illustrated by China’s export bans on gallium, germanium, and antimony, used in semi-conductors, infrared technology, solar cells, bullets, and other weaponry.

My takeaways: the United States and China are key actors in a global emergency room of sorts; the art of triage has never been more important. Both countries would do well to articulate the areas where competition will be intense while together both seek parameters for critical areas of cooperation. Both should put a premium on communicating with maximum clarity what falls where and maintaining or building pathways to continuing to discuss competitive differences while finding routes for mutually defined wins in areas of cooperation. Opportunities offered by exchanges of students, scholars, government leaders, are a good place to start, as long as all participants are clear-eyed, realistic, and focused on cooperation and competition co-existing.