The U.S. and China Need a Therapy Session | Opinion

The United States and China don't agree on much these days. Taiwan, for instance, seems to be a totally irreconcilable issue, with Beijing priming for the island's eventual reunification with the mainland and Washington increasingly viewing Taiwan and the Taiwanese as a distinct country and people. The two superpowers are already in an economic war of sorts, with the Biden administration working on new guidelines that would restrict U.S. outbound investment in some Chinese industries and U.S. export controls on chips and chip-making equipment undermining China. The war in Ukraine continues to hang over U.S.-China relations like a fog, with the two countries disagreeing on which party is most at fault, what is required to end the conflict, and how the conflict should end.

What the two powers do have in common, though, is a desire to place a floor under a deteriorating bilateral relationship—in other words, building mechanisms to ensure ties don't deteriorate further. President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have all spoken about the need to establish "guardrails," such as more durable communication channels, between U.S. and Chinese security officials. President Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spent significant time discussing the topic during their meeting in Bali, Indonesia, last November.

But then came the infamous #BalloonGate episode in February, when a Chinese surveillance balloon drifted over the continental United States for days before being shot down by U.S. fighter aircraft off the South Carolina coast. Secretary Blinken canceled his trip to China in protest, and the White House slapped sanctions on five Chinese companies involved in Beijing's spy balloon program.

The U.S.-China relationship hasn't been able to recover since. Talk of stabilizing ties aside, U.S. entreaties to the Chinese have largely gotten nowhere. While U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns was able to meet with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang this week and U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan scheduled a last-minute meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Europe, the Pentagon is having a terrible time getting Beijing on the phone. Defense Secretary Austin devoted months trying to get the attention of China's new defense minister, Li Shangfu, but to no avail; when Austin wanted to talk to his predecessor after the Chinese spy balloon was shot out of the sky, he was rebuffed. Austin may meet Li during a security conference next month.

Austin isn't alone. Admiral John Aquilino, the U.S. combatant commander for the Indo-Pacific region, hasn't spoken with his Chinese peer in two years. General Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hasn't spoken with his counterpart, General Li Zoucheng, in 10 months.

Most seem to understand the absurdity of this situation. To have two countries who account for 52 percent of the world's total military spending and 42 percent of the world's GDP not talk to each other on a regular basis, despite their substantive differences, is an unsustainable and potentially dangerous situation. This is especially the case when U.S. and Chinese military assets are often flying and sailing in the same area. The U.S. wants to create the types of military-to-military communication channels and hotlines that were in existence with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but Beijing remains reluctant to accede to those wishes. For China, the issue isn't the lack of communication but rather Washington's policy in the Indo-Pacific, including but not limited to regular freedom of navigation exercises that challenge Beijing's sovereignty claims in the South China Sea or U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

The U.S. views practical guardrails as a way to defuse tension and minimize mishaps; China views the creation of guardrails as leverage to hold over America's head. The message to the U.S. is clear: If you want deeper communication in the military domain, you need to drastically change for policy first.

While the U.S. and China haven't totally cut off dialogue, the dialogue itself isn't as robust, efficient, or comprehensive as it should be. It's difficult to envision more collaboration under the present circumstances, and it will likely require leadership at the very top for those circumstances to change.

Assuming Biden and Xi are genuinely interested in putting U.S.-China relations on an even keel, they both have to get proactive. This is particularly true on China's side of the ledger; nothing of substance in the large Chinese government bureaucracy moves without Xi's approval, so his participation is absolutely vital. Occasional, one-off conversations on the phone or via video conference isn't sufficient either. There are too many disputes between Washington and Beijing to resolve or manage with ad-hoc sessions like scheduled calls or side meetings during international summits. As my friend and colleague Dr. Lyle Goldstein suggested in his book, Meeting China Halfway, what the U.S. and China need above all else is an honest, wholehearted discussion among the leaders and principals about their perceptions of the world, where their interests converge, and on which issues their respective positions can be reconciled. This isn't the kind of exercise that can be done in days or even weeks; it will likely take years of constant talks among high-level officials across both governments to achieve even a modicum of success. And even then, it's possible the entire effort won't meet expectations.

The point, however, is to get the long, undoubtedly excruciating process going. The sooner it happens, the more likely the two powers can avoid a so-called cold war they both claim not to want.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.