How can this growing U.S.-Chinese global conflict be contained? Both sides will have to accept difficult tradeoffs to protect what could be a mutually profitable Sino-U.S. political and economic partnership. The U.S.-Chinese competition is not built on the zero-sum model of the U.S.-Soviet conflict. There are, of course, winner-take-all disputes over particular issues. But the larger picture is one in which the two countries, despite the dimensions of their growing rivalry, depend on the success of the other's economy for prosperity--even for economic stability. Chinese demand is the most important stimulant for the global economic growth on which American prosperity depends. And American markets are vital for China's sustained growth.

The Chinese government holds some $180 billion in U.S. treasuries. A quick Chinese sell-off of U.S. securities could quickly raise U.S. interest rates and undercut America's productivity. And given how much of the U.S. current-account deficit comes from trade with China, a bad day on Wall Street is also a bad day in Shanghai.

If China is not compelled by its energy demand to take actions that bring Beijing into conflict with Washington, both sides win. In practical terms, this means the United States should help China become more energy efficient. If China used its energy more efficiently, China would have less need to form relationships with governments that Washington would like to contain, China would spend less for its energy, and the environment would sustain less damage as China's explosive growth continues. For the United States to expand on the decade-old U.S.-China Renewable Energy Development and Energy Efficiency Protocol to help China develop alternative sources of energy, the Bush Administration will have to put aside concerns about China's growing military power. It is not at all clear that can or should be done.

Washington could also help China develop an Asian strategic oil reserve. Without financing from the West, it could be years before China is able to stock even a ninety-day emergency supply of oil. But Washington is right to wonder whether building China's reserve capacity could fuel China's ability to sustain a long-term military conflict that would destabilize East Asia.

As China's foreign policy frustrates Washington's efforts to protect U.S. national interests, U.S. lawmakers are liable to fall back on a familiar counterstrategy: Cold War-style containment. Persuading U.S. lawmakers to put aside Cold War zero-sum thinking and see China as a potential strategic partner in the world economy is a challenge worth accepting. But that's not likely to happen as long as China remains in conflict with so many of its neighbors and undermines Washington's diplomatic and security efforts in states like Iran and Venezuela.

To blunt a growing conflict that both sides want to avoid, Washington and Beijing face a series of difficult tradeoffs. Just because accepting these tradeoffs is in the long-term interests of both nations does not guarantee either side can summon the political will to follow through. China's energy demand will continue to grow. Spare capacity is likely to come from volatile areas where Washington has clear political interests. Both sides gain short-term domestic political advantage by denouncing the actions of the other. Can the growing U.S.-China rivalry be transformed into a viable and sustainable political and economic partnership? The signs are not encouraging.

Essay Types: Essay