Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues

Three sessions into the U.S.-China Student Dialogue, I’ve become more aware of the gaps in my understanding of U.S.-China trade and business relations. What seemed straightforward in theory—policy decisions, economic strategies, corporate priorities—has proven far more layered when examined through direct dialogue with our partners from Peking University. These conversations haven’t necessarily changed my views, but they’ve complicated them in ways that feel necessary.

One of the most striking realizations has been how differently the same events and policies can be interpreted depending on where you sit. I’ve noticed how certain terms carry very different connotations depending on who is using them. Even when we reference the same facts, the conclusions drawn from them can be completely at odds. This hasn’t led to outright disagreement so much as a growing awareness that every perspective is shaped by assumptions that aren’t always obvious. It has made me more cautious about taking any single viewpoint as definitive, including my own.

Beyond differing interpretations, I’ve also had to rethink my expectations about what economic engagement between the United States and China actually looks like. Policies designed to limit reliance on one another don’t necessarily translate into reduced interactions between businesses, investors, and consumers. Even in areas where governments have imposed restrictions, people and companies often find ways to maintain connections, sometimes in ways that go unnoticed in broader policy discussions. This has forced me to question whether efforts to “de-risk” or “decouple” are as clear-cut as they are often portrayed. It is one thing to discuss these strategies in theoretical terms, but it is another to hear firsthand how businesses and individuals are adapting in response.

What has stood out to me most, however, is how these discussions feel fundamentally different from the broader geopolitical discourse. When we talk about economic tensions in the United States, there is often an undertone of competition—of trying to determine who is “winning” or “losing.” In contrast, my conversations with our Peking University partner have been more focused on practical realities. Rather than debating which country has the upper hand, there has been a more pragmatic emphasis on how policies and business strategies are evolving in response to external pressures. That shift in framing has made me more aware of how easy it is to get caught up in political narratives without questioning what they leave out.

The most valuable part of this program so far has been the chance to ask questions that rarely get discussed in academic or policy settings. Having access to perspectives that aren’t filtered through official statements or media coverage has given me a better sense of how the next generation of leaders in both countries is thinking about these issues. It has also made me realize how much more there is to learn—and how easily a single perspective, no matter how well-informed, can miss the bigger picture. If nothing else, I am leaving these sessions with a greater appreciation for uncertainty. The more I learn, the more I understand just how much remains unresolved.

Sophia Ceriello (C'24, G'26) is a first-year graduate student in the Asian Studies Program at Georgetown University.