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

Since joining Georgetown's Master of Science in Foreign Service program, I have spent countless hours with my peers closely analyzing U.S.-China relations—poring over think tank reports, political theory, historical accounts, and official government statements. The U.S.-China Student Dialogue provided a much-needed shift in perspective, offering a rare opportunity for direct engagement with like-minded peers from Peking University. It is one thing to recognize that our media landscapes, historical narratives, and national priorities differ across the Pacific; it is another to engage in meaningful discussions that explore and seek to reconcile these differences.

One of the most compelling discussions in our dialogues centered on how our countries interact with international organizations and shape global norms. Peking University students voiced concerns that the United States leverages its influence over international bodies to constrain China's rise, while Georgetown University students observed similar patterns in China's engagement with multilateral institutions, particularly in maritime law, artificial intelligence (AI) governance, and cybersecurity. Despite our differing viewpoints, we found common ground in the belief that our nations, as global powers, share a responsibility to cooperate on pressing transnational issues. This theme was particularly relevant as we explored opportunities for scientific collaboration around our nations' respective strategic interests in the backdrop of ongoing negotiations to renew the U.S.-China Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology.

Another thread our discussion group followed was in the realm of global security, discussing the role our countries might play in ending the war in Ukraine. For Americans, international intervention, whether diplomatic or military, is often framed as a duty to uphold global stability; for the Chinese students, the principle of "non-intervention" is embedded in their country's diplomatic philosophy. The absence of European leadership in current U.S.-Russia negotiations also shaped our conversation, leading to an open and thought-provoking dialogue on Ukraine's future. Some Peking students treated China's non-interventionist stance as a deeply held principle that would preclude any serious involvement in mediation or peacekeeping and shared worries about NATO expansionism. In contrast, Georgetown students debated the narrative of NATO expansionism and questioned whether China might take advantage of U.S. disengagement from the global stage. I found this exchange particularly valuable, as it challenged me to recognize how my expectations for China's behavior on the global stage, shaped by my American biases, differed from those of my Chinese counterparts.

I had not entered these dialogues with the expectation of reaching a consensus. Instead, our discussions deepened my appreciation for the historical and ideological foundations that inform our respective policies. Despite broader tensions in U.S.-China relations, these conversations left me hopeful. Engaging in candid discussions with Chinese students invested in people-to-people diplomacy was a refreshing departure from the often rigid and polarized narratives in American policy circles. In an era of strategic competition, dialogues like these serve as a reminder that diplomacy is not just about statecraft; it is about individuals willing to listen, engage, and seek common ground. Such discussions are valuable and essential to shaping a more constructive future for U.S.-China relations.

Andy Yang (G' 26) is a first-year graduate student in the Master of Science in Foreign Service program at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, focusing on Science, Technology, and International Affairs.