Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The third China-US Track 1.5 Dialogue, held in Beijing on Tuesday, came at a critical moment for the world's most consequential bilateral relationship. Its importance lies in creating political space to discuss difficult questions before they become crises.

The dialogue occupies a valuable middle ground between formal government-to-government negotiations and nongovernmental exchanges. It allows officials, scholars, business leaders and other participants to speak with greater flexibility while retaining links to policymaking. Such a channel can serve as a shock absorber, testing ground and bridge between strategy and policy.

From crisis management to relationship management

The most important contribution of Track 1.5 Dialogue may therefore be institutional rather than immediate. China-US relations have been vulnerable to an escalation cycle: A trade dispute becomes a technology dispute; technology restrictions acquire national-security dimensions; security concerns then spill back into economic relations. The result is a relationship often managed through emergency negotiations rather than predictable institutions.

This requires regular channels through which officials, business leaders, scholars and local representatives can communicate. The dialogue points in that direction. Participants discussed political trust, trade, local exchanges, artificial intelligence (AI) and other global challenges. Such breadth matters because the relationship cannot be stabilized through a single issue.

Trade and investment mechanisms could help move economic relations toward regularized management. Their success will depend on whether both sides use them to solve problems rather than advance competing agendas.

Trade will not resolve strategic differences, but it can provide ballast. Agricultural trade illustrates this point. American farmers need reliable access to the Chinese market, while China needs diversified and stable sources of food imports. The same logic applies to consumer goods, industrial equipment, healthcare and many other areas where the two economies remain complementary. Economic interdependence will not eliminate rivalry, but shared interests can create incentives for restraint.

Tariffs should not become a permanent instrument of strategic competition. If one side continues to impose new barriers while calling for dialogue, confidence will weaken. A better approach is reciprocal accommodation: reducing unnecessary tariffs, addressing legitimate market-access concerns and using institutional mechanisms to settle disputes before they escalate.

China has consistently argued that cooperation is preferable to confrontation and that mutual benefit provides the foundation for stable economic relations. Washington need not agree with every Chinese policy to recognize its practical value.

AI: Both a warning and an opportunity

AI may prove an even greater test. Unlike traditional trade disputes, AI competition touches productivity, research, national security and the future of society. The danger is technological decoupling.

China and the United States have legitimate concerns about AI safety, data security, ethics and military applications. These concerns should be addressed through dialogue rather than isolation. Discussing the risks of AI shows that even amid strategic competition, both sides have an interest in preventing new technologies from becoming sources of instability.

The objective should not be identical governance systems or imposing either country's regulatory model on the world. Instead, they should identify areas where common rules are possible, including safety testing, transparency, risk assessment, responsible military use and safeguards for high-impact applications.

Developing countries should not be forced to choose between competing technological camps. The more divided the major powers become, the greater the need for open, inclusive and genuinely multilateral governance.

A test of strategic maturity

Success will not mean resolving differences, nor should stability be confused with the absence of competition. The realistic goal is competitive coexistence without confrontation: competing where necessary, cooperating where possible and building mechanisms strong enough to prevent either from turning into catastrophe.

China should continue to communicate its positions clearly, especially on core interests, while remaining open to practical cooperation. The United States should recognize that economic and technological restrictions have consequences beyond their immediate targets and that expanding controls can undermine the stability Washington seeks.

The world has too much at stake for the relationship to be governed by strategic reflex. Climate change, food security, public health, AI governance and global economic stability are not problems either country can solve alone. They do not become easier when the world's two largest economies divide into rival camps.

Track 1.5 Dialogue creates room for strategic competition bounded by rules; differences managed without crises; cooperation surviving disagreement; and a China-US relationship more resilient than any single summit, tariff round or political cycle.

The dialogue is more than another diplomatic meeting. In a fragmented world, communication itself is a strategic asset today. The real dividend is enough trust, institutional resilience and cooperation to ensure that disagreement does not become destiny. For China and the United States, that may be the most important form of strategic stability in an uncertain world.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)