How US and China Can Cooperate Without Trust or Consensus
- The United States and China can successfully cooperate on artificial intelligence safety and governance without needing a comprehensive grand bargain or deep political trust, according to foreign policy...
- Major powers frequently assume that effective diplomatic cooperation requires shared values or mutual confidence.
- Agreements can function effectively when they serve the direct national interests of both capitals.
The United States and China can successfully cooperate on artificial intelligence safety and governance without needing a comprehensive grand bargain or deep political trust, according to foreign policy analysis published on September 8, 2026. Bilateral engagement can proceed through narrow, pragmatic channels rather than waiting for broader geopolitical alignment.
Managing Risk Without Trust
Major powers frequently assume that effective diplomatic cooperation requires shared values or mutual confidence. Foreign policy experts note that technological competition between Washington and Beijing operates differently. Both governments face shared risks from advanced autonomous systems, creating natural incentives for limited coordination.
Agreements can function effectively when they serve the direct national interests of both capitals. Establishing technical safety protocols or communication channels does not require resolving long-standing territorial or economic disputes. Practical risk reduction can happen independently of broader diplomatic reconciliations.
Practical Channels for Bilateral Safety
Previous diplomatic frameworks often stalled because negotiators aimed for sweeping treaties that covered every aspect of competition. A targeted approach focuses strictly on catastrophic risk scenarios, such as the safety controls surrounding advanced machine learning models. Narrow working groups allow technical experts to address specific hazards directly.
This functionalist strategy mirrors historical arms control models where adversaries managed dangerous capabilities despite deep hostility. By separating technical risk management from broader ideological conflicts, both nations can establish baseline guardrails without compromising their strategic objectives.