Introduction

Skepticism is an essential part of any healthy discourse. It prevents us from blindly following trends, forces us to scrutinise claims and protects us from naivety. In the realm of international cooperation, skepticism can serve as a check on wishful thinking. It reminds us that power imbalances, historical grievances and structural inequalities complicate simple narratives. This letter is written to those who look upon proposals for U.S.–China harmony with doubts—whether those doubts arise from experience, ideology or caution. Rather than dismissing skepticism, we engage it directly, acknowledging its insights and outlining why, despite legitimate concerns, striving for cooperation is not only desirable but necessary.

Acknowledging the Doubt

To those who look upon the world with skepticism, your doubts are not only understood but respected. In an age where promises are plentiful and outcomes uncertain, questioning is a vital act of self-preservation and clarity. It is through doubt that we challenge assumptions and seek deeper truths. This letter is written with the awareness that your hesitation is grounded in experience and thoughtful reflection.

Skeptics often draw on history to justify their doubts. They note that great‑power rivalries have been a recurrent feature of international politics, from Athens and Sparta to the Cold War. They point out that authoritarian and democratic systems have competing values that cannot be easily reconciled. They recall broken promises, such as treaties violated and agreements abandoned when expedient. They observe real injustices—ranging from human‑rights abuses to economic coercion—that undermine trust. These observations are valid. Recognising them guards against complacency. It is indeed prudent to question whether declarations of cooperation are mere public relations ploys, whether dialogues are used to delay accountability and whether entrenched interests will sabotage reform. Acknowledging doubt therefore means listening respectfully, understanding the specific concerns—be they about national security, intellectual property, environmental degradation or human rights—and accepting that skepticism stems not from hostility but from a desire for honesty.

The Cost of Cynicism

Yet, there is a subtle cost to sustained cynicism. When doubt hardens into disbelief, it can become a barrier to possibility and progress. The world is vast and complex, and while caution is warranted, closing ourselves off to hope can leave us isolated and resigned. Cynicism may protect us from disappointment, but it also risks blinding us to the potential for meaningful change and connection.

However, doubt can harden into cynicism—a worldview that assumes bad faith and futility. Cynicism often cloaks itself as realism, but it carries hidden costs. When we expect betrayal, we may pre‑emptively defect, creating the very outcomes we feared. Cynicism can justify disengagement, allowing problems to fester. It can foster isolationism and nativism, which hamper the flow of ideas, talent and resources that drive progress. By dismissing the possibility of change, cynicism consigns us to a self‑fulfilling prophecy of rivalry and crisis. On a personal level, it breeds apathy and disengagement, making us spectators rather than participants in shaping the future. On a global scale, cynicism can undermine collective action on existential threats like climate change and pandemics. The cost of cynicism, therefore, is not merely emotional; it is measured in lost opportunities, prolonged suffering and missed breakthroughs. Guarding against this cost requires balancing caution with openness, vigilance with vision.

Rational Optimism

There is a middle path — one of rational optimism. This is not naive hope, but a deliberate choice to believe in the possibility of better outcomes while remaining grounded in reality. It is the courage to act despite uncertainty, to seek solutions even when the odds seem stacked. Rational optimism embraces complexity without surrendering to despair.

Between naïve idealism and hardened cynicism lies rational optimism. This stance acknowledges obstacles and risks but believes that thoughtful action can improve outcomes. Rational optimism is grounded in evidence: we have examples of adversaries forging alliances, of social movements expanding rights, of scientific breakthroughs overcoming seemingly intractable problems. The reduction in global poverty over the past half‑century, the eradication of smallpox and the Montreal Protocol’s success in healing the ozone layer demonstrate what coordinated effort can achieve. Rational optimism also recognises agency; humans are not passive subjects of geopolitical forces but actors capable of learning and adapting. In the context of U.S.–China relations, rational optimism means being clear‑eyed about areas of tension—such as military posturing in Asia or disagreements over trade practices—while pursuing specific avenues for cooperation. It means investing in institutions that build trust and preparing contingency plans for setbacks. It encourages incremental progress rather than seeking a grand bargain. Rational optimists resist fatalism by focusing on what can be controlled and by expanding the circle of those engaged in crafting solutions.

Grounded Hope, Not Blind Faith

Hope, when grounded in honesty and critical thinking, becomes a powerful force. It is not blind faith but a commitment to engage with the world as it is, and as it could be. This hope acknowledges setbacks and failures, yet chooses to persevere. It invites us to build bridges, to listen, and to act with empathy and resolve.

Hope is not the belief that things will automatically get better; it is the conviction that improvement is possible if we act wisely. Grounded hope is rooted in honest appraisal. It does not gloss over injustice or minimise harms. Instead, it asks: what resources, knowledge and allies are available to make change? Grounded hope acknowledges setbacks and failures as part of progress. It allows for course corrections and does not idolise leaders or systems. In U.S.–China cooperation, grounded hope recognises that certain issues—such as human‑rights disagreements or strategic mistrust—will be long‑term challenges. But it also sees spaces where progress is achievable: climate action, pandemic preparedness, scientific collaboration, student exchanges, cultural diplomacy. Grounded hope is sustained by stories of people on both sides who build bridges despite headwinds: mayors establishing green partnerships, researchers co‑authoring studies, artists blending traditions, communities welcoming visitors. These stories provide evidence that coexistence is not only conceivable but already unfolding in microcosm. Nurturing hope requires amplifying these examples and creating conditions for them to multiply.

We Begin Anyway

To the skeptics reading this letter: your voice is essential. Your questions sharpen our purpose and keep us honest. And though the path forward may be uncertain and fraught with challenges, we begin anyway — with openness, with care, and with the conviction that together, even the most cautious among us can find reasons to hope and to strive for a better tomorrow.

Knowing the challenges and aware of the scepticism, we begin anyway. Action is the antidote to paralysis. Beginning does not require perfection; it requires intention and humility. Small steps can accumulate into significant change. A joint pollution‑monitoring project in one city can inspire national climate agreements. A cross‑cultural school programme can plant seeds of empathy that flower decades later. Policy dialogues may seem tedious, but they establish channels that prevent misunderstandings. Beginning anyway also means preparing for setbacks; when cooperation stalls, we analyse why, adapt and persist rather than retreat. It involves expanding the circle of actors engaged in diplomacy—bringing in scientists, artists, educators and business leaders whose perspectives enrich official talks. It requires patience; trust is built in years but can be destroyed in moments. Most importantly, beginning anyway is an act of courage. It signals to skeptics that doubts have been heard and addressed, and that we value their vigilance even as we refuse to let fear dictate our future. The journey toward harmony is long and uncertain, but every step taken in goodwill moves us closer to a world where skepticism coexists with cooperation, where caution fuels creativity rather than complacency, and where hope is grounded in action.

Conclusion

This letter does not aim to silence skeptics or convert cynics with platitudes. Rather, it invites dialogue grounded in mutual respect. By acknowledging doubts, recognising the cost of cynicism, embracing rational optimism, cultivating grounded hope and committing to begin anyway, we create a framework for sceptical engagement. Skeptics are allies in preventing complacency and holding cooperators accountable. Their questions sharpen strategies and ensure that cooperation does not become an excuse for ignoring injustice or tolerating hypocrisy. A healthier global discourse is one in which scepticism and hope are intertwined: where critique is paired with constructive proposals, and where doubt spurs innovation rather than resignation. To the sceptics: keep asking the hard questions. To the rest: keep listening, keep learning and keep building. Together, we can shape a world that honours caution without surrendering to despair.