Both sides are calling the first meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue a success. Of course, success is in the eyes of the beholder and both governments have strong reasons to wear rose-colored glasses. Although the concrete results of this meeting are less impressive, establishing a positive and cooperative tone is the first, critical step in making progress over the long run.

The Beijing government has long been disgruntled at the fact that its discussions with Washington, while frequent and high-level, were not "strategic." The U.S. response, at least during the Bush administration, was that "strategic dialogues" were reserved for allies, a distinction reflecting the status of those relationships. U.S. President Barack Obama felt the U.S.-China relationship needed to take on a larger range of issues, and agreed to upgrade the meeting with China to a Strategic and Economic Dialogue, in place of the Strategic Economic Dialogue of the past.

The new name creates some bureaucratic headaches. There are reports of battles between the U.S. Departments of State and Treasury for control of the process. There is no doubt a similar tug of war in Beijing, even though that process is not as transparent. Moreover, increasing the scope of the agenda brings a much larger group of actors to the table, especially given the range of the two countries' interests. Coordinating so large a group and ensuring that decisions are implemented — if they are made — will be a struggle.

As in the past, the first meeting of the new dialogue focused on economic concerns. After their meeting, Vice Premier Wang Qishan and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner promised to maintain efforts to stimulate their economies, repair the financial system and better balance the global economy. Most significantly, the two pledged "to maintain their strong policy responses until recovery is secured." This is a welcome commitment to keep money flowing to two sluggish economies despite fears of piling up debt and igniting inflation.

Mr. Geithner acknowledged the U.S. need to cut its budget and boost its household savings rate. Reportedly, U.S. officials explained that the U.S. aims to have the deficit at a "sustainable level" by 2013, and their Chinese counterparts appear to have accepted that pledge. The U.S. savings rate has reached 6.9 percent, the highest level in over 15 years, as consumers rein in spending. Hopefully, these gains are not temporary.

But a new mind-set among U.S. consumers must be matched by a similar shift in China. A sustainable global economic system must be rebalanced, which means Chinese — and Asian consumers — must pick up the slack if Western consumers sit on their wallets. China's reliance on exports to drive growth — and shore up the Beijing government's legitimacy — is a long-standing irritant that has driven calls to raise the value of China's renminbi and open protected markets to foreign goods.

This time, attention focused on the need for China to expand its social safety net and strengthen pensions, which would encourage Chinese consumers to spend more and save less. The Chinese also promised to liberalize the services sector, allowing international banks to underwrite Chinese bonds, increasing the dollar threshold for foreign direct investments that need government approval, and loosening limits on interest rates. We have heard these promises before; the key is implementation.

The other big item on the agenda was climate change, a topic handled by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart, State Councilor Dai Bingguo. They agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that commits the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases to "enhance cooperation on climate change, energy and the environment." That is progress, but differences still divide the two governments. China continues to fend off U.S. demands that it set hard targets for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, arguing that the two countries "are different in their stages of development, national conditions and historic footprint" and thus should "shoulder different responsibilities in tackling climate change."

U.S. officials conceded that the MOU is not a deal, but rather a framework for discussion. It calls for continuing dialogue between the two governments toward a hoped-for common position at the global climate negotiations that open later this year in Copenhagen on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The MOU identified 10 areas of cooperation that could yield environmental payoffs, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, cleaner use of coal, smart grid technologies, electric cars, and research and development.

Some in Japan worry that the Strategic and Economic Dialogue is a harbinger of a big power condominium that will supplant the U.S.-Japan relationship. That mentality is outdated. Problem solving is not a zero-sum operation. Indeed, finding common ground between China and the United States is vital if there is to be progress in tacking global issues. There should be cooperation rather than competition among our three nations to solve the biggest challenges of our lives.