The US-China antagonism shows no signs of abating despite discussions

The recent discussions between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s colleague, Wang Yi, resulted in bitter accusations. Concerns raised by the US over Dragon’s support for Russia in the conflict in Ukraine and its large-scale shipments of solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles (EVs) to the US were downplayed by the Chinese side. Blinken reiterated the well-worn American line about Taiwan evading China’s protests about its military assistance. However, in an indication of growing bilateral collaboration, China promised to not only maintain but further broaden talks with the US on artificial intelligence, climate change, and consular and people-to-people interactions.

Beijing’s new outlook is the result of several factors. First, China has come to the realization that maintaining at least somewhat cordial ties with the US is necessary in order to attract American private investments, which lessen China’s isolation and bring with them new technology and increased market access. The current condition of ties between the two countries influences the presence and new investments made by several American, European, and other businesses in China. Even private Chinese businesses are hesitant to expand their operations in China unless they see increased demand from the West. To serve the US and other markets, some Chinese businesses have relocated to Mexico, Hungary, Vietnam, Malaysia, and other nations; nevertheless, these investments do not generate employment in China. In order to boost exports to the West and replace real estate investments with high-value green products, the economic recovery needs a time of continuous, strong connections with the United States.

Second, a number of nations in South and East Asia, including the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and South Korea, are forging stronger defense and political connections with the United States. Japan has made it clear that it is determined to increase its military might and sell to neighboring nations. The United States, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia have strengthened their connections. Japan is said to be considering joining the AUKUS alliance. In this context, China would benefit from a positive working relationship with the US because it would have the flexibility to concentrate on its economic recovery, about which significant skepticism is growing in the West.

Third, the US presidential elections are only six months away. With his America First policies, a Trump resurgence might provide China with fresh chances to drive rifts between the US and its allies in Europe and Asia, erode US dominance in the world, and hasten China’s rise compared to the US. Beijing is expecting that because Trump and Biden have quite different perspectives on the US’s international obligations, there will be less US support for Taiwan. This month, President Xi is traveling to France, Hungary, and Serbia in an effort to strategically place China in Europe and keep these nations from coming to an agreement across the Atlantic about the imposition of anti-dumping penalties by the EU against China.

Blinken expressed dissatisfaction during the negotiations, claiming that China has given Moscow drones, semiconductors, and other items that bridge vital gaps in the Russian supply chains and that without China’s support, Russia would find it difficult to continue its offensive on Ukraine. Beijing said it will not allow the United States to meddle in or obstruct its right to maintain regular commercial relations with Russia and other nations, accusing Washington of “pouring munitions into Ukraine” and blaming China’s regular commerce with Russia. Regarding its overcapacity, Chinese officials said that the Dragon only exported 12% of its electric vehicles (EVs), compared to Germany exporting 80% of its car manufacturing, Japan exporting 50%, and the United States exporting 25%. The argument was not motivated by the market; rather, it revealed “anxiety due to the lack of confidence and smears against China.”

Beijing said that Washington was “continuing harmful actions while saying nice things.” Through recent actions in the South China Sea and Taiwan, the US has taken an “endless stream of measures to suppress China’s economy, trade, science, and technology,” harming the latter’s interests (a reference to the US military exercises with Japan and the Philippines and America’s military aid to Taiwan). The United States was still fortifying its alliances and enacting sanctions on China. The US accusation of “interference” in Beijing’s presidential election was denied.

Blinken promised during a news conference that if “China failed to heed the US warnings about its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine,” the US would strike strongly. China swiftly disregarded Blinken’s comments, claiming they were “motivated by domestic political considerations and an effort to project a strong and unyielding image toward China.” It is abundantly evident that the two nations’ relationship is based on competing interests and that the détente between them, as portrayed by some in the international media, is just surface-level. America, which does not even see the Dragon as an equal, is attempting to impede the latter’s advancement in its military, technology, and economy by isolating it, limiting its influence, and delaying its growth via the fortification of alliances, the imposition of tariffs, and other measures.

The Chinese Communist Party still aspires to a world-class military that is on par with or even better than the US, and it still has “imperial and expansionist” dreams of reviving the “Middle Kingdom through national rejuvenation.” Sometimes these goals may be hidden under conciliation efforts or calculated actions to achieve détente or stronger relations. However, China, together with its allies Russia, Iran, and North Korea, will seize every chance to undermine US global leadership, its reputation abroad, and the US-led international system. The two nations’ long-lasting competition would be characterized by periods of variable severity as they pursued their competing goals. A full-scale battle would be avoided at all costs, since it would be disastrous for both nations as well as the rest of the globe.