Recent trade talks deliberately sidestepped core geopolitical issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea. This highlights that economic agreements are merely treating symptoms. The fundamental problem is a geopolitical power struggle, which will continue to undermine any economic progress.
From China's perspective, producing more than it needs and exporting at cutthroat prices is a strategic tool, not an economic problem. This form of industrial warfare is designed to weaken other nations' manufacturing bases, prioritizing geopolitical goals over profit.
The dynamic between a rising power (China) and a ruling one (the U.S.) fits the historical pattern of the "Thucydides' trap." In 12 of the last 16 instances of this scenario, the confrontation has ended in open war, suggesting that a peaceful resolution is the exception, not the rule.
Unlike the US's focus on quarterly results and election cycles, China's leadership operates on a civilizational timescale. From their perspective, the US is a recent phenomenon, and losing the US market is an acceptable short-term cost in a much longer game of survival and dominance. This fundamental difference in strategic thinking is often missed.
Unlike the old Cold War with Russia, the U.S. and China's deep economic interdependence prevents open conflict. The current "Rice War" is like water polo: while business and diplomacy occur on the surface, a covert intelligence and influence war rages underneath.
The deep economic interdependence between the U.S. and China makes a full "decoupling" too costly for either side. Instead of a clean break or a lasting peace, the relationship will likely be defined by a continuous cycle of targeted disputes, negotiations, and temporary agreements.
Unlike previous administrations that used trade policy for domestic economic goals, Trump's approach is distinguished by his willingness to wield tariffs as a broad geopolitical weapon against allies and adversaries alike, from Canada to India.
The political landscape is not a simple left-right binary. It's a four-way conflict between distinct factions: the internet (tech), Blue America (media), Red America (manufacturing), and China. Each engages in specific clashes, like the 'tech clash' (internet vs. blue) or the 'trade war' (red vs. China), which better explains modern global tensions.
The traditional relationship where economic performance dictated political outcomes has flipped. Now, political priorities like tariff policies, reshoring, and populist movements are the primary drivers of economic trends, creating a more unpredictable environment for investors.
The most significant point of friction for ordinary Chinese citizens is the constant U.S. military presence near its borders, such as naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait and bases in South Korea and Japan. This sense of being militarily encircled is a more potent source of public frustration than economic disputes.
President Xi Jinping used a phone call with President Trump not just for bilateral issues, but to strategically signal displeasure with Japan's hawkish stance on Taiwan. This "shadow play" diplomacy shows China leveraging its relationship with the U.S. to indirectly manage and warn other nations, making the U.S. a channel for its geopolitical messaging.