Follow us on social

Cold-war-china

New Years resolution? Taking the US-China heat down a notch

How China' perceives our 'hostilities' — and vice-versa — could make all the difference

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

This article was adapted from remarks made by the author for the Institute of China-America Studies on December 12, 2024.

Overall, the primary threat to U.S. (and global) interests derives not from China or the United States separately, but from the deeply negative and worsening nature of the U.S and Chinese interaction, in which each side: worst cases the motives and intentions of the other, ignores how they themselves contribute to this spiral, and one-sidedly stresses deterrence over reassurance in many policy spheres (especially regarding Taiwan), which could lead to conflict.

This interactive dynamic is driven by two sets of largely zero-sum views:

In the U.S.: the quixotic U.S. belief that it still retains Cold War-level dominance or absolutely needs such dominance or sole leadership to sustain an acceptable global order. In fact, the conditions allowing for such dominance are disappearing; and there is no effort underway to define a shared structure of leadership between the U.S., China, and other major powers for the future; the stress in the current U.S. administration is on keeping talking with China, and little else.

In China: a belief that U.S. decline is underway, is systemic, and benefits China, and (more importantly) a belief that the U.S. is committed to undermining China’s overall development and collapsing the Chinese Communist Party. This set of beliefs drive Beijing more toward seeking dominance and undermining the U.S. in the process.

Overall, this interactive dynamic inclines both sides toward ever-greater levels of suspicion and zero-sum thinking and increases risk taking, making crises more likely.

In this environment, the incentives for continued peace and prosperity through a stable form of mutually beneficial and peaceful coexistence among the two powers exceed any possible incentives for engaging in zero-sum military, political, and economic rivalry and a sharp, open-ended competition for dominance and control.

So, given this general context, what should China be doing?

First: Beijing should not overreact to Trump’s posturing and threats, or his promises of what he will achieve in relations with China. He speaks and acts for effect, often moving in contradictory directions, responding to what he thinks will make him look good or please his base, or what he sees as challenges from others to his self-image.

He could move toward a basic deal-making approach, possibly based on mutual benefits and the idea that he and Xi Jinping have a good relationship, or he could adopt a more confrontational, reckless, high-pressure approach that reflects the hardline China views of many of his subordinates. But his major focus will likely be on trade, investment, and technology issues.

Whatever direction Trump moves toward will depend on several factors: domestic political developments (and in particular the reaction of his base), what China (and in particular Xi) does, and in general how he views events influencing his image as a tough, no-nonsense, “America First” leader.

Beijing needs to resist the temptation to engage in rigid tit-for-tat actions in response to Trump, and instead convey an image of restraint, prudence, pragmatism, and support for international law, while making it clear where certain red lines are, e.g., regarding Taiwan.

In particular, Beijing needs to become more credible in its support for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, and its support for international law-based regimes in the areas of trade and investment, technology development and legal protections, human rights, and an overall free, open, and inclusive economic and security order in Asia and beyond. Chinese leaders often make statements supporting such policies and values. But Beijing does not do enough to convince others that it is truly committed to them.

Of course, the U.S. is also falling short in many of these areas. But rather than use this fact as a way of arguing for the weakness or decline of the U.S. or America’s opposition to other nations, Beijing should offer to work with the United States and other nations on specific issues, to strengthen these values.

Regarding Taiwan, Beijing should take actions designed to counter the growing U.S. assumption that Xi Jinping is more likely to employ force against the island while he is in office, perhaps to bolster his legacy. But it also needs to convey the notion that Taiwan is a war or peace issue for China, while also acting to reduce the chances of conflict – a difficult balancing act.

Several actions need to be taken to achieve these objectives:

First, make it unambiguously clear, via repeated statements by Xi Jinping (NOT a subordinate) that there is no deadline for resolving the Taiwan issue, and that China remains committed to resolving the issue peacefully, as a first priority

Second, indicate a willingness to reduce military deployments and exercises around Taiwan in response to greater U.S. reassurances regarding the One China Policy, e.g.,

  • Clarification that the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) does not constitute a security guarantee to Taiwan
  • A reaffirmation that the U.S. remains supportive of any resolution of the Taiwan issue by peaceful, uncoerced means
  • A reaffirmation of US limits on ties with Taiwan, by clearly stating: no senior Cabinet trips to Taiwan; no invitations to senior Taiwan leaders to visit Washington; and no “official-designated” trips to Taiwan by senior U.S. politicians or Congressional entities;

Beijing should also be receptive to neutralizing Taiwan as a source of strategic competition between the U.S. and China, by rejecting the notion that the island is a strategic location essential to either the U.S. or Chinese security posture in Asia. It should also call on the U.S. to take a similar action.

Finally, to stabilize the Taiwan situation, and enhance overall stability in the relationship, Beijing should overcome its current resistance to engaging in extensive, substantive crisis prevention and management dialogues with the U.S, at both the Track One and Track Two levels.

There has been some progress recently on this issue, but it remains slowed and obstructed by mutual suspicions, the basic definition of the issue as a military-to-military problem involving incidents at sea or in the air, and Beijing’s stress on crisis prevention, defined as ending U.S. policies that could create a crisis.

Regarding the last point, the two sides need to reach agreement on how to define both crisis prevention and crisis management. Beijing should be willing to define crisis prevention in ways that do not require impossible changes in basic U.S. security policies in Asia;

Moving the Sino-American crisis dialogue forward requires a clear signal from the very top. In support of this, Beijing should convey a desire for the two presidents to make a clear statement to subordinate officials on both sides supporting more extensive crisis dialogues, with significant civilian involvement beyond the two respective military systems.

I have offered ideas on how to move forward in this area in a recent Quincy Paper, an article appearing in War on the Rocks, and in a Sinica podcast with Kaiser Kuo.

There is probably no other issue in the relationship that demands greater attention.

In conclusion, these are all difficult actions, especially in the face of an initially unpredictable and potentially reckless Trump administration.

But I believe Beijing has an opportunity to take actions that might significantly improve the relationship if it has the courage and willpower to undertake these and other initiatives, and not merely point a finger at the U.S. and expect Washington to do all the heavy lifting.

In short, Beijing needs to show its willingness to work with the United States to achieve specific, mutually beneficial ends, not only via words but through repeated and persistent actions.


Top photo credit: (Gwoeii/Shutterstock)
(Gwoeii/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump and Keith Kellogg
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and Keith Kellogg (now Trump's Ukraine envoy) in 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump's silence on loss of Ukraine lithium territory speaks volumes

Europe

Last week, Russian military forces seized a valuable lithium field in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, the latest success of Moscow’s grinding summer offensive.

The lithium deposit in question is considered rather small by industry analysts, but is said to be a desirable prize nonetheless due to the concentration and high-quality of its ore. In other words, it is just the kind of asset that the Trump administration seemed eager to exploit when it signed its much heralded minerals agreement with Ukraine earlier this year.

keep readingShow less
Is the US now funding the bloodbath at Gaza aid centers?
Top photo credit: Palestinians walk to collect aid supplies from the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 29, 2025. REUTERS/Hatem Khaled/File Photo

Is the US now funding the bloodbath at Gaza aid centers?

Middle East

Many human rights organizations say it should shut down. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed hundreds of Palestinians at or around its aid centers. And yet, the U.S. has committed no less than $30 million toward the controversial, Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

As famine-like conditions grip Gaza, the GHF says it has given over 50 million meals to Palestinians at its four aid centers in central and southern Gaza Strip since late May. These centers are operated by armed U.S. private contractors, and secured by IDF forces present at or near them.

keep readingShow less
mali
Heads of state of Mali, Assimi Goita, Niger, General Abdourahamane Tiani and Burkina Faso, Captain Ibrahim Traore, pose for photographs during the first ordinary summit of heads of state and governments of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in Niamey, Niger July 6, 2024. REUTERS/Mahamadou Hamidou//File Photo

Post-coup juntas across the Sahel face serious crises

Africa

In Mali, General Assimi Goïta, who took power in a 2020 coup, now plans to remain in power through at least the end of this decade, as do his counterparts in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger. As long-ruling juntas consolidate power in national capitals, much of the Sahelian terrain remains out of government control.

Recent attacks on government security forces in Djibo (Burkina Faso), Timbuktu (Mali), and Eknewane (Niger) have all underscored the depth of the insecurity. The Sahelian governments face a powerful threat from jihadist forces in two organizations, Jama‘at Nusrat al-Islam wa-l-Muslimin (the Group for Supporting Islam and Muslims, JNIM, which is part of al-Qaida) and the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP). The Sahelian governments also face conventional rebel challengers and interact, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in tension, with various vigilantes and community-based armed groups.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.