In the world of great-power diplomacy, hope often springs eternal, even amidst the challenges of ongoing trade conflicts.
Currently, amid a norm-challenging trade war with China, discussions have sparked about a potential grand bargain between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
President Trump has expressed his eagerness for a deal with China, while Xi has displayed a measured approach in response to U.S. tariffs, keeping the door ajar for negotiations.
The allure of a major breakthrough in U.S.-Chinese relations is strong, especially at a time when tensions are high.
However, the historical strategic rivalry and the internal political landscapes of both nations cast doubt on the potential for meaningful agreements.
Since 1950, relations between the United States and China have oscillated from cooperation to confrontation multiple times, driven by both geopolitical dynamics and domestic political motivations.
Cooperation on security has typically occurred only in the face of a shared threat, as seen during President Richard Nixon’s landmark visit to China in 1972, which sought to counterbalance the Soviet Union.
Economic collaboration has only flourished when both countries were governed by forces favoring international trade, as was the case during the 1990s and early 2000s.
Yet today, there are no prominent global or domestic signals indicating a ripe moment for the U.S. and China to overcome their longstanding differences in security or economic affairs.
Both nations are currently led by ardent nationalist coalitions, reflecting an inward-looking, antiglobalization trend in their respective domestic politics.
Moreover, the lack of a common security challenge to unite them is striking; rather, they are poised to diverge on international disputes, including conflicting views on Russia’s actions in Ukraine and tensions involving Israel and Iran.
Historically, a complete breakdown in U.S.-Chinese relations, akin to the current landscape, has only transpired during the Cold War era of the 1950s and 1960s.
Under present conditions, the prospect of either leader resetting relations seems bleak, as both face political pressures steering them toward hardened positions.
President Trump is unlikely to make substantial concessions that would lead to a grand bargain.
Any sweeping agreement would demand compromises from the United States, potentially jeopardizing the historical security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea.
The strategic implications of conceding influence to China outweigh any prospective economic gains, such as increased access to Chinese markets or a resurgence in American manufacturing.
In this complex environment, American policymakers would do well to focus on achievable, critical objectives.
Mitigating the risk of inadvertent conflict, especially in sensitive areas like the South China Sea, should take precedence over grand switches in foreign policy strategy.
Historical patterns suggest that U.S.-Chinese relations deteriorate without a common adversary, alongside rising nationalism on both sides.
The victory of the Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 marked a pivotal moment, reinforcing American perceptions of China as a significant threat largely orchestrated by the Soviet Union.
This perception solidified during the Korean War, intensifying hostilities and extending the U.S.-China strategic rivalry into the developing world amid Cold War tensions.
In both nations, domestic political motivations propelled antagonism, with each side facing internal pressures that shaped their foreign policies.
From the mid-20th century through the 1960s, both countries closed off from globalization, albeit for different reasons; the United States leaned toward managing trade primarily with Western allies, whereas China sought to isolate itself economically.
During the Cold War, China and the United States served as ‘useful adversaries’ to their respective political interests at home.
In China, Mao Zedong capitalized on the U.S. adversarial image to consolidate power following domestic upheaval, while U.S. politicians leveraged tensions with China to support controversial foreign interventions, notably in Vietnam.
The strategic landscape shifted by the 1970s, when the perception of the Soviet Union as a more significant threat led to improved Sino-American relations.
Nixon’s historical visit to China initiated a thaw, driven by the mutual desire to limit Soviet expansion.
While formal diplomatic relations were not formalized until 1979, the 1970s marked an era of increased U.S.-Chinese cooperation characterized by diplomatic engagement and burgeoning trade exchanges.
Despite these developments, substantial economic collaboration remained limited due to China’s autarkic policies during Mao’s rule.
The economic reform era under Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s changed this dynamic, fostering a conducive environment for both strategic and economic cooperation alongside the shared strategic objective of countering the Soviet Union.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 altered the calculus significantly.
With the absence of a common adversary, the impetus for security collaboration diminished, while economic ties flourished.
Yet, China’s burgeoning economic and military capabilities raised apprehensions in Washington about America’s credibility in maintaining influence in Asia, a tension that became evident during the Taiwan Strait crises.
The 1990s and 2000s saw a rise in mixed motives between U.S. and Chinese leaders, navigating a landscape filled with conflicting trade and security interests.
During President Bill Clinton’s administration, attempts at deepening economic ties were linked to expectations of eventual alignment on security issues, yet these aspirations failed to materialize into a cohesive strategy.
Despite skyrocketing trade volumes, an underlying tension persisted as unfounded fears regarding China’s rise fueled skepticism and resentment among domestic constituencies in the United States.
The interdependence of the U.S. and Chinese economies masked the growing divergence in political rhetoric and motivations on both sides.
In recent years, escalating political pressure has pushed both nations to retreat from global economic engagement in response to the perceived negative impacts of globalization.
In the United States, socioeconomic disruptions tied to globalization fostered an anti-trade sentiment which culminated in significant shifts witnessed during the Trump administration.
Trump’s elections were part of a broader backlash against perceived economic inequities exacerbated by China’s growing status as a global power.
Similarly, in China, a pivot towards nationalism under Xi Jinping has shaped a more assertive domestic agenda—emphasizing self-reliance and internal stability in response to external pressures.
In this context, mutual blame between the U.S. and China has narrowed the space for constructive dialogue, hindering any meaningful cooperative efforts on global or regional issues.
Previous attempts at collaboration on pressing global challenges like climate change and public health faltered under the weight of bilateral tensions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has further strained relations, with accusations and counter-accusations between Washington and Beijing overshadowing the possibility for collective responses.
Looking ahead, the political climates in both countries show little room for flexibility or constructive engagement.
As tensions rage, any proposed grand bargain risks being fundamentally asymmetric, favoring China’s long-term ambitions over American interests.
In pursuit of an elusive grand bargain involving trade and security concessions from both sides, the likelihood of achieving a working compromise remains remote.
In this recent geopolitical landscape, proposals suggesting significant trade concessions from the U.S. in exchange for minimal commitments from China appear to present a high-risk strategy.
Therefore, any move towards a grand bargain would necessitate the U.S. acknowledging substantial portions of East and Southeast Asia as under Chinese influence, a move that would alarm key allies and potentially destabilize the region.
Such a development could prompt arms races and exacerbate existing security dilemmas, damaging U.S. credibility as a global leader.
The risk of undermining international alliances also loomed large, as allies like Japan and the Philippines could feel compelled to reassess their security strategies in light of perceived U.S. concessions.
In the face of such formidable stakes, President Trump’s approach should shift toward feasible, smaller objectives in lieu of a sweeping agreement.
This pragmatic recalibration would mitigate escalatory risks—particularly in volatile regions like the South China Sea—while reinforcing U.S. commitments to its allies.
To pave a path towards stabilized relations, initiating reliable communication channels and military dialogues could serve as critical measures.
Moreover, developing confidence-building protocols could prevent misunderstandings or accidental escalations.
Incremental agreements on security matters, such as freedom of navigation in contested waters or norms against cyber-interferences, could set a more constructive and stable foundation.
Furthermore, U.S.-China economic cooperation would benefit greatly from establishing clearer frameworks that bolster predictability and mutual understanding.
Shared commitments to labor rights and environmental standards could yield necessary adjustments that enhance the economic landscape for both countries.
Additionally, ensuring greater transparency in China’s financial sector could open doors for American stakeholders, fostering a healthier competitive environment.
By targeting these smaller yet strategically significant goals, President Trump may place the complex U.S.-China relationship on a more productive trajectory.
In light of the current global landscape and absence of a common adversary, any pretensions for a grand bargain between the two powers would likely prove self-defeating.
Acknowledging the urgency for peace and cooperation requires an understanding of prevailing conditions, steering clear from ambitious and unrealistic aims.
In a world defined by escalating tensions and rising nationalistic sentiments, even minor steps in the right direction could create a bridge to potentially more substantial negotiations in the future.
image source from：foreignaffairs
