China-US Relations in Focus
In May 2026, former U.S. President Donald Trump made a significant state visit to China. This marked his second official visit; his first was back in 2017, where both sides aimed to foster a relationship marked by strategic stability. China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, described the partnership as one built on cooperation, with a clear understanding of competition, manageable differences, and a commitment to lasting peace.
Many have been curious about what this really means. My interpretation is that it indicates a form of stability that, while not perfect, is preferable to uncertainty. It acknowledges that competition is real, and there’s an agreement in place to manage and regulate it. Both countries recognize the challenges ahead and accept that some issues are too important to set aside. Instead of letting tensions build, there’s a mutual understanding that proactive steps are needed.
The main areas of competition between China and the US focus on three critical topics: Taiwan, advanced technology and its supply chains, and essential minerals. Currently, the spotlight is on cutting-edge technology. An American admiral once remarked, “If China gains an advantage in just one area of advanced technologies, it could significantly shift America’s position globally.”
There are two contrasting views emerging: one suggests a “small yard, high fence” approach while the other advocates for “two distinct tech systems.” However, I believe neither scenario is likely on its own. The “small yard” concept may expand since China is rapidly advancing in technology. On the other hand, while separate tech systems may seem appealing, history shows that both nations have benefited from collaboration—where the US excelled in innovation and China focused on application. Today, competition compels China to innovate further, while the US has realized the downsides of overly restrictive measures; thus, I think we’ll find ourselves in a middle ground.
A notable event in US-China relations was the Liberation Day Tariff in 2025, which marked a sharp decline in direct trade between the two economic giants for the first time since the Cold War. The implications of this event extend beyond the trade war, as it undermined the principle of most favored nation, a cornerstone of the global trading system. The recent US administration’s decisions raise doubts about whether future leaders will revert to previous commitments.
The November 2025 National Security Strategy from the US stated, “The days of the United States single-handedly supporting the global order are over.” What I gather from this is that the US is not relinquishing its power but is stepping back from its global responsibilities, which is crucial for everyone involved.
This brings us to a crucial question: in the next 15 to 20 years, what poses the greatest risk to global order? Is it the Thucydides Trap, where a rising power challenges an established one, or the Kindleberger Trap, where no nation is willing to take on global leadership? The Kindleberger Trap, where no single country steps up during a crisis, leading to chaos, is gaining more attention, and that is something we all should consider seriously.
