The rhetoric of ‘America is back’ rings in Biden’s efforts to re-establish US leadership on the world stage, and as global efforts to mitigate COVID-19 gain traction, economies once again will turn to trade for growth. In this case, US-China trade relations have regained pertinence. The disruptive protectionism of the Trump administration had severely damaged political and economic ties with China, and for now, Biden seems to be holding firm on those stances, with a large extent of those trade barriers still existing as of writing. Domestic politics and expanding security capabilities against China have taken precedence over trade.

The hesitation is understandable. The long list of grievances between the US and China grows by the minute. In addition, after the humiliating PR disaster that was the evacuation from Afghanistan, President Biden cannot afford to be seen as weak in Asia. This is complicated by a significant degree of inertia (across the political spectrum) in the United States for protectionism to stay, which has also led to his administration’s hesitance to rejoin trade pacts such as the CPTPP. However, the US’s neglect of trade as an element of global leadership, and as a means to engage with China is a mistake.

The Event Horizon

Some have already argued that US-China relations and mutual views have irreversibly evolved, to the point of hostile geopolitical rivalry. Perhaps that is true – evidence points towards entrenched views of strategic rivalries in policymaking circles, and growing public enmity toward each other, the latter spurred on by collective nationalist rhetoric, reciprocal blows of the trade war, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, significant global challenges and the intertwining of the global economy have both exacerbated and tempered the relationship at various points in time. The pandemic has led to the tensions on the origins and initial handling and blame for its proliferation, but has also raised proposals for a greater level of communication and strengthening of global health institutions. The Biden administration is keen to be seen as the global leader on climate change, to the point that the position of Climate Envoy was created, yet it acknowledges that it must be tackled with Chinese cooperation, the latter of which is the world’s largest producer of carbon emissions.

Even if there were instances of détente in the Cold War, surely it would be best to avoid that situation entirely. Avenues for dialogue and good working relationships are necessary to adequately manage emerging challenges such as global finance, climate change and health. Despite public animosity of the United States in China due to state media’s stoking of nationalism, Beijing has gestured that they wish to improve, or at least slow the deterioration of relations. Now the ball is in America’s court.

A Meaningless War

The US-China trade war has far-reaching effects beyond the confines of both countries. The US and China are the two largest trading nations, the former the largest consumer market, and the latter the largest manufacturing and exporting economy. Despite a phase-one trade deal in 2020, it failed to resolve structural problems – fundamental disagreements in IP, currency manipulation, and the trade deficit amongst others. Economic growth, trade, and mutual investment in both countries have been, and continue to be stifled by Trump-era restrictions. This has had a marked effect on global confidence and investment since the first salvo of tariffs and has been exacerbated by the ruinous effect of the pandemic on economies across the world. 

Many are right to question the efficacy of engagement with China, and they are right to doubt the productiveness of years of US complaints against China over structural problems such as IP theft, currency manipulation, and the trade deficit among others. However, the lack of results from this trade war, or rather its truce, along with the risks of attempting to extract concessions by confrontation warrants a reexamination of US policy on China.

China has already grown too powerful and proud, and while the US remains the premier superpower, direct bilateral confrontation will yield little results.

Refocus 

In the wake of the unprecedented social spending caused by the pandemic, the US can ill-afford to continue engaging in these counter-productive and costly measures. Despite differences with China, it is imperative that the US re-engage with it. A better trade relationship will also better absorb the tensions caused by security policy by encouraging interdependence. The stakes are high in the broader US-China relationship, and a constructive relationship for both countries can be spearheaded by fairer and more transparent bilateral trade through a multilateral system.

Contrary to popular belief, China has complied with most World Trade Organisation rulings (although it dances around the rules), and it has shown an enduring willingness to participate in multilateral institutions.  This should be the starting point for the US to engage with, and restore the normalisation of trade relations with it. Instead of ignoring global institutions, the US should endeavour to rectify the rules, which should not be too difficult, given its allies have similar concerns. China has also recently applied to join the CPTPP, its predecessor the TPP was a tacit counterbalance against expanding Chinese economic clout. The Trump administration had left the latter under his relatively protectionist stance. Biden’s ‘America is back’ should entail its return as a leader of global trade once more. It should start by attempting to join the CPTPP, and return to the negotiating table with China on the easing of trade relations.

There are significant hurdles, such as the aforementioned public skepticism towards freer trade, backlash towards ‘losing’ the war by effectively conceding trade restrictions, and the myriad facets of US-China animosity regarding geopolitics and human rights. As with many situations in international affairs, talking is better than not, and trade is mutually beneficial, whether both sides believe it or not.