By Qiyuan Xu
Last month’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) signaled that the Sino-American relationship is moving from intense confrontation back toward something more stable. Both sides have committed to fostering a “constructive relationship of strategic stability.” Their disagreements have not disappeared, but each has come to realize that continued escalation is costly, dangerous, and unsustainable. Competition must be governed by rules, and disputes must be managed.
This judgement rests on sound strategic logic. During the Cold War, the prospect of “mutually assured destruction” prevented the US and the Soviet Union from engaging in a head-to-head military conflict. Neither side trusted the other, but both understood that there could be no real winner from an escalatory war between nuclear powers.
A similar logic applies to the US-China economic relationship. Of course, economic interdependence is not the same as nuclear deterrence, and the potential costs of misjudgements do not rise to the same level. However, in a world of intertwined global value chains, the US and China have undeniably developed a relationship of “mutually assured economic pain.” If either side tried to cripple the other through full decoupling, extreme pressure tactics or moves to sever supply chains, it would also harm its own firms, consumers and financial markets.
This marks an important change in great-power relations. Historically, countries that went to war had only limited economic ties. Even in the case of World War I and II, trade had expanded, but much of it was between different industries. Only after World War II did trade become increasingly intra-industry, and now the US-China economic relationship has gone further. It is deeper and broader than earlier forms of great-power economic interdependence.
In the mid-2020s, the US and China are not merely buying from and selling to each other. Their economies are deeply embedded in the same production systems, innovation networks and financial markets. To escalate a bilateral conflict is to invite serious harm to oneself. This is true of war, and it is true of comprehensive decoupling.
Although economic interdependence does not automatically prevent war, it does raise the cost of allowing a conflict to spiral out of control. It serves as a kind of insurance policy or stabilizing force, but only when countries respect basic boundaries, keep channels of communication open, and recognize the importance of avoiding dangerous miscalculations.
The Russia-Ukraine war offers a sobering example of how things can go wrong. Before the war, Europe and Russia were closely connected through their energy trade, but that relationship did not prevent hostilities. The problem lay in the nature of the dependence, which was too concentrated in one sector, structurally asymmetric and easily weaponized once political relations had deteriorated. The lesson is not that economic interdependence is an ineffective bulwark of peace, but that it must be balanced and properly managed.
In the past few years, many countries have emphasized de-risking, supply chain security and strategic autonomy. These concerns are understandable. The COVID-19 pandemic, new wars, sanctions and technology restrictions have all underscored the vulnerabilities and trade-offs that come with globalization. However, if every form of interdependence is treated as a security threat, and every economic link as a source of strategic weakness, the world risks replacing one form of danger with another. De-risking might escalate to decoupling, and the pursuit of supply chain security might trigger a direct confrontation between global blocs.
A more fragmented world would not be a safer one. The constraints that great powers impose on one another would be weaker, and the risk of conflict much greater. Therefore, the goal is not to end interdependence, but to make it safer, more balanced and more governable. We must build resilience while remaining open, preserve cooperation while still competing and maintain communication despite disagreements. De-risking should have limits, security policies should be proportionate and strategic competition should have guardrails.
This vision aligns with the ancient Chinese concept of he er bu tong (和而不同): “harmony without uniformity.” Harmony does not mean eliminating differences, but it does mean that differences do not lead to confrontation. In modern international relations, this idea can be enshrined through institutional inclusiveness. We need an international order that can accommodate major powers with different systems, development paths and interests within the same global framework.
The US-China summit was significant because it highlighted the shared realization that two nuclear powers that are deeply embedded in the global economy cannot make escalation a long-term strategy. US-China relations would naturally continue to involve competition and friction, but if both sides can keep the competition within rules, limit security concerns to reasonable boundaries and turn interdependence into a stabilizer rather than a weapon, they would have created a foundation for peace.
Interdependence cannot guarantee peace, but without it, peace would become more fragile. The task for the US and China is to make their interdependent relationship more balanced, rules-based and governable. The alternative is a far more dangerous world.
Qiyuan Xu, a senior fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, is the author of many books, including Reshaping the Global Industrial Chain: China’s Choices.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The post-Cold War belief that sovereignty, international law and economic interdependence would shield smaller states from great-power coercion is steadily eroding. Across the world, major powers are once again thinking in terms of strategic neighborhoods, buffer zones and spheres of influence. Geography is reasserting itself as a central determinant of security. For Taiwan, this shift is not merely an academic debate. It is an existential challenge. Situated just 180km off the coast of communist China, democratic Taiwan occupies a position that Beijing increasingly regards as lying within its natural sphere of influence. As China’s military power expands and its ambitions grow more
Earlier this month, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) called for the abolition of the Control Yuan, suggesting that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party caucuses in the Legislative Yuan should reject all nominees to effectively freeze the institution before pursuing a constitutional amendment to abolish it. However, KMT legislators are yet to raise a constitutional amendment proposal and KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) has made it clear that abolishing the Control Yuan is not among the party’s current priorities. Chiang, who studied law in the US, has shown his own lack of understanding of constitutional law, and
On June 11, China barred Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro Jr and his family from entering mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau, and forbade Chinese firms and citizens from conducting business with them. As an instrument, the measure is close to meaningless. Teodoro had already made clear he had no intention of setting foot in China. Its meaning lies elsewhere. This is the first time Beijing has sanctioned a sitting cabinet minister of a country it diplomatically recognizes, according to the American Enterprise Institute, and the target is the most outspoken critic of Chinese conduct in the Marcos
There are concerns that China’s new “Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law,” which takes effect on Wednesday next week, targets what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees as “separatist” groups in Taiwan. It is not: The CCP has its sights set on a wider, more ambitious target, aimed at consolidating its legitimacy at home. That does not mean Taiwanese would not be affected. The CCP is presenting the law as a means to “forge a collective national consciousness for the Chinese nation.” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and his party’s “Chinese nation” includes Taiwanese. The law is best understood as
RSS