Depolarizing global superpowers: incentives for more Sino-American conversation

In recent months, President Biden’s administration has thrusted themselves in a nearly unthinkable direction: attempting to form positive relations with China. Biden is of the belief that making consistent and strong efforts in communication with Beijing will work to thaw the gelid relationship the two nations have in the status-quo.

This diplomatic initiative has a lot more thrust than anything initiated by previous presidential administrations, which seemed an unlikely direction for the Biden administration to travel in. In addition to the stark differences between the United States and China in terms of stances on ideology, the military, the economy, and human rights; the Biden administration took part in a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics, as well as expanded the list of Chinese companies that trade is banned with. Congress has also passed a bill that specifically targeted unethical labor methods in Xinjiang. 

American actions towards China have taken a turn, perhaps for the better. In early July, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen met with China’s premier, Li Qiang, a vice premier, and a top economic aide to Xi Jinping, China’s leader. The C.I.A. director and the secretary of state also traveled to Beijing for diplomatic talks. The special climate envoy and the commerce secretary are to travel to Beijing for more talks in the near future. 

When pursuing these diplomatic relations, we must question: what benefit does a more cooperative relationship between the U.S. and China hold? 

The truth is, in this global climate, preventing or minimizing the intensity of war is at the heart of many diplomatic pursuits. War with China is an event that looms over our heads, despite the doubts echoed by national leaders. It turns out that stalling, mitigating the impacts, or even perhaps preventing war with China is a necessary precaution to take in order to ensure global security. A war between two global superpowers that possess significant nuclear strength is sure to escalate continuously, especially without sufficient diplomatic ties to slow the acceleration of said escalation. This war would be the first of its kind: a direct conventional war between two nuclear powers. 

Given the focal points of military tension between the U.S. and China, such as many pockets in the Indo-Pacific region (including the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait), China would likely use mainland military bases, which would leave the U.S. with no choice but to target them. China would have no choice but to target American military bases in Asia and the Pacific. Many analyses find that this would likely include Hawaii and parts of the mainland United States. Compounded, these attacks would guarantee civilian death and the destruction of countless residential lands.

As mentioned, escalation would be another guarantee in the conflict. Both sides would be entering a conflict of the highest stakes. For Washington, a loss would mean losing credibility with the nations under the umbrella of security we have accumulated over the years. For Beijing, a loss entails their neighbors being directly under the umbrella of the adversary. The two powers have incentive to escalate and win, which would mean even higher figures of death and destruction. It is simply in our best interest to at least attempt to mitigate the effects of any military conflict between Beijing and Washington, namely using the “weapons” of conversation and diplomacy.

However, war between the United States and China is a concerning occurrence at the present. This war is not being fought on the grounds of military and geography, rather, it is a trade war. Beginning in 2018, the Trump Administration placed sanctions on a Chinese telecommunications company. The Trump Administration placed more sanctions on Chinese entities in the following years, a tradition that was picked up by Biden. A report by the U.S. Treasury Department finds that all the nations that the U.S. imposed sanctions on accounts for over one-fifth of the global GDP, the key finding being that China accounts for 80 percent of that group.

Many trade analysts and trade commissions note that placing sanctions and tariffs on China tends to cause “self-inflicted harm,” meaning that prices of U.S. goods tend to rise when sanctions are placed on China, ultimately compromising the average American consumer. Additionally, these sanctions and tariffs cause harm to companies as a whole. American high-tech companies receive 30 – 50 percent of profits from China. If these companies were banned from exporting their goods to China as a function of a sanction, they would run the risk of profits falling by an extremely significant margin. Without the proper funds, these companies would not be able to invest in innovative research and reach out to domestic markets.

It is important to note that some of these sanctions are placed because of human rights violations. These are the types of sanctions that are justifiable, as they show the consequences for actions that the global community deems immoral. Diplomacy should by no means become a roadblock to addressing human rights violations. Rather, diplomacy should serve as a guiding force to ensure that sanctions do not spiral into excess, and that Washington is effectively addressing these violations with perhaps more than economic punishment. Seeing that the list of potential human rights concerns in China has not stopped growing even after sanctions in 2020, slapping sanctions and tariffs on China will not directly address human rights violations, especially not with effective communication to aid the penalization.

The idea is, softening the nature of relations between China and the U.S. will lessen the need for heavy sanctions, and be able to address focal points of tension with more effective methods that cause less harm to the United States. Current methods are not showing signs of efficacy, therefore we must attempt with other methods, ideally diplomatic and peaceful ones. 

The beauty of diplomacy is that it is not black and white. There is no “all or nothing.” Any sign of progress, no matter the size, is significant. Action with no conversation beneath it leads to events and escalation of maximum negative impact. As these nations grow farther and farther apart with each day, diplomacy is crucial to lessening the velocity of this polarization. The hope for the future is that the Biden Administration and future administrations will commit to diplomacy and will be consistent, thawing frigid relations one talk at a time. 

Written by Saniya Bhagwat