Hubbry Logo
Group of TwoGroup of TwoMain
Open search
Group of Two
Community hub
Group of Two
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Group of Two
Group of Two
Group of Two
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Group of Two (G-2 or G2) is a hypothetical and an informal grouping made up of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China that was first proposed by C. Fred Bergsten and subsequently others.[1][2] While the original concept had a strong economic focus, more recent iterations have a more all-encompassing focus.[3] This is the result of the concept gaining more traction with members of the Obama administration and foreign policy establishment who came to recognize the increasing importance of the United States' relationship with China. Prominent advocates of the grouping include U.S. President Donald Trump, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, historian Niall Ferguson, former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, and former chief economist Justin Yifu Lin.

As the two most influential and powerful countries in the world, there have been increasingly strong suggestions by American liberal politicians of creating a G-2 relationship where the United States and China would work out solutions to global problems together, and to prevent another cold war.[4] However, as strategic competition between the two powers has intensified, many have rejected the concept.[5][6]

History

[edit]

The concept of a G-2 was first raised by noted economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005.[3] In 2009, Bergsten made the following arguments for such a relationship:

  • China will shortly pass Japan to become the world's second largest economy behind the United States;
  • the two together accounted for almost one half of all global growth during the four-year boom prior to the crisis;
  • they are the two largest economies;
  • they are the two largest trading nations;
  • they are the two largest polluters;
  • they are on opposite ends of the world's largest trade and financial imbalance: the United States is the largest deficit and debtor country while China is the largest surplus country and holder of dollar reserves;
  • they are the leaders of the two groups, the high-income industrialized countries and the emerging markets/developing nations, that each now account for about one half of global output.[7]

Zbigniew Brzezinski had been a vocal advocate for the concept. He publicly advanced the notion in Beijing in January 2009 as the two countries celebrated the 30th anniversary of establishing formal diplomatic ties.[8] He views the informal G-2 as helpful in finding solutions to the 2008 financial crisis, climate change (see Politics of climate change), North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs, the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, United Nations peacekeeping, nuclear proliferation and disarmament. He called the principle of "harmony" a "mission worthy of the two countries with the most extraordinary potential for shaping our collective future".[9][10]

Historian Niall Ferguson has also advocated the G-2 concept. He coined the term Chimerica to describe the symbiotic nature of the U.S.–China economic relationship.

Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank Group, and Justin Yifu Lin, the group's former chief economist and senior vice president, have stated that the G-2 is crucial for economic recovery and that the U.S. and China must work together. They state that "without a strong G-2, the G-20 will disappoint".[11]

While widely discussed, the concept of a G-2 has not been fully defined. According to Brzezinski, G-2 described the current realities, while for former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a G-2 could emerge in the foreseeable future.[8] Miliband proposes EU integration as a means to create a potential G-3 that consists of the United States, China and the European Union.

Former President Barack Obama and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been very supportive of good relations between the two countries and more cooperation on more issues more often. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has stated that U.S.–China relationship should be "taken to a new level". Some experts have disagreed with the effectiveness of a G-2.[12] However, Clinton has said that there is no G-2.[13]

In 2023, it was reported by Nikkei Asia that General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping drew on the idea of G-2 as a way to manage his country's relations with the U.S.[6]

On October 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump referred to a meeting between him and Xi as the G-2, posting "THE G2 WILL BE CONVENING SHORTLY!".[14] On November 1, 2025, Trump posted "My G2 meeting with President Xi of China was a great one for both of our countries. This meeting will lead to everlasting peace and success. God bless both China and the USA!"[15] On the same day, United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted "As President Trump said, his historic 'G2 meeting' set the tone for everlasting peace and success for the U.S. and China."[16]

Current leaders

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Group of Two

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Group of Two () is a conceptual framework proposing bilateral condominium-style cooperation between the and the to address transnational challenges, predicated on their status as the world's two largest economies and military powers. The notion gained traction amid the 2008 , when proponents argued that the duo—collectively representing over 40% of global GDP—could stabilize markets, mitigate climate risks, and curb through joint leadership, bypassing multilateral forums like the or G20. Despite intermittent diplomatic overtures, such as under the Obama administration's exploration of "strategic reassurance," the G2 has remained unrealized due to profound systemic divergences: the U.S. commitment to liberal democratic norms clashing with China's centralized authoritarian model, exacerbated by territorial disputes, technology decoupling, and Beijing's practices in the developing world. Critics, including U.S. policymakers, have highlighted how early G2 advocacy overlooked China's non-market distortions and military expansionism, fostering instead a bipolar rivalry marked by supply-chain disruptions and alliance realignments like the Quad and .

Concept and Origins

Definition and Core Idea

The Group of Two (G2) refers to a proposed bilateral framework for strategic cooperation between the and the , leveraging their positions as the world's two largest economies to lead on challenges including , climate mitigation, and security threats. The core idea posits that these powers, accounting for a combined economic output exceeding one-third of global GDP by the late , possess disproportionate influence over international outcomes, necessitating direct coordination to avert crises and enforce collective action where multilateral bodies like the prove insufficient. Originally conceived by economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005 as an informal economic "leadership conclave" to address imbalances such as U.S. trade deficits and 's currency policies, the evolved post-2008 into a broader vision for joint management of non-economic domains. Bergsten argued that regular U.S.-China summits could operationalize this partnership, bypassing veto-prone institutions and harnessing causal leverage from their integrated supply chains and policy synchronization, as demonstrated by their synchronized fiscal stimuli that mitigated the 2008-2009 recession's depth. The concept's foundational realism stems from empirical recognition of power asymmetries: neither power can unilaterally dictate global rules, yet their aligned incentives—rooted in mutual exceeding $600 billion in annual by 2008—enable de facto stewardship, potentially stabilizing volatile like markets and responses through pragmatic over ideological .

Intellectual Proponents and Early Formulations

The concept of the Group of Two (G2), envisioning structured cooperation between the and as the world's two largest economies to address global challenges, was first formally proposed by economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005. Bergsten, director emeritus of the , argued that the U.S. and should establish a bilateral economic forum akin to the , given their combined representation of over 40% of global GDP at the time—approximately $13 trillion for the U.S. and $2.3 trillion for in nominal terms—and their roles as the leading developed and developing economies, respectively. His early formulation emphasized pragmatic coordination on issues like currency imbalances, trade surpluses, and , positing that such a partnership could stabilize the international without requiring to fully liberalize its economy or the U.S. to abandon multilateral institutions. Bergsten's proposal gained initial traction among policy analysts for its focus on mutual economic interdependence, highlighted by China's holding of over $200 billion in U.S. Treasury securities by mid-2005, which underscored the risks of uncoordinated policies leading to global volatility. He advocated for the as a "group therapy" mechanism to negotiate reforms, such as gradual yuan appreciation and U.S. fiscal restraint, rather than confrontation, drawing on precedents like the 1985 . This economic-centric vision contrasted with broader geopolitical interpretations but laid the groundwork for later expansions, influencing discussions in think tanks like the . Former U.S. Advisor emerged as a key intellectual proponent in the mid-2000s, extending the beyond economics to strategic global leadership. , in writings and testimonies around 2008, contended that the U.S. and must collaborate as co-responsible powers on transnational threats like proliferation and resource scarcity, given their demographic weights—over 20% of combined—and capabilities, with U.S. defense spending at $600 billion and 's modernization efforts yielding a rapidly expanding by 2007. He warned against zero-sum rivalry, arguing from a realist perspective that mutual accommodation could prevent conflict, though he acknowledged asymmetries in alliance systems and democratic norms as barriers to full condominium. 's formulations, informed by his experience in during the , emphasized informal bilateral summits over formal institutions, influencing early Obama-era dialogues despite 's official rejection of as implying shared .

Historical Development

Pre-2008 Bilateral Foundations

The bilateral relationship between the and the prior to 2008 was established through diplomatic normalization and progressively deepened economic interdependence, setting the stage for later conceptualizations of enhanced cooperation. President Richard Nixon's visit to in February 1972 marked the initial breakthrough, culminating in the , which acknowledged mutual interests despite ideological differences and facilitated the severance of official U.S. ties with in favor of . Formal diplomatic relations were established on January 1, 1979, enabling expanded exchanges in trade, science, and culture. China's economic reforms under , initiated at the Third Plenum of the 11th in December 1978, emphasized opening to foreign investment and , with Deng's to the in January-February 1979 symbolizing this shift and leading to agreements on , maritime cooperation, and consular relations. volume surged from approximately $2.5 billion in 1979 to $5 billion by 1980, reaching $231 billion by 2004, driven by China's export-led growth and U.S. . The U.S. granted permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in October 2000 via the U.S.-China Relations Act, facilitating China's accession to the (WTO) on December 11, 2001, which further integrated the two economies and boosted U.S. exports to from $16 billion in 2001 to $62 billion by 2007. Institutional mechanisms reinforced these ties, including the establishment of the U.S.-China in 1983 to address and issues. Under Presidents and , the Senior Dialogue launched in August 2005 focused on strategic policy coordination, followed by the Strategic Economic Dialogue () in September 2006, which convened biannual meetings of cabinet-level officials to manage trade imbalances, currency policies, and —evidenced by 's holding of $239 billion in U.S. Treasury securities by mid-2007. These frameworks highlighted growing mutual reliance, with U.S. firms investing over $50 billion in by 2007 and emerging as a key supplier of low-cost goods amid its GDP growth averaging 10% annually from 2000 to 2007. Despite periodic tensions over and military sales to , the pre-2008 period solidified a foundation of pragmatic engagement predicated on economic complementarity rather than ideological alignment.

2008 Financial Crisis and Peak Advocacy

The , precipitated by the collapse of on September 15, 2008, exposed the deep economic interdependence between the and , elevating advocacy for the Group of Two (G2) framework as a mechanism for bilateral coordination on macroeconomic stability. The crisis led to sharp contractions in global trade and credit markets, with China's export-dependent economy facing a 20% year-over-year drop in exports by early 2009, while the US grappled with a housing market implosion and banking failures. In response, the US Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act on October 3, 2008, authorizing the $700 billion (TARP) to stabilize financial institutions through asset purchases and capital injections. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2008, announced a 4 trillion yuan (approximately $586 billion) stimulus package focused on , social welfare, and industrial support to counteract domestic slowdowns and sustain growth amid falling external demand. These parallel fiscal interventions underscored the potential for US-China policy alignment, as both nations accounted for over 40% of global GDP and China's holdings of approximately $600 billion in US Treasury securities amplified spillover risks. The November 14-15, 2008, summit in , where finance ministers from both countries participated in coordinating stimulus measures and regulatory reforms, further fueled perceptions of an emergent G2 dynamic within multilateral forums. Proponents argued that informal G2 cooperation could address persistent global imbalances, such as the current account deficit and China's surplus, which had contributed to pre-crisis vulnerabilities through excessive US consumption financed by Chinese savings. Advocacy for peaked in late 2008 and 2009 among policy intellectuals, who viewed the crisis as a catalyst for elevating bilateral ties to manage systemic risks beyond traditional or structures. C. Fred Bergsten, director of the and originator of the G2 term in 2005, reiterated its necessity post-crisis, proposing regular summits between and Chinese leaders to harmonize exchange rates, fiscal policies, and financial oversight. Similarly, , former National Security Advisor, endorsed a G2 partnership as essential for tackling the crisis's aftermath and broader challenges like , emphasizing the duo's outsized influence on global outcomes. This enthusiasm reflected a pragmatic recognition of power realities— GDP at $14.7 trillion and China's at $4.6 trillion in 2008—rather than ideological alignment, though critics within circles warned of overlooking China's authoritarian and mercantilist practices. Chinese officials, however, consistently rejected formal G2 framing, prioritizing and sovereignty. Premier publicly disclaimed the concept in late 2008, asserting that would not form a "Group of Two" with the to dictate global affairs, citing concerns over unequal responsibilities and perceptions of alienating other nations. Beijing's stance stemmed from domestic political imperatives to avoid shouldering undue burdens for US-originated problems and strategic caution against bilateral dominance that might constrain its developmental priorities. Despite this, ad hoc coordination persisted, such as aligned interest rate cuts and joint commitments, marking the practical peak of influence before ideological frictions and 's rising assertiveness tempered enthusiasm by 2010.

Obama-Era Institutionalization Attempts

The Obama administration initiated efforts to structure high-level bilateral engagement with China shortly after taking office, establishing the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) on April 1, 2009, during a joint announcement by President and Chinese President . This framework consolidated and expanded previous senior dialogues—such as the Strategic Economic Dialogue and Senior Dialogue from the Bush era—into a single annual mechanism covering , strategic , and global challenges like nonproliferation and . The S&ED aimed to foster a "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" relationship, with cabinet-level participation from both sides, including U.S. secretaries of state, treasury, and other principals, meeting alternately in Washington and . The inaugural S&ED round convened on July 27–28, 2009, in Washington, D.C., and Beijing, yielding agreements to intensify sub-dialogues on regional issues including , the , , , and , alongside commitments to coordinate on the global financial crisis through measures like joint IMF contributions and trade facilitation. Subsequent rounds, held annually through 2016, addressed an expanding agenda: the 2010 session advanced cooperation on clean energy and nuclear security; 2011 focused on cybersecurity and military maritime consultations; and later iterations in 2014–2015 incorporated climate commitments, culminating in bilateral outcomes that supported the framework via a November 11, 2014, joint announcement on emissions targets. These dialogues produced over 100 outcome documents across eight years, emphasizing practical deliverables like regulatory alignment on pharmaceuticals and , though implementation varied due to enforcement gaps. Parallel initiatives complemented the S&ED, including the November 17, 2009, U.S.- Joint Statement, which pledged sustained strategic consultations and people-to-people exchanges to build mutual trust. The administration also pursued ad hoc bilateral tracks, such as the 2013 summit between Obama and , which introduced on cyber issues and military notifications, though these lacked the recurring structure of the S&ED. Despite these mechanisms, formal institutionalization of a "" as a de facto global steering group—advocated in some policy circles post-2008 crisis—did not materialize, as the administration prioritized multilateral forums like the and emphasized 's responsibilities as a stakeholder rather than co-equal manager. Outcomes reflected incremental progress on shared interests but recurrent tensions over , currency valuation, and territorial disputes, underscoring limits to deeper fusion.

Proposed Domains of Cooperation

Economic and Financial Coordination

Proponents of the Group of Two framework emphasized economic and financial coordination as a core pillar, positing that the and , as the world's two largest economies, should jointly address global imbalances, misalignments, and financial vulnerabilities to avert systemic crises. C. Fred Bergsten, director of the , first articulated this in 2005, recommending bilateral consultations on currency policies—such as gradual yuan appreciation to reduce China's trade surplus—and coordinated fiscal responses to stabilize demand, arguing that such steps could replace ad hoc or efforts with more decisive duo leadership. Bergsten further proposed G2 oversight of IMF quota reforms and regulations, viewing mutual —evidenced by China's holdings of over $1 trillion in US Treasuries by 2009—as a foundation for pragmatic collaboration despite ideological differences. The 2008 global financial crisis tested and partially validated these ideas through de facto coordination. In response to the US subprime meltdown, which triggered worldwide credit contraction, China announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package on November 9, 2008, focusing on infrastructure and exports to sustain growth amid falling global demand; this complemented US actions like the $700 billion signed October 3, 2008, and liquidity injections totaling trillions. Concurrently, Chinese purchases of US Treasuries surged, reaching $727 billion by March 2009, providing critical funding for American recovery efforts and averting a deeper crisis, as noted by former Treasury Secretary in accounts of direct US-China Treasury-level talks. At the Pittsburgh Summit on September 24-25, 2009, both nations endorsed framework commitments for stimulus exit strategies and financial regulatory tightening, elevating the while informally aligning on rebalancing—China pledged to boost domestic consumption, though implementation lagged. Institutionalizing this coordination, the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), launched July 2009 under Presidents Obama and , featured an economic track for addressing trade frictions, investment barriers, and multilateral reforms. Early rounds yielded agreements like China's 2010 commitment to allow greater yuan flexibility—appreciating 5% against the by mid-2011—and joint advocacy for IMF changes, increasing China's voting share from 3.7% to 6% by December 2010. Subsequent outcomes included 2011 pacts on agricultural market access and 2013 memoranda reducing export subsidies in , yet persistent issues like enforcement and forced technology transfers highlighted limits, with US reports documenting China's undervalued until 2015. By 2016, S&ED discussions encompassed clean and anti-corruption, but quantifiable progress remained incremental, as deficits widened to $347 billion in 2016, underscoring causal tensions from China's state-directed model versus US .

Climate Change and Global Commons

Proponents of the Group of Two (G2) framework argued that the and , as the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases—accounting for approximately 40% of global emissions in 2008—held unique responsibility for managing the atmosphere as a , prone to overuse akin to a . This perspective emphasized bilateral coordination to establish emission reduction targets, share clean energy technologies, and enforce multilateral agreements, given that unilateral actions by either nation would be insufficient without the other's participation. Early formulations, such as those during the , positioned alongside financial stability as domains requiring G2 leadership to avert collective inaction. Advocacy for G2-specific climate cooperation intensified ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, where analysts urged the duo to forge a "group of two" pact on verifiable emission cuts and technology transfers to catalyze global progress. Chinese emissions had surged to 6.0 billion metric tons of CO2 in , surpassing the U.S.'s 5.9 billion metric tons, underscoring the need for joint commitments to peak and reduce outputs. Proposals included U.S.- alignment on carbon pricing mechanisms, standards, and controls, with the rationale that their combined economic leverage could pressure other nations into compliance. However, skeptics contended that systemic differences—such as 's state-directed development model versus U.S. market-driven approaches—rendered deep coordination illusory, potentially leading to free-riding rather than mutual restraint. A notable empirical instance aligned with G2 principles occurred in the 2014 U.S.-China Joint Announcement on , where the U.S. pledged to cut emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and committed to peaking emissions around 2030 while sourcing 20% of energy from non-fossil sources. This bilateral deal, representing over one-third of global emissions, facilitated the 2015 by bridging North-South divides and demonstrating G2 coordination on commons management. Follow-up efforts, such as the 2016 U.S.-China commitment to phase down hydrofluorocarbons and enhance subnational partnerships, further exemplified proposed domains of , though these were framed as pragmatic rather than explicit G2 institutionalization. Quantifiable outcomes included accelerated deployment of solar and technologies, with installing 53 gigawatts of solar capacity in 2016 alone, partly enabled by joint research initiatives. Challenges to climate cooperation stemmed from verification disputes and asymmetric development needs; for instance, 's insistence on historical U.S. responsibility clashed with American demands for current-accountable metrics, limiting binding enforcement. Despite these, the framework highlighted causal linkages: without U.S.- alignment, global emission trajectories—projected to rise 20-30% by 2030 absent coordination—would exacerbate atmospheric depletion. Later dynamics, including the U.S. withdrawal in 2017, tested resilience, yet resumed dialogues in 2021 reaffirmed bilateral pledges as foundational to multilateral efficacy.

Security and Non-Traditional Threats

Proponents of the Group of Two () concept advocated for U.S.-China collaboration on non-traditional security threats, including weapons proliferation, transnational , cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and pandemic risks, positing that joint leadership could address challenges eluding unilateral action. Such cooperation was envisioned as bilateral coordination to enforce global norms, share limited intelligence, and support multilateral initiatives, distinct from traditional military domains marked by rivalry. In nonproliferation, G2 frameworks highlighted potential for the two powers to curb weapons of mass destruction spread, building on aligned interests in regimes like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; for instance, both endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1874 on June 12, 2009, imposing sanctions on North Korea's nuclear activities amid the financial crisis-era G2 discussions. Bilateral consultations, dormant since 2018, resumed on November 6, 2023, in , focusing on risk reduction and strategic stability, though China conditioned deeper engagement on U.S. limits to alliances like . Counter-terrorism represented another proposed domain, with shared threats from groups like prompting post-9/11 alignment; supported U.S. invocations of UNSCR 1368 and 1373 in 2001, enabling overflights and intelligence exchanges, while bilateral dialogues addressed linked to Uyghur militants and global . Annual U.S.- Counterterrorism Consultations, initiated in the , facilitated discussions on threat assessments, though cooperation waned due to U.S. criticisms of 's domestic counter- measures. Cybersecurity posed mutual risks, with G2-like proposals emphasizing to avert escalation from state-sponsored incidents; U.S. accusations of Chinese hacking, such as the 2015 Office of Personnel Management breach affecting 21 million records, underscored vulnerabilities, prompting calls for and norms against attacks on . The inaugural U.S.- Cybersecurity occurred in October 2016, aiming to counter shared threats like terrorist cyber capabilities, but persistent mutual suspicions limited outcomes. Pandemic response offered scope for G2 coordination on global health security, drawing from precedents like the 2003 SARS outbreak, where shared data with the after initial delays, affecting over 8,000 cases worldwide; advocates argued such threats required joint and supply chain resilience, yet the 2019-2020 origins dispute eroded trust, halting robust bilateral mechanisms. Overall, while non-traditional threats incentivized tactical alignment, systemic divergences—such as differing threat definitions and enforcement priorities—constrained ambitions in these areas.

Achievements and Empirical Outcomes

Documented Instances of Collaboration

The U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), launched in 2009 under Presidents and , served as a primary bilateral mechanism for coordination on , , and non-traditional threats, yielding commitments to enhance global financial oversight and reduce trade imbalances through measures like improved enforcement and reforms. In parallel, during the 2008 global , increased its holdings of U.S. Treasury securities to approximately $600 billion by September 2008, providing liquidity support that complemented U.S. stimulus efforts and helped avert deeper global contraction, with both nations engaging in close consultations via nascent bilateral channels to align fiscal responses. A flagship outcome was the establishment of the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) in November 2009, funded equally by both governments at $75 million each for a total of $150 million over five years, focusing on joint in clean vehicles, advanced technologies including , energy-efficient buildings, and water-energy nexus solutions to address shared environmental challenges. The CERC facilitated over a dozen consortia projects, such as developing technologies and utilization methods to mitigate emissions, with results disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and technology transfers until its core phase concluded around 2016. On , a pivotal 2014 joint announcement by Presidents Obama and committed the U.S. to reducing by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and to peaking emissions around 2030, alongside deploying 1,000 gigawatts of non-fossil energy capacity, which provided critical momentum for the 2015 by bridging developed and developing nation positions. Subsequent S&ED outcomes reinforced this through agreements on phasing out hydrofluorocarbons and tightening controls on illegal , including commercial bans effective from 2016-2017 to combat trafficking networks. These efforts, while limited in scope compared to ongoing bilateral frictions, demonstrated pragmatic alignment on transnational issues without resolving underlying systemic divergences.

Quantifiable Impacts on Global Stability

In the aftermath of the , US-China coordination within the framework, informed by proposals, supported global economic recovery through complementary fiscal measures. China's 4 trillion stimulus package, announced on November 5, 2008, and equivalent to about 13% of its GDP, prioritized infrastructure and offset declining external demand, enabling 9.2% GDP growth in 2009 amid a global contraction of 1.7%. This policy generated positive spillovers, with estimates indicating it boosted global GDP by 0.3-0.5 percentage points via heightened commodity demand and trade stabilization, particularly benefiting export-dependent economies in Asia and raw material suppliers. Concurrent US actions, including the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed on February 17, 2009, complemented these efforts; together, stimuli, led by the two nations, averted a projected 2-3% deeper global output loss according to IMF assessments. On climate governance, the November 12, 2014, US- joint announcement committed the US to a 26-28% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2025 and to peaking CO2 emissions around 2030, catalyzing the Paris Agreement's adoption on December 12, 2015. As the source of 38% of global in 2014, their alignment secured broader participation, with Paris nationally determined contributions (NDCs) projected to limit warming to 2.5-3°C by 2100 versus 3.7-4.8°C under pre-Paris trajectories, per aggregated models. Empirical tracking shows accelerated renewable deployment, with global solar and capacity tripling from 2015 to 2020 partly due to technology transfers and investment flows encouraged by bilateral dialogues, though actual emissions rose 1.1% annually post-Paris, underscoring implementation gaps. Security-related impacts remain less quantifiable, with episodic cooperation on non-proliferation yielding mixed results; for instance, joint UN sanctions on from 2006-2017 slowed but did not halt its nuclear program, as evidenced by six tests between 2006 and 2017 despite resolutions co-sponsored by both nations. Overall, while these instances demonstrate targeted stabilization—evident in reduced financial volatility ( index peaking at 80.86 in November 2008 before declining amid recovery signals)—systemic absence limited broader effects, with strategic mistrust contributing to heightened tensions post-2010.

Criticisms and Challenges

Ideological and Systemic Incompatibilities

The political structures of the and embody fundamentally opposing principles of . The US Constitution establishes a with competitive multi-party elections, among executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and safeguards for individual rights through mechanisms like the Bill of Rights and . In contrast, China's 1982 Constitution (amended 2018) declares the Communist Party of China (CCP) as the vanguard of the and the defining feature of , vesting ultimate authority in the CCP's Standing Committee without provisions for opposition parties or direct elections for national leadership. This one-party monopoly, justified by the CCP as ensuring stability and collective interests over individual dissent, rejects the US model of accountability through periodic power transfers, viewing it as a source of instability prone to "color revolutions." Economically, the US prioritizes private enterprise, rule-of-law protections for contracts and property, and market-driven innovation, as reflected in its adherence to principles of tempered by antitrust enforcement. China's "socialist market economy," directed by five-year plans and dominated by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) controlling key sectors like energy and finance, integrates mercantilist practices such as export subsidies, forced technology transfers from foreign firms, and intellectual property acquisition strategies that US officials have documented as distorting global markets. These asymmetries—exemplified by China's non-market economy status in WTO disputes and its $300 billion-plus annual subsidies to industries per US Trade Representative estimates—undermine reciprocal cooperation, as the CCP's control prioritizes national champions over impartial competition, clashing with US legal frameworks that prohibit state favoritism. Such systemic features render joint economic governance, as envisioned in G2 proposals, untenable without one side conceding core operational norms. On values and human rights, the US upholds universal individual freedoms, including speech, assembly, and , as codified in international covenants and domestic law, leading to consistent critiques of China's mass surveillance, via the Great Firewall (blocking sites like and since 2009), and policies in regions like , where UN reports estimate over 1 million detained in re-education camps for ideological conformity. China counters with a relativist framework emphasizing "" under CCP guidance, rejecting Western as and prioritizing state security over dissent, as seen in the 2020 National Security Law imposed on , which curtailed and led to over 10,000 arrests by 2023. These divergences foster mutual perceptions of existential threat: the CCP sees US as subversion aimed at , while US policymakers view China's authoritarian export—through initiatives like the Digital Silk Road enabling surveillance tech transfers—as eroding liberal norms globally. Consequently, ideological rigidity impedes trust-based alliances, as each system's survival hinges on preserving its foundational logic against the other's influence.

Strategic Mistrust and Asymmetries

Strategic mistrust between the and stems from fundamental differences in political systems and long-term strategic intentions, with each side perceiving the other's actions as aimed at undermining its core interests. The Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian governance contrasts sharply with U.S. democratic institutions, fostering suspicions that seeks to export its model and erode Western liberal order, while Washington views China's opaque decision-making and internal repression—such as the 2018-2019 mass of over one million in —as evidence of expansionist ideology incompatible with global norms. This mutual suspicion is exacerbated by territorial disputes, including China's rejection of the 2016 ruling against its claims, which enforces through island-building and militia deployments covering over 90% of the sea's area. U.S. freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs), such as the May 10, 2024, transit by USS Halsey near the , challenge these claims under , prompting Chinese protests and close encounters that heighten escalation risks. interprets such actions, alongside U.S. arms sales to —totaling $18 billion from 2010 to 2020—as encirclement strategies, while Washington cites China's 2024 military exercises simulating blockades around as aggressive posturing. Public sentiment reflects this divide: a 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 77% of Americans hold unfavorable views of , down slightly from 81% in 2024 but still indicating deep-seated distrust driven by perceptions of unfair practices. Asymmetries in capabilities amplify mistrust, as each leverages relative strengths to offset vulnerabilities. Militarily, the U.S. maintains global superiority through alliances like and QUAD, advanced carrier strike groups, and modernization, but China's (PLA) has rapidly narrowed gaps via anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems, including hypersonic missiles and a navy exceeding 370 ships by 2024—surpassing the U.S. in hull numbers though not tonnage or blue-water projection. The PLA's focus on regional dominance, such as in the where proximity enables saturation attacks, creates asymmetric deterrence challenges for U.S. forces reliant on distant bases. Economically and technologically, China's state-directed industrial policies enable scale advantages in manufacturing and supply chains—producing 80% of global solar panels and dominating rare earths—but expose dependencies on U.S.-controlled semiconductors, where export controls since 2022 have restricted advanced chips critical for AI and military applications. theft exacerbates this, with U.S. estimates attributing $225-600 billion in annual losses to Chinese economic , including over 1,000 FBI investigations into cases like the of a Chinese national for stealing secrets. These asymmetries fuel zero-sum perceptions: views U.S. tech restrictions as , while America sees Beijing's "" as subsidizing dual-use advancements that erode its edge. Overall, such imbalances hinder G2-style cooperation, as neither trusts the other's restraint amid rising stakes in domains like nuclear expansion, where 's grew to over 500 warheads by 2024.

Economic Dependencies and Vulnerabilities

The maintains significant economic dependencies on , particularly in critical supply chains for minerals and manufactured goods. processes over 80% of global rare earth elements and supplies more than 50% of U.S. demand for 21 nonfuel mineral commodities essential for defense, , and technologies. Disruptions, such as 's 2025 export controls on rare earth magnets and related technologies, have threatened U.S. defense supply chains by restricting products with even trace Chinese content, underscoring vulnerabilities in sectors like semiconductors and batteries where U.S. firms rely on Chinese intermediates. In 2024, U.S. imports from totaled approximately $427 billion, representing about 13% of total U.S. goods imports, with key categories including , machinery, and pharmaceuticals, exposing the economy to risks from tariffs, geopolitical tensions, or supply halts as evidenced during the . China, in turn, exhibits vulnerabilities stemming from its export-oriented growth model and reliance on U.S. markets and . The U.S. remains a primary destination for Chinese , contributing over $360 billion to China's nearly $1 trillion merchandise trade surplus in 2024, making susceptible to U.S. tariffs and trade restrictions that have slowed Chinese GDP growth to around 5% amid property sector declines and overcapacity. U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors and AI technologies, intensified since 2022, have constrained China's access to critical inputs, disrupting its domestic chip industry and forcing workarounds that have yet to fully mitigate the impact. Additionally, China's holdings of U.S. securities, which fell to $730.7 billion by 2025—the lowest since 2008—represent a diminished but still substantial exposure to U.S. fluctuations and potential sanctions, tying Beijing's of $3.32 trillion to American debt markets. These asymmetries foster mutual vulnerabilities that undermine stable bilateral cooperation, as each side's leverage—U.S. and tech dominance versus China's manufacturing scale and resource control—invites economic over coordination. Efforts to diversify, such as U.S. partnerships in for rare earths or China's push for in semiconductors, have progressed slowly, with full decoupling projected to take over a decade due to entrenched global chains. In 2024, inbound into dropped 27.1% to $114.8 billion, reflecting eroding confidence amid restrictions and concerns, while U.S. firms face rising costs from reshoring initiatives. This interdependence, while stabilizing short-term flows exceeding $500 billion annually, amplifies risks of escalation, as seen in reciprocal curbs that could fragment supply chains and inflate global prices.

Decline and Contemporary Dynamics

Trump and Biden Administrations' Rejections

The Trump administration's approach to repudiated cooperative frameworks akin to a G2 by reorienting U.S. policy toward strategic competition, as articulated in key strategy documents. The December 2017 National Security Strategy characterized as a revisionist power that "promote alternative models of " and competes across political, economic, and military domains, rejecting any implicit equality in global leadership roles. This was reinforced in the January 2018 National Defense Strategy, which identified long-term strategic competition with as a core priority, calling for enhanced deterrence, alliances, and military capabilities to counter Beijing's advances rather than pursuing joint stewardship of international affairs. These documents marked a pivot from prior engagement-oriented policies, emphasizing 's coercive economic practices and territorial assertiveness as threats incompatible with partnership. Concrete measures under Trump further underscored this rejection, including the initiation of tariffs on Chinese imports—beginning with 25% duties on $34 billion in goods on July 6, 2018, escalating to cover approximately $360 billion by January 2020—to address theft and imbalances, rather than collaborating on global economic management. The administration also restricted Chinese investments in U.S. technology sectors via the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) expansions in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018, effective February 13, 2019, prioritizing over bilateral condominium. While a Phase One was signed on January 15, 2020, committing to $200 billion in additional U.S. purchases, it was framed as leverage for concessions, not a foundation for G2-style coordination. The Biden administration sustained and formalized this competitive paradigm, explicitly designating as the paramount threat in security planning while eschewing notions of co-leadership. The October 2022 National Security Strategy described as "the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it," positioning it as America's "most consequential geopolitical challenge." The concurrent National Defense Strategy, released October 27, 2022, labeled the the "pacing challenge" for U.S. forces, directing investments in integrated deterrence and alliances to offset Beijing's military buildup, including over 500 nuclear warheads projected by 2030 and hypersonic capabilities. Biden's implementation included retaining Trump-era tariffs on $370 billion of Chinese goods, imposing new export controls on advanced semiconductors and manufacturing equipment on October 7, 2022, to curb 's technological ascent, and enacting the on August 9, 2022, allocating $52 billion for domestic semiconductor production to reduce dependencies. Strategic initiatives like the pact, announced September 15, 2021, for nuclear-powered submarines shared with and the , and enhanced Quad cooperation, emphasized multilateral balancing against in the , precluding any bilateral G2 dominance. These steps reflected a consensus view of as a systemic rival, not a co-architect of global stability.

Post-2020 Escalations and Alternatives

Following the 2020 phase one trade agreement, U.S.- relations deteriorated further under the Biden administration, with escalations in restrictions, posturing, and disputes. In October 2022, the U.S. Commerce Department imposed comprehensive export controls on advanced semiconductors and manufacturing equipment to , aiming to curb Beijing's and AI capabilities, a move condemned as economic . These controls expanded in 2023 and 2024, including restrictions on AI chips and technologies, prompting Chinese retaliatory bans on rare earth exports critical for U.S. defense and electronics industries. tensions intensified with 's large-scale exercises around after U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit in 2022, involving over 100 and 50 warships, which the U.S. characterized as aggressive rehearsals for a . The February 2023 incident involving a Chinese high-altitude over U.S. territory further eroded trust, leading to the cancellation of a planned U.S. visit to . The return of to the presidency in January 2025 accelerated trade hostilities, with immediate actions including a February 2025 executive order imposing 10% tariffs on all Chinese imports, justified as addressing fentanyl precursor flows and trade imbalances. By October 2025, the U.S. launched a Section 301 investigation into 's non-compliance with the 2020 trade deal's purchase commitments, potentially paving the way for additional tariffs exceeding 60% on Chinese goods. responded with export curbs on rare earths in October 2025 and threats of broader countermeasures, framing U.S. actions as protectionist aggression amid ongoing disputes over U.S. port fees on Chinese vessels and blacklisting of Chinese firms. These developments underscored a shift from any residual cooperation toward decoupling, with U.S. officials citing empirical evidence of theft and unfair subsidies totaling over $500 billion annually in distorted Chinese exports. In November 2025, following engagements with China, President Trump referenced a US-China "G2" framework for addressing global issues, eliciting concerns in Indian media and strategic analyses over potential strategic isolation for India, weakening of multilateral alliances like the Quad, and shifts in Indo-Pacific dynamics. In response to G2's infeasibility, the U.S. pursued alternative multilateral frameworks excluding to bolster Indo-Pacific security and economic resilience. The (QUAD), comprising the U.S., , , and , was elevated with regular summits starting in 2021, focusing on joint maritime exercises, vaccine distribution, and supply chain diversification away from China-dependent nodes. The security pact, announced in September 2021 between the U.S., UK, and , committed to sharing nuclear-powered submarine , enhancing deterrence against Chinese assertiveness in the and . Economically, the (IPEF), launched in May 2022 with 14 partners including and , targeted digital trade, clean energy, and fair labor standards as counters to 's , though lacking tariff reductions. These minilaterals provided the U.S. with flexible coalitions for alliances, such as the 2023 U.S.-Japan-Netherlands chip coordination, reducing reliance on bilateral U.S.- engagement. China, in turn, advanced alternatives through deepened strategic partnerships, notably with via the "no-limits" declaration in February 2022, which facilitated energy imports and joint military drills amid Western sanctions on . expanded in 2023-2024 to include , , , and the UAE, aiming to create parallel financial institutions challenging U.S.-dominated systems like the IMF, though these groupings have yielded limited empirical success in de-dollarization, with global reserve shares for non-dollar currencies remaining under 10%. Such efforts reflect mutual recognition that G2-style coordination is untenable amid ideological divergences and dilemmas, with U.S. emphasizing alliances that empirically distribute risks across diversified partners.

Prospects Under Renewed Tensions

In 2025, U.S.- relations have entered a phase of intensified strategic competition, marked by escalated tariffs, export controls, and military posturing, diminishing any residual prospects for a revived Group of Two framework of bilateral dominance in . The second Trump administration imposed 20% tariffs on Chinese chemicals linked to production in early 2025, aiming to curb the opioid crisis, while responded with restrictions on rare-earth metal exports in 2025, leveraging its near-monopoly in these critical materials for electronics and defense applications. These measures have inflicted measurable economic damage, with U.S.- volumes declining in the first eight months of 2025 due to reciprocal barriers, exacerbating disruptions and contributing to inflationary pressures in both economies. Military risks loom large, with analysts warning of inadvertent escalation over flashpoints like and the , where close encounters between U.S. and assets have increased. A U.S. general's prediction of potential by 2025 highlighted Taiwan invasion scenarios, prompting Beijing's rebukes and underscoring communication gaps that could turn miscalculations into conflict. China's defense spending, reaching approximately $296 billion in 2024 and projected to grow, supports naval expansion challenging U.S. dominance, while U.S. alliances such as and the Quad counterbalance through submarine deals and joint exercises. Despite these tensions, limited diplomatic channels persist, with talks on trade de-escalation reported in October 2025, though a planned Xi-Trump summit faces uncertainty amid Beijing's hardening stance. Long-term prospects favor managed rivalry over cooperation, as ideological divergences and mutual distrust preclude G2-style coordination on global issues like climate or pandemics, with empirical evidence showing stalled joint initiatives since 2020. Economic decoupling accelerates in semiconductors and critical minerals, potentially slowing global GDP growth by 0.5-1% annually if barriers persist, per modeling from think tanks. Stabilization efforts, including potential arms control dialogues, offer narrow paths to avert catastrophe, but causal factors—such as China's assertive territorial claims and U.S. containment policies—suggest sustained tensions without systemic reform.

References

  1. https://kalkinemedia.com/us/news/stock-market/g-2-the-group-of-two-united-states-and-china
  2. https://thediplomat.com/2024/10/from-g2-to-cold-war-2-0-the-changing-us-attitude-toward-china/
  3. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/assessing-u-s-china-relations-under-the-obama-administration/
  4. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/why-us-china-g2-wont-work
  5. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/east-asia/2009-05-01/g-2-mirage
  6. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-and-china-a-g-2-in-the-making/
  7. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/g2-and-expectations-game/
  8. https://www.npr.org/2010/05/25/127108551/foreign-policy-the-demise-of-the-g-2
  9. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2009-09-01/twos-company
  10. https://www.asiaglobalonline.hku.hk/emerging-g2-key-working-us-china-rivalry-will-be-agency
  11. https://iiep.gwu.edu/files/2018/04/harding_revised-100915m.pdf
  12. https://fpa.org/rethinking-the-g2/
  13. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/going-global-zbigniew-brzezinski-and-chinas-rise
  14. http://newyork.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/xw/200911/t20091119_4691652.htm
  15. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-china-relations
  16. https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/history-of-the-u-s-and-china/
  17. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/25/timeline-major-events-in-us-china-relations-since-1949
  18. https://www.uschina.org/articles/40-years-of-us-china-commercial-relations/
  19. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/wjls/3603_665545/202405/t20240530_11342914.html
  20. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-china-trade-war-has-its-seeds-in-the-financial-crisis/
  21. https://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/6260/01iie6260.pdf
  22. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22984.html
  23. http://jcie.org/researchpdfs/PacificNation/Han.pdf
  24. https://academic.oup.com/cjip/article/12/3/371/5544745
  25. https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/documents/no.233.pdf
  26. https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2016/04/GEM%2520April%25202016.pdf
  27. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-china-strategic-and-economic-dialogue
  28. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/remarks-president-uschina-strategic-and-economic-dialogue
  29. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/tg292
  30. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/126596.htm
  31. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jl0092
  32. https://ncafp.org/resources/new-report-us-china-strategic-economic-dialogues/
  33. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/us-china-joint-statement
  34. https://carnegieendowment.org/events/2013/07/a-new-type-of-great-power-relations-between-china-and-the-united-states
  35. https://www.banking.senate.gov/download/052312bergsten-testimony
  36. https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/bergsten_house.pdf
  37. https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/policy-coordination-in-the-global-financial-crisis
  38. https://carnegieendowment.org/programs/asia/six-crises-how-the-us-and-china-coordinated-despite-strategic-rivalry
  39. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jl0485
  40. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/07/211861.htm
  41. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/06/258146.htm
  42. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/how-us-and-china-could-renew-cooperation-climate-change/
  43. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/obama-sets-the-tone-for-u-s-china-cooperation-on-climate-change/
  44. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-China-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
  45. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-can-g2-make-difference/
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927817301028
  47. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/03/fact-sheet-us-china-cooperation-climate-change-0
  48. https://www.shoreline.edu/gac/documents/coffeecurrents/g2mirage.pdf
  49. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111398/wp_sdsc_415.pdf
  50. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-12/news/china-us-hold-rare-arms-control-talks
  51. https://cimsec.org/u-s-china-counterterrorism-cooperation-falters/
  52. https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Asia-focus-56.pdf
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8237537/
  54. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/archive?issue=296&page=3
  55. https://www.academia.edu/36133622/CONCEPT_OF_G_2_IN_US_POLICY_TOWARDS_CHINA
  56. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-progressive-principled-and-pragmatic-approach-toward-china-policy/u-s-china-cooperative-agenda-a-progressive-principled-and-pragmatic-policy-framework-on-china/
  57. https://www.energy.gov/node/266881
  58. https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/us-china-clean-energy-research-center-cerc
  59. https://www.wri.org/insights/us-china-clean-energy-research-center-works-carbon-capture-and-storage
  60. https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202405/t20240531_11367286.html
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560619304085
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104900782100052X
  63. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/world-economy-trade-and-finance/g2-g-20-china-united-states-and-world-after-global
  64. https://www.wri.org/insights/us-and-china-join-paris-agreement-bringing-it-much-closer-taking-effect
  65. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8741530/
  67. https://www.csis.org/blogs/freeman-chair-blog/are-united-states-and-china-ideological-competition
  68. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Oct/19/2003323409/-1/-1/1/2023-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.PDF
  69. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/chinas-threat-to-global-democracy/
  70. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/addressing-u-s-china-strategic-distrust/
  71. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/us-china-relations-for-the-2030s-toward-a-realistic-scenario-for-coexistence?lang=en
  72. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/freedom-navigation-south-china-sea-practical-guide
  73. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3771407/us-navy-destroyer-conducts-freedom-of-navigation-operation-in-the-south-china-s/
  74. https://news.usni.org/2023/03/24/china-protests-u-s-south-china-sea-freedom-of-navigation-operation
  75. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0330_china_lieberthal.pdf
  76. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/04/17/negative-views-of-china-have-softened-slightly-among-americans/
  77. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  78. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/10-ways-the-us-is-falling-behind-china-in-national-security/
  79. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship
  80. https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-williams-seek-answers-doj-chinese-ip-theft
  81. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/chinese-national-charged-committing-theft-trade-secrets
  82. https://www.csis.org/analysis/tech-revolution-and-irregular-warfare-leveraging-commercial-innovation-great-power
  83. https://shalemag.com/us-critical-minerals-supply-strategy/
  84. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-new-rare-earth-and-magnet-restrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains
  85. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11284
  86. https://www.statista.com/topics/4698/sino-us-trading-relationship/
  87. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-vs-us-economy-2025-outlook/
  88. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/breaking-the-circuit-us-china-semiconductor-controls/
  89. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/foreign-holdings-us-treasuries-surge-all-time-high-july-chinas-sink-2025-09-18/
  90. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202509/1343941.shtml
  91. https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-administration-works-break-chinas-rare-earth-mineral-stranglehold-africa
  92. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/10/21/despite-us-push-china-poised-to-dominate-rare-earths-for-years
  93. https://www.state.gov/reports/2025-investment-climate-statements/china
  94. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2017/12/americas-new-security-strategy-reflects-the-intensifying.html
  95. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
  96. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.pdf
  97. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-relations-in-the-biden-era-a-timeline/
  98. https://www.globalbusinessjournalism.com/post/a-complete-chronology-of-the-2025-u-s-china-trade-tensions
  99. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/business/economy/us-china-trade-investigation.html
  100. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/10/21/us-china-now-in-a-very-different-kind-of-trade-war-experts-warn
  101. https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/us-china-g2-world-order-india-isolation/article70247333.ece
  102. https://www.vifindia.org/article/2025/november/20/The-Alleged-G2-Indo-Pacific-and-Implications-for-India
  103. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/what-are-latest-sticking-points-us-china-tensions-2025-10-10/
  104. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world/asia/china-trade-trump.html
  105. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-relations-in-the-trump-2-0-implications/
  106. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4107-1.html
  107. https://www.defensepriorities.org/in-the-media/us-generals-prediction-of-war-with-china-in-2025-risks-turning-worst-fears-into-reality/
  108. https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/market-insights/geopolitical-risk
  109. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/26/nx-s1-5586646/us-china-trade-deal-drawing-closer
  110. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/10/23/xi-trump-summit-in-doubt-as-beijing-adopts-harder-line/
  111. https://www.cfr.org/event/transition-2025-series-future-us-china-relations
  112. https://www.max-security.com/resources/global-forecast/china-us-relations-2025/
  113. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/opinion/us-china-war-trump-xi.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.