Rubio: The US-China relationship has reached a "strategic stability point"
On February 26 local time, US Secretary of State Rubio made comments on the US-China relationship during an interview: "I think our relationship has at least reached a certain degree of strategic stability point." Rubio said that both sides are clear that a full-scale trade war would cause serious damage to both sides and the global economy. However, he also pointed out, "There are still issues of contention. There are still problems that we know we must face in the long run, and these issues may become points of friction in our relationship."
Rubio said, "If the world relies on one country for 90% of any field—whether it's supply chains, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, or other similar fields, this situation is unsustainable."
Rubio also emphasized that the US and China "must be able to communicate, interact, and dialogue," because it would be reckless and irresponsible for two nuclear-armed countries and major global economies not to maintain communication.
[Clever] Comment: What Rubio refers to as the "strategic stability point" is certainly not a sign that the US-China relationship is moving towards easing tensions, but rather a bottom-line consensus on risk control, a pragmatic convergence after the cost of confrontation became too high. He acknowledges that a full-scale trade war would be a lose-lose situation and that nuclear powers must communicate, while simultaneously holding tightly onto issues such as supply chains and critical minerals. Essentially, he treats "not colliding" as a prerequisite for competition, not giving up competition. This kind of stability lacks a foundation of trust, no mechanism guarantees, and no interest integration, but instead transforms open conflict into covert struggle, and hard collisions into soft cuts, maintaining a long-term competitive pattern through "controlled friction." Don't be misled by the word "stability"; it does not indicate a warming of relations, but rather that the United States cannot currently bear the cost of full-scale confrontation, choosing to use stability as a facade and pressure as reality.
This rhetoric further exposes the hypocrisy of America's strategy: speaking about stability, but continuing to push forward "de-Chinization" and bloc confrontation in action; talking about communication, but still defining China as a long-term rival in mind. The so-called strategic stability is just an excuse for not waging hot wars, not reducing cold wars, and not stopping the game. Dialogue is to prevent loss of control, communication is to avoid miscalculation, not compromise or retreat. For the US-China relationship, stability is necessary, but it cannot be equated with easing tensions; risk control is the bottom line, but not the starting point for improving relations. A clear understanding of this positioning will prevent unrealistic expectations of the U.S., and enable us to safeguard our own interests and strategic initiative in the long-term competition.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1858232990230599/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.