From Bottom Line to Consensus: A New Form of Sino-US Competition

After a series of rounds of confrontation, China and the United States have finally reached this major turning point, the Busan meeting.

A few days ago, after the latest round of Sino-US trade talks, both sides used expressions such as "in-depth" and "constructive," with US Treasury Secretary Biden even calling it "far-reaching."

This kind of wording is not just polite. In fact, both the Sino-US Kuala Lumpur trade talks and the Sino-US Busan meeting have revealed a signal: Sino-US relations are moving from previous unilateral dominance into a more "symmetrical" stage, which is undoubtedly a major turning point.

I. From Ambiguous Compromise to Bottom Line Consensus

Previous Sino-US negotiations often relied on ambiguous space to maintain progress. Ambiguous wording, delayed expressions, and words that can be interpreted in two ways - this was the way of compromise in the old era. But the atmosphere of today's negotiations has changed. Trump, during his second term, emphasized "transactions" and "results," while China has become increasingly concerned about the predictability and institutional nature of negotiations. Both sides no longer want to leave too much ambiguous space.

Li Chenggang, the Chinese negotiating representative, said after the Malaysia consultation: "The US expressed its position strongly, and China is firm in safeguarding its interests." This is not diplomatic jargon but a realistic reflection. The current consultation is no longer about "ambiguous stability," but more like "exchanging bottom lines for consensus": first let the other party know what you can accept and what you cannot, and then seek compromise on that basis.

This approach may cause more friction in the short term, but in the long run, it can better avoid unnecessary one-sided breakthroughs of the bottom line.

II. From Confrontation to Strategic Braking

From the Malaysia consultation to the South Korean summit, it was actually a timely "brake."

Previously, Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, and the US also increased the port fees for Chinese ships. China responded with measures such as controlling the export of rare earths, and the situation became tense. However, it was precisely this tension that made both sides realize that "taking one step further" could lead them into a costly trap.

After the consultation, the US stated that it had canceled the plan to increase the 100% tariff, and China intended to delay the implementation of the rare earth control measures by a year. Both sides clearly understood that if they continued to escalate, the costs would be greater than expected. Therefore, both sides chose a certain degree of "loss prevention": temporarily stopping and gaining a more stable interaction rhythm. This is not a retreat, but a rational calculation - putting short-term wins and losses aside for long-term strategic stalemate and stability.

III. Mutual Dependence and Strategic Symmetry

The current Sino-US competition is gradually forming a new "strategic symmetry" pattern.

The US restricts the export of semiconductor chips to China, and China responds with restrictions on the export of rare earths. Neither of these actions is merely a punishment, but rather a "test."

Initially, these measures were indeed to test the bottom line, but when both sides' forces tend to balance, they have become a certain boundary line - you know where I will retaliate, and I know where you will not cross. This symmetry, although not friendly, brings a stable tension.

This is essentially a new "forced coexistence." Both sides understand that if they completely decouple or fully confront each other, the cost will be unaffordable. Chips and rare earths, tariffs and exchange rates, port fees and agricultural product purchases - these seemingly opposing actions form a fragile but real balance through continuous testing and adjustment.

IV. Summit Setting the Tone and Mechanism Restart

More importantly, the South Korean meeting between the leaders of China and the US created a good atmosphere for their subsequent interactions.

It can be seen that the Sino-US trade mechanism has not "broken down," but has been reactivated under the push of high-level political will. In the current situation, the model of "summit setting the tone, departments implementing, and the summit making the final decision" has become particularly critical. As long as the political signals are clear enough, the specific negotiation teams can usually find room for implementation.

The result of this meeting also confirms this.

The US has abandoned the plan to increase an additional 100% tariff; the so-called "fentanyl tariff" on China has been reduced by 10%; the 24% reciprocal tariff has been postponed for another year; the September 29 announcement of the "penetrating regulation" on China has been suspended for a year; the port fees on China have been suspended for a year.

In response, China will suspend the implementation of the rare earth export control measures announced on October 9 for a year and will study and refine specific plans; the port fees on the US will be suspended for a year. At the same time, both sides have reached a consensus on issues such as fentanyl drug control cooperation, expanding agricultural product trade, and handling individual cases of relevant companies.

All of these consensuses together form a "cooling framework": there is no comprehensive reconciliation, but at least a temporary barrier has been built.

V. Stability Logic in Competition

From the trade war to the technology war, and now to the "strategic symmetry," after a series of confrontations, both China and the US have recognized the same reality: the logic of Sino-US competition is changing.

Tariffs, chips, rare earths - these seemingly adversarial tools are slowly evolving into a behavioral constraint. They are both means of threat and a language of communication - through a series of confrontations, both sides are constantly exploring new ways to balance.

The reason why the Trump administration chose to delay the escalation was largely because it realized that the "symmetry of power" in key technologies and resources has made unilateral pressure meaningless. In other words, when rare earths and chips form a mutual check, "acting again" becomes a self-damaging act.

Perhaps the future Sino-US relationship will no longer be about "who dominates who," but about managing competition within this complex interdependence.

New symmetries will continue to emerge - in artificial intelligence, in supply chains, in energy transition. Each new symmetry makes the competition more complex and makes conflict harder to get out of control. Maybe, this is the new logic for the stabilization of great power relations: not relying on who is stronger, but on both sides learning to exercise restraint after understanding the consequences of their actions.

Images from the network

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847653664282698/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.