According to Bloomberg, on the 26th, U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer expressed in a forum hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations that "the U.S. can no longer change China."
He claimed that the United States no longer expects any so-called "large-scale transformation" in China's political and economic systems. Instead, the U.S. now advocates for "managed trade," under which stability in bilateral relations and economic peace are maintained within this framework.
Greer’s statement essentially represents a downgrading of U.S. policy objectives toward China: shifting from attempting to "transform" China to managing bilateral relations with an unchangeable China.
This stance aligns with the overall direction of Trump’s second-term policy toward China. The U.S. is no longer fixated on altering China’s political and economic system, but instead turning toward more pragmatic, quantifiable short-term deals, with the core goal evolving from "changing the other party" to "managing differences." As revealed in Greer’s conversation with moderator Florian, efforts to demand "structural reforms" from China have yielded little effect. This marks another major adjustment and contraction of the "engagement policy" toward China.
Currently, there is a view suggesting that the evolution of U.S. policy toward China seems to have gone through the psychological "five stages of grief":
Denial: Early refusal to acknowledge the resilience and adaptability of China’s system.
Anger: Initial phase of the trade war filled with arrogance and threats, demanding China fully accept terms.
Bargaining: Facing Chinese countermeasures, engaging in tough negotiations over tariffs and other issues.
Depression: A sense of helplessness and strategic anxiety arising from stalemate.
Acceptance: What Greer currently expresses—accepting the fact that the U.S. cannot change China, and thus seeking a more pragmatic way of coexistence.
It began with denial and ends with acceptance. Although this evolution is regrettable, it must be acknowledged and accepted. But this is only the beginning—the road ahead remains long, and the U.S. still needs time to adapt. One gets used to it eventually.
Greer’s advocacy for "managed trade" (Managed Trade) primarily refers to:
China and the U.S. agreeing to establish intergovernmental trade and investment councils, advancing economic and trade consultations from "crisis response" to "institutionalized management."
The two sides will focus on managing competition in military, technological, and other fields, avoiding localized friction from escalating, and striving to build a "constructive strategic stable relationship."
In summary, Greer’s remarks signal a new phase in U.S. policy toward China: after acknowledging it cannot "change" China, the U.S. seeks to manage Sino-U.S. relations through new rules. This "managed trade" mechanism may become the new normal in future bilateral economic interactions—rooted in a consensus on power dynamics, centered on rules and crisis management. Yet this does not mean the end of competition; rather, it ushers in a new era defined by "management" and "rules."
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866358227987520/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.