US-China thaw(1)

Over the past few years, economic relations between the two global superpowers have been simultaneously characterized by sustained practical engagement and acrimonious rhetoric. The two-way US-China trade volume is $0.7 trillion dollars, which would suggest that the trading relationship is the linchpin of global commerce. Yet the rhetoric, particularly from the US, has been of competition and struggle, now largely overshadowed by a national-security logic. The low-point might be seen as the Anchorage meetings in March 2021, after which both sides openly denounced each other. Other events such as House Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan also created sour-spots of serious concern, and the Russo-Ukrainian war led to further polarization between both sides as the superpowers expressed support and edged towards opposing forces in the conflict. At the same time, increasing quid pro quo measures were taken by both sides, as when US sanctions on Chinese semiconductors led to Chinese controls on key minerals for semiconductors.

Recently, however, some efforts towards reconciliation of the rhetoric have occurred with the twin visits of US Secretary of State and of Treasury, Anthony Blinken and Janet Yellen respectively. While Blinken’s visit could be seen as something of an ice-breaker, having been the first visit of such an official in five years, Yellen’s visit had a considerably more cordial character. Her visit coincided with the appointment of a “new economic team” in Beijing, the technocat successors to Li Keqiang and his team who steered China through the Covid-19 pandemic and through other international turbulence. Yellen’s comments have been that the relationship is on “surer footing,” even as “significant” differences remain. Her observations were that her “conversations were direct, substantive, and productive,” so that both sides could “learn more about each other’s economies and policy choices, which I believe is vital as the world’s two largest economies.”

Should these discussions be seen as the beginning of a thaw? At the present juncture, it is difficult to see how US inconsistencies will manifest as the country moves towards the 2024 elections. “Getting tough on China” has become a political blackmailing tool that republicans use against democrat leaders in the legislature and executive branches, and they will use this hawkishness further as the election approaches. In Beijing, hawks are also making articulate cases for strong defensive stances, noting China’s weight in the global economy and geopolitics. The ideological stance of the Communist Party is also gravitating towards pre-Deng Xiaoping dispositions. As such, there are strong ideological and political forces on both sides that are dismissive of the current efforts to thaw relations.

However, it is important for both countries, particularly the US, to maintain vibrant, amicable, and active contact. Yellen’s post-visit remark that “the world is big enough for both the US and China” is apt and correct. The global economy depends on both sides to work together, at most in a “healthy competition,” but preferably in close coordination to solve the major problems of the world, which require international responses. Most countries, if not all, require robust economic engines of both superpowers to continue to grow and develop. Few countries are keen to see outright hostilities between both countries. Therefore, the recent visits of Blinken and Yellen augur well for resuming discussions, even if the two countries cannot come to agree on some issues. 

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is Advisor (Economic Affairs and National Development) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].  


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »