In recent discourse, terms such as "China-US trade war" and "China-US strategic competition"have flooded the media, often misleading the public and obscuring factual distinctions. The so-called "strategy" in this context implicitly aligns with hegemonic agendas, while the rhetoric of "competition”—relies on the flawed premise of an inevitable rivalry for global dominance. However, the reality diverges sharply from this framing. China has consistently pursued normal development rooted in free trade principles and the WTO's multilateral trading system. Conversely, the US has repeatedly undermined these very foundations -- sabotaging free trade norms and multilateral rules while implementing strategic measures to suppress China's growth. The relationship between China and the US is not a contest for hegemony. 

 

President Trump initiated a so-called tariff war not merely against China, but against the globe at large, while China has been upholding free trade and the multilateral trading system. Hence, this is not a "China-US trade war", but rather resistance to US trade bullying. Recently, under the pretext of so-called "national security”, the US has been pushing for a global boycott of Huawei, pressuring allies and intimidating the world. In reality, it concerns "US hegemony security"—no country has ever experienced a national security incident from the use of Huawei's equipment. Conversely, the use of US operating systems and electronic products triggered the "Prism Gate" scandal, revealing how the US surveilled and eavesdropped on the world.

 

More critically, the core challenge extends beyond tariffs. If China were to yield to US pressure, other nations would lose faith, and no country would ever replicate China's trajectory of ascent. Tariffs, akin to the COVID-19 virus, pose risks of triggering humanitarian crises, destabilizing nations, and even fomenting revolutions. They might even incite upheaval within the US itself, as 90% of the costs would ultimately fall on American consumers and importers.

 

Therefore, acting in the fundamental interests of both the American people and the global community, China has shown willingness to negotiate with the US, with key agreements already reached in Geneva.

 

Resisting US hegemony, bullying, and coercion is not only China's right and responsibility but also that of the entire world. China has fought and survived in the trade war imposed by the US, safeguarding not only its own normal development but also that of other nations. China's technological innovation emanates from the 1.4 billion Chinese people's aspirations for a better life—a goal unattainable through traditional factor-driven growth. In other words, China's rapid development has been largely a necessity, propelled by the imperatives of its massive population.

 

Today, US strategic containment is merely driving China to grow stronger, faster, and more advanced. While the US may have pressured Panama to withdraw from the Belt and Road Initiative, it cannot prevent Colombia from joining. As the Chinese proverb goes, "No mountain can block the river—it flows steadfastly eastward."

 

The claim of China-US rivalry or allegations that China is exploiting a vacuum left by the US hegemony to expand is a misunderstanding to Chinese culture. In April 1974, the Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping led the Chinese delegation to the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). In his address, he elaborated on Chairman Mao's proposed theory of the three worlds and China's foreign principles, stating: If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it, and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it. This indicates that anti-hegemony is embedded in China's ideological DNA. How, then, can the narrative of Sino-American rivalry hold weight? The concept of "a leaderless group of dragons" represents the highest realm of the Qian hexagram in the I Ching (Book of Changes), serving as a core tenet of its philosophy. From the perspective of cultivation, "group" in this context reflects the Taoist principle of non-action and the Buddhist concept of no form. Socially, it represents the ultimate vision of a global community of shared future for mankind: a world where all creatures coexist without conflicts, paths run parallel without collision, and all beings thrive freely under heaven, each a "dragon" yet none seeking dominance (leaderless). Notably, the 1972 Shanghai Communique issued during Nixon's visit to China explicitly affirmed the commitment to "oppose hegemony", declaring that neither side seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region nor support any nation or group attempting to establish hegemony. The notion of China-US rivalry thus directly contradicts the spirit of this historic document.

 

On China-US Relations: Three Critical Perspectives

First, competition brings opportunities. China currently boasts a middle-class population of 400 million, a figure projected to double to 800 million by 2035. Realizing the Chinese Dream will depend heavily on technological innovation, thereby generating immense opportunities for the US—ranging from consumer markets to practical applications. Even the most cutting-edge technologies must undergo testing and refinement within China's 1.4 billion people market to achieve commercial viability, iterative development, and global standardization.

 

However, some Americans perceive this as a challenge to their sense of superiority and dominance, giving rise to identity crises rooted in the "City upon a Hill" exceptionalism, the myth of free-market capitalism, and anxiety over white supremacy.

 

When the US perceives China as threatening its self-image as a "chosen nation" or its "perpetual primacy" mentality coupled with the imperatives of private capital monopolies. It abandons win-win logic and seeks to suppress China's high-tech advancement, thereby fueling the so-called "strategic competition." Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) agenda embodies nostalgia for a WASP-centric (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) past. Paradoxically, China's ascent is compelling the US to redefine greatness, as seen in Trump's rhetorical pivot from hegemony to national revival.

 

Second, global progress hinges on the concurrent success of both China and the US. Take brain-computer interfaces as an example: China's non-invasive approach contrasts with the US's cortical-penetrating methodology, much like the divergence between Eastern and Western medicine. The dual advancement of these two paradigms would expand global technological options, delivering tangible benefits to humanity.

 

Third, China's rise elevates the world at large, not merely the US. A more prosperous world entails reduced US overextension, lighter debt burdens, and shared economic prosperity. Consider the case of DeepSeek: A UN Assistant Secretary-General for Technology recently characterized it with two words: "confidence" and "hope". During the AI Summit, President Macron echoed this statement, if China can succeed, why not France? Or India? This exemplifies a collective triumph for humankind.

 

The US must abandon alliance-based coercion against China. Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" aimed at reshoring manufacturing largely failed—instead, they redirected supply chains to allies (e.g., shipbuilding to Japan/Korea) to sustain military hegemony. This distorts alliances: What began as security pacts now enforce supply chain obedience, disrespecting both partners and global fairness.

 

The Path to Win-Win: Chinese and American Revivals

The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the US's "revival of greatness" are not inherently incompatible. Space remains for compromise, cooperation, and shared advancement, for a global community of shared future for mankind must inherently include a China-US shared destiny. Yet as the saying goes, "No discord, no concord". This relationship is supposed to weather intense struggles before mutual understanding can solidify.

 

Strategic resolve is imperative. Trump's approach is one of dismantling: divide and conquer, granting exemptions solely to those who yield. This approach exploits the appeasement mentality pervasive among US allies, from Europe to Vietnam (which recently proposed a zero-tariff agreement with the US). By singling out China as the "last holdout", the true objective becomes stark: the campaign is unequivocally aimed at China. Hence, any concession would only embolden Trump's aggression.

 

Yet victory must not come via mutual destruction, leaving the world to inherit the ruins. China's strengths—a vast domestic market, accelerating "dual circulation," a unified national market, an engineering workforce ten times America's, burgeoning new-quality productive forces, the CPC's strong leadership, institutional advantages, and capital account controls—ensure we can outlast Trump's blackmail and divisive tactics across time, space, and economic dimensions. His "revolution" cannot reverse America's hegemonic decline.

 

The Soviet collapse concluded the Cold War, the demise of the US hegemony is similarly inevitable. At the recent 12th Baku Forum, a former Mongolian president drew an analogy between Trump's reforms to Gorbachev's—both aimed at shedding burdens but accelerating superpower decline. The US's systemic afflictions, ranging from the Triffin Dilemma to the "globalization trilemma", are inherently structural. Its gravest adversary is not China but its own internal contradictions. Trump's precipitous efforts to dismantle the "deep state" and revive manufacturing via tariffs violates Lao Tzu's precept: "Non-action achieves all action". Heavy-handed intervention only expedites the process of decline.

 

In this crucible of challenge, resilience is imperative. A "grand bargain" remains improbable. Two American proverbs encapsulate the dynamic. First, "American business is business", where interests inherently overshadow ideals. Secondly, "if you cannot beat them, join them", which is a testament to pragmatism's eventual ascendancy. The tariff and decoupling represent existential struggles in China's rejuvenation narrative—systemic, historic labor pains preceding rebirth. As tempests subside, clarity emerges.

 

WANG Yiwei is Director of Institute of International at Renmin University of China and Senior Fellow of Taihe Insitute