The relationship looks tense, but Chinese leadership seems to feel that they have everything under control; like this particular kerfuffle is an unavoidable step on their march toward becoming a superpower. I would be comfortable if I were seeing the world that way, too.

Indeed, Beijing's leadership tends to take a very long term view of growth plans. This lines up with my mental model of how they operate.

This is a bit more of a meme than truth

Are you saying that the concept of the hundred year marathon is a meme?

That's unavoidable actually. Basically US just begins to treat China as an eligible opponent.

There were never "friendly" relationships between two superpowers in history if I remember correctly.

There were, up to a point. France and the UK carved up several continents without much tension, after 1850 or so.

Provided that China becomes less authoritarian and the US doesn't do something stupid, it's not impossible for both to coexist, while still competing.

It took a thousand years for Franco-British relations to settle to peaceful tolerance, then the Entente Cordiale. I can't, for example, imagine calls for a China-US union like Franco-British Union was seriously suggested twice in the 20th century.

The second time might have been interesting for world history, as the French PM proposed it before France decided to join the Treaty of Rome nations to bootstrap the EU.

The US doesn't care about authoritarianism. They're friendly with plenty of authoritarian states. The issue is that China is pursuing an independent foreign policy instead of following America's lead.

"The issue is that China is pursuing an independent foreign policy instead of following America's lead."

The issue is mostly China grabbing international waters like the S. China Sea as sovereign territory, grabbing Taiwan, pressuring Japan and neighbouring states, and building what will eventually be a string of military bases throughout East and South Asian oceans.

The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc.

There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders.

And FYI Americans do care about authoritarianism, and there is constant pressure on places like Saudi to reform (and FYI there are steady reforms), though yes, it's very secondary.

The paradox is that China is pursuing a macho 'we're the local king' strategy much like Russia, when for it's own benefit, the military escapades are not fruitful. Maybe in China's case there are some advantages, though almost none in the case of Russia.

The new Belt-and-Road strategy is an example of a good project that will have immensely positive results for most players - shenanigans aside. Nobody is against any of this, we are all for it, except for the shifty things like debt-traps to grab ownerships of ports, which will eventually be Chinese navy bases.

China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really.

>>> The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc.

Right now they do. But if conflict breaks out between China and the US you can guarantee the US will use its navy to block all trade with China. This puts China in a very vulnerable position, which is why they're willing to risk upsetting neighbours by aggressively pursuing bases in the South China Sea (as well as the Belt and Road project).

>>> There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders.

Why do you think that?

>>> China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really.

My wife is Taiwanese so I understand the situation pretty well. I just think it's a mistake to put this down to ideology or democracy versus authorianism. It's just two states vying for power, the same thing that's been going since forever.

It’s also not that impossible to imagine both being peer stakeholders in a renewed liberal trade order, ala US + EU.

And yet the US/EU relationship is at an all time low.

I would say that this depends on your perspective. While Trump likes to talk bad about the EU, NATO and FVEY members, our military, intelligence and economic cooperation is still VERY strong. And I see no indication of this changing, outside of the rhetoric coming out of the White House. Our Allies know that pulling out of Syria via Twitter was not a decision that came from the Pentagon.

Why would China become less authoritarian? They can continue to grow and gain power without doing so.

The US and the British Empire in first half of the 20th century (until the dissolution of the empire) might be an example

Well, the US Army did regard the UK as a potential enemy before WW2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

Even then, they had pretty detailed plans worked out for many, many scenarios. It doesn't mean they weren't co-existing well or that anyone thought it was likely. Making a plan is so inexpensive compared to the cost of responding to some event without a well-laid-plan, that having a plan is hardly what I would call regarding them as a potential enemy.

That's because the US (by this point) indisputably claimed one third of the world (The Monroe doctrine), whereas the UK was at the time more focused on being on the winning side of the European alliance system, then on making claims on American colonies. (Because it was afraid of an ascendant Germany. Fear of Germany was also the biggest driver for entering into an alliance with France.)

In the inter-war years, the UK was no longer concerned with Germany, but, due to the Great Depression, was also too damn broke to go on international adventures. The same situation played out in the US.

The only reason the two powers are now aligned, is because the United States started seeing communism, as opposed to European colonialism[1] as its biggest threat.

The moral of this story is that superpowers can have friendly relationships when they have a common enemy, or no conflicting goals.

An obvious question, here is - what are the conflicting goals of China, and the United States? The answer is - influence among China's neighbours. If the US was not interested in maintaining it, there would be no conflict.

[1] In the 19th century, European colonialism was a threat to American colonialism. In the 20th century, the American empire has resisted de-colonization a lot better then European powers did.

You misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine. It was a policy of anti-colonialism in Latin America, supporting independent states free from European rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

You misunderstand the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine.

The optics of it were anti-colonial. The implementation of it was absolutely colonial. This is one of the many baffling contradictions of America.

Central and South American states were only allowed to be independent of European rule. They were, and continue to, be client states of Washington. When they forget this, they get regime-changed.

America's 19th and 20th century adventures in Hawaii, the Philippines, Samoa, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the annexation of Mexico's territories, and deportation and repression of native Americans were all colonial power grabs - and all performed under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine.

This is the fundamental difference between the British Empire of yesteryear, and the American empire of today. The British public was never confused as to whether or not it was at the head of a globe-spanning empire.

>Secondly, even if Trump followed through on his blusters, China is well aware that following through on them is also costly to the U.S. and even to Trump's base (e.g. soy farmers), so they can discount the risk considerably.

What are you even talking about? Trump imposed hefty tariffs on Chinese goods a year ago. US Soy exports to China, previously their biggest market, also collapsed last year after being hit with 20% tariffs last summer[0]. According to some estimates, they fell by 98%[1]. They have resumed some small scale purchases, but that's mainly due to a lull in the Brazilian growing cycle. What you think will never happen, already did over the last 12 months.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-trade-soybe...

[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/incredible-u-s-china-soybean-...

I didn't said it would never happen, just that China has enough leverage to stand their ground. Which is exactly what happened. Indeed, reports from the end of January are that the U.S. is floating lifting all tariffs for the remainder of negotiations. Are we supposed to believe that such a move would be merciful? (Remember, my original point was that China has no reason to feel isolated or threatened.)

Most people assume that China needs the U.S. market more than the U.S. needs the Chinese market. But that thinking is about 15 years out of date. The reality is that exports as a percentage of GDP have plummeted in China from a high of 36% to about 18%:

  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=CN-US
  https://economic-research.bnpparibas.com/Views/DisplayPublication.aspx?type=document&IdPdf=30895

Whereas exports as a percentage of GDP in the U.S. have been steadily increasing and are at about 10% now. (Also, less than 1/5 of Chinese exports go to the U.S., so their exposure to U.S. import tariffs is <4% of their GDP.) The critical point is that the Chinese trajectory is down and they want a more consumer driven domestic economy. (People on HN in particular should appreciate why trajectory matters.) All of these things combined mean that China is negotiating with the U.S. from a position of strength. Not necessarily stronger than the U.S., but also not weaker. Our posturing and our aggressive negotiating tactics simply make us look naive.

Many of the concessions China has made and will make are changes that were inevitable. And this is why previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, avoided the populist politicking of the current administration--it would require expending considerable American good will for de minimis benefit. The China "problem" was already well on its way to fixing itself. The cold, hard truth, though is that there aren't any great ways to improve America's domestic low-skill manufacturing base without losing elsewhere (i.e. farming exports, high-margin service exports, or cheap imports that subsidize our standard of living). The China problem will simply become the Vietnam problem, the Myanmar problem, ad naseum, and as the U.S. economy continues to shrink relative to the global economy, we have less and less power to extract concessions that allow us to avoid coming to terms with our real domestic issues.

Another cold, hard truth is that our deficit spending is the flip side to our current account deficit. China comprehends that at least as well as we do, and apparently much better than advocates of the recent tax reform measure which exploded our deficits.[1] That provides yet more leverage for China. All the bluster in the world can't surmount economic fundamentals, as every populist demagogue (like Hugo Chavez) eventually discovers. But reality doesn't prevent demagogues from selling the public fantasies about geopolitical "wins" or from hiding behind manufactured excuses.

[1] And lest you think I'm partisan, I also think single-payer healthcare is fiscal suicide. If we can't make Obamacare work (politically, fiscally) then there's zero chance we can make single-payer work. (I do think Obamacare is salvageable if we tried, but in any event it's already at the outer edge of what's feasible as a practical matter.)

> Firstly, nobody in the international community takes Trump at his word (he's a notorious liar who also follows a wholly transparent negotiating playbook, one that he's spent decades advertising).

There is a theory that the Sun clan's "art of war" was intentionally disseminated among its enemies, to make them more willing to yield to negotiations, and make their maneuvers more systematised, and predictable at war.

Strategists of Suns, on the other side, were well known for trickery, and unconventional maneuvers.

If it is so, "the art of war" is one the most brilliant piece of disinformation ever written.

Could we get some sources for this theory? I'm definitely no military expert but having read it, I don't really see how it encourages a more predictable and exploitable style of warfare. Plus the fact that people read and praise it in the modern day suggest it is truly useful.