by Roger D. Harris

“We will not leave our future vulnerable to the whims of those who do not share our vision.”

 —Joe Biden

“We have incredible cards. … If I play those cards, that would destroy China.”

 —Donald Trump

“It is unrealistic for one side to remodel the other… the planet Earth is big enough for the two countries to succeed.”

 —Xi Jinping

Washington increasingly defines the U.S.-China relationship as one of “strategic competition.”¹ Even before Donald Trump returned to the presidency, Joe Biden’s ambassador to China remarked, “I don’t feel optimistic about the future of US-China relations.”² Indeed, the U.S. has been preparing for war with China for some time.³ 

This contrasts with the Chinese approach of cooperation for mutual benefit to solve the most pressing global problems. In short, each country’s leadership presents different paradigms—the Chinese strategy emphasizes collaboration and community consistent with a socialist orientation, while the U.S. strategy reflects a capitalist fundamentalism rooted in competitive social relations. 

The Chinese understanding is that the U.S.-China association is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. As President Xi Jinping explained: “How China and the US get along will determine the future of humanity.” 

This assessment is predicated on the acceptance of a high degree of integration between the two countries’ markets. Entwining their economies is seen as mutually beneficial, as each country can benefit from the other’s development. 

Overarching this bilateral relationship from the Chinese perspective is a posture of friendly and cooperative relations, and a belief that a “common prosperity” can be built on the following three principles: 

1. Mutual respect; not crossing the red lines of either of the two global powers. 
2. Peaceful coexistence; a commitment to manage disagreements through communications and dialogue. 
3. Win-win cooperation. Beijing explicitly criticizes Washington’s posture as a “zero-sum mentality.” In the U.S. framework, one side’s gain is automatically the other’s loss. Instead, China promotes “win-win” relations based on mutual benefit. For example, increased trade with China has boosted the purchasing power of U.S. households.⁴

That the U.S. and China occupy such dominant positions in the world suggests concomitant accountabilities. According to China, major countries have major responsibilities to humanity. Chinese officials argue that global existential challenges—pandemics, nuclear proliferation, and climate change—cannot be solved without U.S.-China cooperation. For instance, the U.S. and China together contribute to 40% of the planet’s current greenhouse gas emissions. 

China takes exception to the U.S. definition of bilateral relations as antagonistic competition. This U.S. stance toward China is bipartisan. Upon assuming office in 2021, Biden—despite previous campaign rhetoric—largely continued Trump’s earlier confrontational policies, escalating tariffs and export controls. In 2024, he quadrupled tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to over 100% and tightened investment restrictions. Trump, back in office in 2025, threatened 200% tariffs on rare-earth magnets. The two major U.S. parties compete over who can be tougher on Beijing.

Thinking Through the Unthinkable

The military dimension is even more ominous. Roughly 400 U.S. military bases encircle China, from Japan and South Korea to the Philippines and Australia.⁵ Biden expanded the Quad, advanced the AUKUS pact, reinvigorated Five Eyes, and inaugurated a trilateral “mini-NATO” with Japan and South Korea. 

China, in contrast, maintains no bases anywhere near the U.S. mainland—a point Chinese officials highlight to question who is truly threatening whom. From Beijing’s perspective, U.S. actions reflect containment and even provocation. They note the U.S. would never tolerate a similar military buildup on its own borders.

In fact, the U.S. Army even commissioned the RAND Corporation’s research report War with China—Thinking Through the Unthinkable,⁶ paying the best minds that money can buy with U.S. taxpayers’ money to game Armageddon. The study ominously warned that even if the US ultimately prevailed, the conflict would devastate both sides and be nearly impossible to contain. Any conflict over Taiwan, the South China Sea, or another flashpoint could rapidly escalate, draw in other nations, or even trigger nuclear exchanges. U.S. military strategists openly acknowledge the peril that once conflict erupts, each side would face strong incentives to strike first. Yet, the U.S. continues planning for war.⁷ 

U.S. Hegemony Versus China’s Shared Destiny

The superpower rivalry extends beyond economics and security to ideology. In his official national security strategy, Joe Biden described “the contest for the future of our world.” He vowed that his administration will “seize this decisive decade to…outmaneuver our geopolitical competitors,” meaning chiefly China.⁸

Biden then promised to impose “American leadership”—in effect, domination, because the world did not vote to make the president of the U.S. a planetary potentate. Perversely, the U.S. is already the world leader in having the most mass shootings, the highest national debt, and the largest incarcerated population. The U.S. also currently leads the world in the sale of military equipment, military expenditures, and foreign military bases. 

Whistling in the dark, Biden concluded that “our economy is dynamic.” In fact, the U.S. economy is dominated by the non-productive FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) sectors, while China has become the industrial “workshop of the world.” Statista projects that China could overtake the US as the largest economy by 2030.⁹ 

In contrast to Trump’s tariffs on the world, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a global infrastructure development program, which has invested in over 150 countries. In Beijing’s view, such projects demonstrate an alternative path to global leadership: instead of military domination or sanctions, a great power should contribute to other countries’ growth and stability. Major countries, Xi suggests, achieve peace through prosperity—by helping solve the underlying development problems that often lead to conflict. 

The global reception to China’s initiatives—BRI, BRICS, and its Global Development and Security frameworks—has been largely positive, as they provide an alternative to a U.S.-dominated world order.
Not surprisingly, Washington fears these alternatives. According to the official U.S. national security strategy, Beijing’s multipolar vision “tilts the global playing field to its benefit.”¹⁰ In contrast to the U.S. and its Western allies, whose wealth grew through colonial exploitation,¹¹ China has elevated 800 million people out of poverty without resorting to imperial wars.¹²

Although U.S. imperialism continues along an increasingly rapacious trajectory under Trump, the current occupant of the White House has revived diplomatic efforts for global denuclearization involving China and Russia. This initiative should not be mistaken for a U.S. move toward peace but rather a pragmatic realization that, as China and Russia advance, Washington’s interest is in preserving its strategic military advantage before it is overtaken. 

The U.S.-China contest for the future is not merely about tariffs and military bases; it is a rivalry between two competing visions of world order. The Chinese paradigm of global cooperation stands in opposition to the U.S.’s zero-sum model. In today’s contentious geopolitical climate, China and by extension the Global South pose a countervailing space to U.S. imperial hegemony, displaying both maturity and confidence that the rationality of “win-win” peaceful development will prevail.

_______________________

¹The White House, “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” The White House, December 2017, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf.

²Associated Press, “US-China Relations Are Defined by Rivalry but Must Include Engagement, American Ambassador Says,” U.S. News (Washington), December 15, 2023, https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-12-15/us-china-relations-are-defined-by-rivalry-but-must-include-engagement-american-ambassador-says.

³Peter Apps, “US Prepares for Long War with China That Might Hit Its Bases, Homeland: Peter Apps,” Reuters (London), May 19, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/us-prepares-long-war-with-china-that-might-hit-its-bases-homeland-peter-apps-2025-05-16/.

⁴Blog Admin, “Despite Job Losses, Lower Prices from Trade with China Have Left US Households Massively Better Off.,” News, USAPP, August 14, 2019, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/08/14/despite-job-losses-lower-prices-from-trade-with-china-have-left-us-households-massively-better-off/.

⁵John Reed, “Surrounded: How the U.S. Is Encircling China with Military Bases,” Foreign Policy, August 20, 2013, https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/surrounded-how-the-u-s-is-encircling-china-with-military-bases/.

⁶David C. Gompert et al., War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable (RAND Corporation, 2016), https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf.

⁷Ben Norton, “‘We Are Preparing for War’ with China ‘Threat’, Says US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth,” Geopolitical Economy Report, June 6, 2025, https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/06/06/preparing-war-china-threat-us-defense-secretary-pete-hegseth/.

⁸The White House, “National Security Strategy,” The White House, October 12, 2022, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf.

⁹Statista.com, “Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Current Prices in China and the United States from 2005 to 2020 with Forecasts until 2035,” Statista.Com, 2025, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1070632/gross-domestic-product-gdp-china-us/.

¹⁰The White House, “National Security Strategy.”

¹¹Immanuel Ness, Southern Insurgency: The Coming of the Global Working Class, Wildcat (Pluto Press, 2015), https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745335995/southern-insurgency/.

¹²The World Bank, “Lifting 800 Million People Out of Poverty – New Report Looks at Lessons from China’s Experience,” The World Bank, April 1, 2022, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience.

***

Roger D. Harris is a member of the human rights organization Task Force on the Americas (https://taskforceamericas.org/) and is on the executive committee of the US Peace Council (USPC — https://uspeacecouncil.org/). Research for this paper was informed by a USPC delegation to China with our counterpart, the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament.