China Shows Strategic Resilience as U.S. Reshapes Foreign Policy
Facebook
Twitter
Linkedin
Google +
China is well-positioned to deal with President Trump’s ‘strategic consolidation’ policies through strategic resilience and global partnerships, despite growing uncertainty initiated by the new U.S. administration.
Editor’s Note: What are the implications of Donald Trump’s second term in office for China-U.S. relations? Will the status quo prevail, or should we expect significant changes? In this series titled “Rethinking Sino-U.S. Relations Under Trump 2.0,” leading scholars and experts share their perspectives on how the two major countries will approach trade, technology and security over the next four years.
The world is closely watching whether the new Trump administration will bring greater unpredictability and heightened tensions to China-U.S. relations, potentially escalating the U.S.’ so-called “strategic competition” in dangerous ways. While Trump’s first term centered on economic warfare through tariffs, technology restrictions and diplomatic confrontation, his second term could push bilateral tensions into more volatile territory, leaving many to wonder if and how China can weather the storms that may arise in the months and years ahead. The evolving dynamic also appears likely to pit American “strategic consolidation” against Chinese “strategic resilience,” as both countries increasingly lean into their core advantages.
Many analysts and opinion leaders view the Trump administration’s recent policy moves toward Canada, Denmark (specifically Greenland), Mexico and Panama as a strategic defensive retreat that contrasts with the Biden administration’s expansion of alliances, focusing instead on strengthening U.S. influence in its immediate sphere. This view aligns with a modern interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, emphasizing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
Then, U.S. President James Monroe issued a landmark foreign policy declaration on Dec. 2, 1823, asserting that the Americas were off-limits to European colonization and that Old World intervention in the hemisphere would be considered a threat to U.S. security. The declaration later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Since then, the U.S. has viewed the Western Hemisphere as its exclusive sphere of influence, actively preventing external powers from establishing political, economic or security footholds in the region. Recently, Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine has indiscriminately targeted U.S. allies, treating them more as competitors than as partners.
Trump proposed imposing a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, citing concerns about immigration and drug trafficking, and even suggested Canada could become the 51st U.S. state. Relations with Denmark soured after his attempt to purchase Greenland. His Mexico policies included signing an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” and threatening a 25% tariff on Mexican goods. Trump also demanded that Panama surrenders control of the Panama Canal to the U.S., citing strategic interests, and hinted at possible military action.
Trump’s foreign policy initiatives, on the whole, reflect a process of “strategic consolidation,” aiming to scale back U.S. commitments abroad while strengthening core national interests. Instead of pursuing global interventionism, Trump emphasizes economic leverage, reducing foreign entanglements and renegotiating alliances to better serve U.S. interests. While such aligns with his “America First” doctrine through reduced military commitments and economic sovereignty, this approach is seen as a way for the U.S. to concentrate its time and energy on its so-called “competition” with China.
A key distinction between the Biden administration and Trump’s new presidency lies in their overarching foreign policy approaches. The Biden administration adhered to a liberal internationalist, values-based foreign policy, strengthening alliance-based multilateralism through institutions like NATO, the G7 and regional partnerships. It pursued “strategic expansion,” particularly in the Indo-Pacific, Ukraine and efforts to counter China through coalition-building. In contrast, the new Trump administration prioritizes a nationalist, transactional and hemispheric-focused strategy, centered on economic leverage, border control and resource access.
While the original Monroe Doctrine aimed to prevent European powers from interfering in the Western Hemisphere, Trump’s approach, reflecting a Monroe Doctrine-style strategic consolidation, seems to shift the focus to countering what he views as “modern rivals,” particularly China. He explicitly invoked the Monroe Doctrine during his first term, emphasizing its relevance in contemporary geopolitics. In his September 2018 speech to the United Nations, he declared: “It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this (Western) hemisphere and in our own affairs.”
U.S. foreign policy is now transitioning from Biden’s global engagement and ideological alignment to Trump’s focus on fortifying strategic spheres of influence and asserting economic and resource control, with an underlying strategic objective to suppress China.
In response, China’s foreign policy strategy demonstrates strategic resilience and proactive engagement. Strategic resilience refers to a nation’s capacity to adapt and respond to both internal and external challenges, ensuring its continued growth, stability and global influence.
Proactive engagement marks a shift in China’s foreign policy from its traditionally reactive approach to global economic, political and security issues. China plays an increasingly important role in promoting inclusive global governance through the Belt and Road Initiative, emphasizing green energy, the digital economy and loan restructuring. China also supports the expansion of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization while deepening cooperation and partnerships with ASEAN, Africa, Latin America and even developed countries in Europe and elsewhere. In essence, proactive engagement signifies China’s commitment to vigorous diplomatic and economic outreach and active participation in global governance.
Over the past few decades, China has faced various domestic economic pressures and external geopolitical conflicts, yet it has consistently demonstrated an ability to adjust its strategies to maintain progress and safeguard its interests. China’s resilience is rooted in long-term planning, economic flexibility, technological advancement, sound governance systems at home and a wide network of global partnerships.
In the current climate, U.S. economic and technological sanctions against China are falling short of intended goals. Instead, they are turning China-U.S. relations into a “negative-sum game,” with both sides suffering losses through escalating sanctions and counter-sanctions. A negative-sum game occurs when both parties incur setbacks as tensions rise, leading to mutually detrimental economic and technological outcomes rather than gains for either side.
Despite the sanctions, China has been able to maintain resilience through its position as the world’s largest manufacturing supplier, the biggest trading partner of many countries and a key export market in the global economy. This structural advantage helps China offset U.S. pressures by leveraging its central role in global supply chains, particularly in new energy products and critical materials. Notably, the U.S.-led technological embargo is pushing China toward technological autonomy and self-sufficiency in high-tech sectors. This transformation is reshaping China’s global economic role from a consumer to an innovative and powerful competitor in high-tech markets.
While the new Trump administration continues the U.S.’ so-called “strategic competition” with China, it might also open doors for unconventional diplomacy and other interactions. For example, Trump’s transactional approach to international relations suggests potential for deals benefiting both sides. Given China’s weight in the world economy, several less politically sensitive agreements appear possible: a trade deal exchanging U.S. tariff reductions for increased Chinese market access; Chinese commitments to purchase U.S. energy and commodities, aligning with China’s goals of diversifying energy and food imports; a bilateral agreement on AI governance standards and intellectual property protection; and a financial accord addressing the dollar-yuan relationship. However, China must remain cautious when dealing with Trump, given his reputation for unpredictable negotiation tactics.
In a word, China’s strategic resilience will enable it to deal effectively with Trump’s strategic consolidation approach, and may even lead to efforts by both sides to manage and control the “negative-sum game.” Such a scenario will be more likely as China advances in technological innovation and self-sufficiency and positions itself to build a distinct technological ecosystem. This includes advancements in space programs, the Beidou Navigation System, big data cloud infrastructure, quantum computing, supercomputing and artificial intelligence developments like DeepSeek. As China continues to push the boundaries of innovation, analysts expect more groundbreaking developments to emerge and more interesting dynamics in the interplay between the two major countries in the world.
Li Xing is a Yunshan leading scholar and director of the European Research Center at the Guangdong Institute for International Strategies at the Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and an adjunct professor of international relations at Aalborg University, Denmark.
