THE tumultuous geopolitical relations between China and the United States have taken a downward spiral with tensions quickly escalating between the two global super powers.
The economic and political rise of China — its growing assertiveness and global influence — has not been without controversies.
For many decades, we lived in a unipolar world, but the recent and gradual rise of China is seen by many as a threat to US hegemony.
From the perspective of the global economy, it is not always a zero-sum game, as it is possible to enlarge the economic pie for wider sharing. But in international geopolitics, it is almost always a contest for greater power and influence. Hence, when political considerations creep in through the window, good economic judgements are often forced out through the front door.
The appropriate strategic response to the rise of China should not be formulated on the basis of fear. Sadly, stoking fear of others, often times by making arguments clearer than the truth, has always been an effective weapon in domestic and international politics.
This is made worse by the fact that the US presidential election is around the corner, and the China issue has always been a topic that enjoys great bipartisan support.
President Trump may be one of the most divisive figures in American politics of recent times; however, a long-standing consensus on both sides of the political divide is that China is a vital threat to the US, both economically and strategically.
Trump, whose reputation has been badly tarnished by his mishandling of Covid-19, is seeking re-election by scapegoating China, at every possible turn, to gain political mileage in the US presidential race. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, was targeted by a pro-Trump group in several "Beijing Biden" ads, as part of a campaign to frame the former vice-president as being too friendly towards China.
As expected, this led Biden to ratchet-up his rhetoric in an attempt to outdo Trump's political posturing on China, frustrating many, given the increased hostility Asian Americans are facing during the pandemic.
However, talking tough on China is to be expected during US presidential elections, and in this case, Trump is not the first and is likely not going to be the last too.
American politicians have a long history of walking back tough talks on China after being elected.
Consider Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. He was extremely outspoken against the incumbent President Carter for normalising relations with China in the late 1970s. Reagan suggested during his campaign trails that he would re-establish official relations with Taiwan despite the agreement with Beijing.
But once he was in office, the Reagan administration developed a closer and more extensive working relationship with Beijing than ever before, liberalising export controls for dual-use technology as well as never attempting to change the status of America's unofficial relationship with Taiwan.
Similarly, Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992 was not long after the controversial Tiananmen Square protest. Clinton had apparently promised that he would "force China to change", and insisted that China should improve its human rights record before its favoured trading status with the US could be renewed.
However, once in office, Clinton backtracked from this pledge, and towards the end of his presidency, he had successfully negotiated China's entry into the World Trade Organisation, which is arguably a clever strategic move.
To be clear, this is in no way implying that all criticisms against China are illegitimate. There are valid concerns raised on the rise of China and the need for it to be better integrated into the international order. Yet there is little agreement on what America and the rest of the world can do to encourage China to become more open and inclusive.
What is certain though, making China the boogeyman will only further isolate and force Beijing to break away from the existing international system. The US' over-arching goal should be the creation of structured and broad-based rules, practices and values that the world would be bound to, so that even as these countries become more powerful, they will continue to live within the framework of the international system.
Such a system can only work if the US, first and foremost, adheres to the rules and not flout it when it serves its own short-term national interests.
The writer is a scientist who has worked for global R&D organisations in four countries and is an advocate for evidence-based policymaking