U.S.China

The U.S.-China competition is intensifying in the Indo-Pacific, especially in the maritime domain, and it is increasing the risk of a dangerous miscalculation. Both countries are rapidly building up their navies, reinforcing their deterrence posture, and heading for riskier military encounters. Yet while the buildup of hard power is accelerating, crisis management mechanisms are left shockingly underdeveloped.

Such dynamics remind one of the most unfortunate security failures in modern history: the pre-WWI Anglo-German naval race. Similarly, at the time, rising powers clashed at sea, backed by nationalist ambitions and rigid alliance systems, while mechanisms for de-escalation and maritime communication were nonexistent. Eventually, a fragile security environment was formed, prone to escalation from small events into a global conflagration.

Today, the U.S. and China are taking a similar path. If the United States does not urgently invest in an institutionalized crisis management mechanism alongside its defense modernization, it could lead to a strategic trap that is “ready to fight but unprepared for de-escalation.”

Risk of Escalation: Today’s U.S. and China

Like Germany’s pre-1914 maritime expansion under the Kaiser’s rule, China is attempting to modify the regional order by its naval power. In 2023, China’s PLA Navy commissioned at least two Type 055 destroyers and multiple Type 052D and Type 054A frigates, totaling more than 20 major naval platforms (including submarines and amphibious ships). Simultaneously, sea trials of Fujian, China’s third aircraft carrier—the most technologically advanced naval vessel in the fleet—have begun. In addition, coupled with A2/AD capabilities such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, including DF-21D and DF-26, such a military buildup can be considered a clear intent to complicate U.S. Navy operations in the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea.

The U.S. response was strong and swift. Under the context of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), Washington has invested more than 27 billion USD since FY 2022 in forward basing, pre-positioning of munitions, and enhancing maritime operational resilience in the Indo-Pacific. In addition, the U.S. Navy is continuously investing in Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, Virginia-class fast-attack submarines, and unmanned platforms. Strategic clarity is increasingly shaped by operational deterrence, and a greater number of U.S. naval platforms are now being forward deployed in contested waters.

Yet, just like before WWI, investment in military hardware is ahead of investment in crisis management systems. The gap between military capability and the mechanisms to manage conflicts is increasing, and such misalignment was what led the European countries to disaster in 1914.

Historical Parallels: The Anglo-German Trap

The Anglo-German naval race that occurred from the 1890s to 1914 reminds us of the current situation in the Indo-Pacific. Due to its industrial confidence, nationalist ambition, and strategic anxiety, Germany challenged the UK’s naval supremacy. In response, the UK reinforced its maritime dominance, built the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought, and eventually triggered a vicious cycle of competitive arms racing.

Despite the growing perception of risk, naval arms control was unsuccessful. The construction freeze proposed by the UK was refused by Berlin, and diplomatic overtures, including the 1912 Haldane Mission, collapsed due to distrust, lack of transparency, and domestic political pressures.

Effective crisis management did not exist. Maritime incidents that occurred in the North Sea and the Mediterranean were not arbitrated while diplomacy was intermittent and reactive. When the two sides tried to slow down the arms race, strategic distrust was deeply embedded. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand transmogrified into a world war not because of one party’s aggression but because there was no off-ramp. Similar vulnerabilities exist in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

The Crisis Management Gap

Although some formal structures (military hotlines) exist between the U.S. and China, such instruments turn out to be continuously ineffective during crisis situations. During the 2023 Chinese balloon incident, Beijing did not respond to the U.S.’s urgent request for a hotline call. After Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit in 2022, China suspended the senior defense dialogue.

Meanwhile, risky close encounters are increasing. For example, in June 2023, a Chinese J-16 fighter intercepted a U.S. RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft in a dangerous manner. In the same month, a Chinese destroyer violated navigation safety norms by crossing directly in front of USS Chung-Hoon in the Taiwan Strait.

These incidents are not individual events but systemic ones. And such events are occurring while there are no reliable institutionalized communication protocols between the two sides, where both are under a constant alert status.

To correct this, it is advisable for Washington to create a Joint Crisis Management Cell within INDOPACOM. This center should include liaison officers from the U.S., Japan, and Australia and be empowered to rapidly activate de-escalation protocols when a high-risk maritime incident occurs, even if high-level political channels are stagnant. This crisis management cell should utilize pre-negotiated crisis response templates—similar to an air traffic controller managing near-miss procedures—and guarantee the clarity and continuity of communication.

At the same time, the U.S. should embark upon a U.S.-China maritime deconfliction agreement, modeled upon the U.S.-Soviet INCSEA accord of the Cold War era. That accord, negotiated in 1972, defined maritime encounter procedures and communication protocols, and it proved durable even during the height of the Cold War. The modern version of INCSEA does not necessitate trust but is a functional necessity when heavily armed parties are operating at close range.

Strategic Effectiveness, Rather Than Symbolic Hardware

In the early 20th century, the UK’s naval expansion was not necessarily strategically consistent. Occasionally prestige overwhelmed operational planning, and doctrine lagged behind technological innovation. The U.S. should avoid falling into a similar trap.

Modern U.S. Navy planning should emphasize systems that actually provide effectiveness in a contested environment. In that sense, unmanned systems, including the MQ-9B SeaGuardian, long-range munitions like LRASM, and resilient RC2 structures are necessities. Such capabilities could enable U.S. forces to function even under missile saturation and communication denial situations.

Logistical innovation is also crucial. Forward bases situated in Guam, the Philippines, and Northern Australia should be diversified and strengthened to serve as maritime resupply nodes and distributed logistics hubs.

In addition, all these elements should be coordinated across domains. The U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, and allies’ coordinated integrated capacity would be sine qua non for effectively projecting power and managing military escalation.

Alliance Management and Entanglement

Although entangled alliances did not trigger WWI, they did contribute to its rapid escalation. The risk lay not only in misjudgment but also in the absence of a common structure that could manage shocks within complexly interconnected treaty systems.

The U.S. faces a similar risk. While the U.S. is maintaining defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, it is deepening its alignment in the region with AUKUS and the Quad. But many of these arrangements lack joint crisis response protocols or clear role expectations concerning the Taiwan contingency or conflictual situations in the South China Sea.

To mitigate such inherent risk, Japan should proactively lead in creating a Strategic Escalation Forum by 2026. This forum would summon decision-makers of the U.S.’s key allies—Australia, India, and the ASEAN countries—and jointly plan crisis responses, define thresholds, and establish mechanisms that provide political signaling during escalation.

As for South Korea, it should clarify its stance of non-combat in a Taiwan contingency through declaratory policy. This would confirm that South Korea would not dispatch troops to the Taiwan Strait, yet it could include commitments of logistics support, cyber operations, and intelligence sharing. Such a stance would lessen Beijing’s misunderstanding and alleviate allies’ concerns while enabling Seoul to prevent itself from being entrapped by a high-intensity scenario.

At the same time, Washington should initiate scenario planning on how AUKUS and Quad partners could contribute to coordinated crisis management, not necessarily through combat roles but through measures including ISR, sanctions enforcement, and strategic signaling.

The Future Path: To Prevent Another 1914

U.S.-China naval competition will not disappear, at least in the foreseeable future. Yet Washington has a choice: it could escalate through inertia, or it could manage competition through strategy. It is important to construct more submarines and missiles, yet that alone is insufficient. The genuine risk lies in the absence of an institutionalized safety mechanism.

If Europe was engulfed in the 1914 war due to unmanaged arms races and rigid alliances, the Indo-Pacific could also face a similar fate. If leaders in Washington do not create a structure that could absorb shocks and prevent escalation, the Taiwan Strait, just like Sarajevo, could become a spark.

The historical lesson is to plan for great powers not to collide with one another, rather than leaving them to rush toward an inevitable collision.

Washington should act now—not after a collision, but before—by institutionalizing a de-escalation mechanism before the strategic environment becomes rigid. The window of opportunity for prevention is still open, but it is narrowing.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi agreed Friday to explore “areas of potential cooperation” between Washington and Beijing, and stressed the importance of managing differences, following their first in-person meeting as they wrapped up a two-day regional security forum in Malaysia.

Rubio and Wang met Friday on the sidelines of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, regional forum in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as tensions between the two global powers continue to rise over trade, security, and China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“Look, we’re two big, powerful countries, and there are always going to be issues that we disagree on,” Rubio told reporters after the meeting. “I think there’s some areas of potential cooperation. I thought it was very constructive, positive meeting and a lot of work to do.”

Both sides need to build better communications and trust, he said.

Rubio also indicated that a potential visit to China by President Trump to meet with President Xi Jinping was likely, saying: “The odds are high. I think both sides want to see it happen.”

China’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, in a statement later Friday, echoed Rubio’s sentiment, calling the meeting “positive, pragmatic and constructive.”

The statement didn’t provide details on specific topics such as tariffs or China’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war, but it said that both countries agreed to “increase communication and dialogue” and “explore expanding areas of cooperation while managing differences.”

Wang called for “jointly finding a correct way for China and the U.S. to get along in the new era,” it said.

Trade takes a back seat

While tariffs loomed in the background, Rubio said that trade wasn’t a major focus of his talks because “I’m not the trade negotiator.”

“We certainly appreciate the role trade plays in our bilateral relationships with individual countries. But the bulk of our talks here have been about all the other things that we cooperate on,” he said.

The meeting with Wang was held less than 24 hours after Rubio met in Kuala Lumpur with another rival, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during which they discussed potential new avenues to jump-start Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

The high-level meetings took place amid regional unease over U.S. policies — especially Trump’s threats to impose sweeping new tariffs on both allies and adversaries. Southeast Asian leaders voiced concerns, but according to Rubio, many prioritized discussions on security issues, their concerns about Chinese domination and desire for cooperation with the U.S.

“Of course, it’s raised. It’s an issue,” Rubio said. “But I wouldn’t say it solely defines our relationship with many of these countries. There are a lot of other issues that we work together on, and I think there was great enthusiasm that we were here and that we’re a part of this.”

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned separately that the U.S.-led trade war could backfire.

“There are no winners in trade wars,” she told reporters. “If you start a trade war with everyone, you make your partners weaker and China stronger.”

Kallas said that the EU doesn’t seek retaliation, but has tools available, if necessary.

Security issues loom large

Trump sees China as the biggest threat to the United States in multiple fields, not least technology and trade, and like previous U.S. presidents has watched the country greatly expand its influence globally while turning increasingly assertive in the Indo-Pacific, notably toward its small neighbors over the South China Sea and Taiwan.

His administration has warned of major tariffs on Chinese exports, though talks have made little progress.

Since President Biden was in office, Washington has also accused China of assisting Russia in rebuilding its military industrial sector to help it execute its war against Ukraine. Rubio said the Trump administration shares that view.

“I think the Chinese clearly have been supportive of the Russian effort,” he said. “They’ve been willing to help them as much as they can without getting caught.”

China criticizes Trump’s tariffs

Rubio and Wang had been shadowboxing during the two-day ASEAN meeting, with each touting the benefits of their partnership to Southeast Asian nations.

Rubio has played up cooperation, including signing a civil-nuclear cooperation agreement with Malaysia, while Wang has railed against Trump’s threatened tariffs and projected China as a stable counterweight in talks with ASEAN counterparts on the sidelines.

“The U.S. is abusing tariffs, wrecking the free trade system and disrupting the stability of the global supply chain,” Wang told Thai counterpart Maris Sangiampongsa, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

In a meeting with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Prak Sokhonn, Wang said that the tariffs are “an attempt to deprive all parties of their legitimate right to development.” He said that “China is willing to be Cambodia’s trustworthy and reliable friend and partner.”

Wang also met with Lavrov on Thursday, where the two offered a joint message aimed at Washington.

“Russia and China both support ASEAN’s central role in regional cooperation … and are wary of certain major powers creating divisions and instigating confrontation in the region,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong sided with Rubio’s call for a balanced Indo-Pacific, warning that “no one country should dominate, and no country should be dominated.” But like Kallas, she said that engagement with China remains vital.

“We want to see a region where there is a balance of power … where there is no coercion or duress,” Wong said.

Lee writes for the Associated Press. Huizhong Wu in Bangkok, and Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur, contributed to this report.

BEIJING — U.S.-China trade talks in London this week are expected to take up a series of fresh disputes that have buffeted relations, threatening a fragile truce over tariffs.

Both sides agreed in Geneva last month to a 90-day suspension of most of the 100%-plus tariffs they had imposed on each other in an escalating trade war that had sparked fears of recession.

Since then, the U.S. and China have exchanged angry words about advanced semiconductors that power artificial intelligence, “rare earths” that are vital to carmakers and other industries, and visas for Chinese students at American universities.

President Trump spoke at length with Chinese leader Xi Jinping by phone Thursday in an attempt to put relations back on track. Trump announced on social media the next day that trade talks would be held Monday in London.

Technology is a major sticking point

The latest frictions began just a day after the May 12 announcement of the Geneva agreement to “pause” tariffs for 90 days.

The U.S. Commerce Department issued guidance saying the use of Ascend AI chips from Huawei, a leading Chinese tech company, could violate U.S. export controls. That’s because the chips were probably developed with American technology despite restrictions on its export to China, the guidance said.

The Chinese government wasn’t pleased. One of its biggest beefs in recent years has been over U.S. moves to limit the access of Chinese companies to technology, and in particular to equipment and processes needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors.

“The Chinese side urges the U.S. side to immediately correct its erroneous practices,” a Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wasn’t in Geneva but will join the talks in London. Analysts say that suggests at least a willingness on the U.S. side to hear out China’s concerns on export controls.

China shows signs of easing up on rare earths

One area where China holds the upper hand is in the mining and processing of rare earths. They are crucial for not only autos but also other products such as robots and military equipment.

The Chinese government started requiring producers to obtain a license to export seven rare-earth elements in April. Resulting shortages sent automakers worldwide into a tizzy. As stockpiles ran down, some worried they would have to halt production.

Trump, without mentioning rare earths specifically, took to social media to attack China.

“The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” Trump posted on May 30.

The Chinese government indicated Saturday that it is addressing the concerns, which have come from European companies as well. A Commerce Ministry statement said it had granted some approvals and “will continue to strengthen the approval of applications that comply with regulations.”

The scramble to resolve the rare-earth issue shows that China has a strong card to play if it wants to strike back against tariffs or other measures.

Plan to revoke student visas adds to tensions

Student visas don’t normally figure in trade talks, but a U.S. announcement that it would begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students has emerged as another thorn in the relationship.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry raised the issue when asked last week about the accusation that it had violated the consensus reached in Geneva.

It replied that the U.S. had undermined the agreement by issuing export control guidelines for AI chips, stopping the sale of chip design software to China and saying it would revoke Chinese student visas.

“The United States has unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions,” the ministry said in a statement posted on its website.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a May 28 statement that the United States would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

More than 270,000 Chinese students studied in the U.S. in the 2023-24 academic year.

Moritsugu writes for the Associated Press.

May 11 (UPI) — High-level trade talks between the United States and China are continuing Sunday in Geneva, marking the second day of negotiations between the two countries in the hope of ending President Donald Trump‘s trade war.

“A very good meeting today with China, in Switzerland. Many things discussed, much agreed to. A total reset negotiated in a friendly, but constructive, manner,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform after Saturday’s negotiations.

“We want to see, for the good of both China and the U.S., an opening up of China to American business. GREAT PROGRESS MADE!!!”

The U.S.-China trade war ignited earlier this year when Trump returned to office and imposed a 10% tariff on Chinese imports, citing national security concerns linked to the American fentanyl crisis.

Tensions escalated rapidly and, by April, tariffs surged to 145% on Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate with 125% duties on U.S. exports. The tit-for-tat measures have disrupted global supply chains and fueled fears of a global economic slowdown.

China’s Xinhua state news agency published an op-ed Sunday that welcomed the high-level talks but affirmed China’s determination to safeguard its economic interests, whether through “fighting” back with reciprocal tariffs or through negotiations.

“In this context, it is of positive significance for the two sides to sit down and talk, which is a necessary way to resolve differences and avoid escalation of conflicts,” reporter Fan Yu wrote for Xinhua.

“However, the effectiveness of the dialogue depends on the sincerity and efforts of both sides, especially whether the United States can truly be rational and pragmatic. China has always believed that any dialogue and negotiation must be carried out on the premise of mutual respect, equal consultation, mutual benefit and mutual benefit.”

In a separate editorial Saturday, edited by Zhao Yang, Xinhua also criticized the Trump administration for provoking the trade war “without sufficient planning and careful consideration” and asserted that if the two countries were to decouple, the U.S. economy would become poorer, citing data from the Oxford Economics Institute.

“Any US action will trigger a Chinese response. Take technology as an example. Although the US has restricted China’s access to cutting-edge chips, is this effective?” the editorial reads.

“In the fields of chip manufacturing and artificial intelligence, Chinese companies such as Huawei and DeepSeek seem to be able to produce close to cutting-edge technological achievements at a much lower cost than the United States.”

China’s Ministry of Commerce has separately been seeking to strengthen trade with Switzerland, a move also underway by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. It said in a statement that Swiss Vice President Guy Parmelin expressed support for “multilateralism and free trade.”

Switzerland, known for its significant role in international finance and trade, could serve as a pivotal partner in diversifying trade relationships and mitigating the impacts of the U.S.-China trade tensions.

“Very productive meetings alongside U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer yesterday with President Keller Sutter and Vice President Guy Parmelin of the Swiss Confederation,” Bessent said in a statement on social media.

“I am glad that we have agreed on accelerated trade talks, and we expect that a detailed Swiss proposal will be submitted to Ambassador Greer by next week.”

Bessent expressed optimism around Swiss negotiations on the heels of Trump’s recent trade agreement with Britain.

GENEVA — Talks between U.S. and Chinese delegations over tariffs that have threatened to upend the global economy ended after a day of prolonged negotiations and will resume Sunday, an official told the Associated Press.

There was no immediate indication whether progress was made Saturday during the meeting that lasted more than 10 hours between U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and a delegation led by Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng.

The official who spoke to the AP requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, which could help stabilize world markets roiled by the U.S.-China standoff in the wake of President Trump’s tariffs. The talks have been shrouded in secrecy, and neither side made comments to reporters on the way out.

Several convoys of black vehicles left the residence of the Swiss ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, which hosted the talks aimed at de-escalating trade tensions between the world’s two biggest economies. Diplomats from both sides also confirmed that the talks took place.

Saturday’s talks were held in the sumptuous 18th century Villa Saladin overlooking Lake Geneva. The former estate was bequeathed to the Swiss state in 1973, according to the Geneva government.

Prospects for a major breakthrough appear dim. But there is hope that the two countries will scale back the massive import taxes — tariffs — they have imposed on each other’s goods, a move that would relieve world financial markets and companies on both sides of the Pacific hat depend on U.S.-China trade.

Trump raised U.S. tariffs on China to a combined 145% last month, and China retaliated by hitting U.S. imports with a 125% levy. Tariffs that high essentially amount to the countries boycotting each other’s products, disrupting trade that last year topped $660 billion.

Even before the talks began, Trump suggested Friday that the U.S. could lower its tariffs on China, saying in a social media post that “80% Tariff seems right! Up to Scott.″

Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, noted it will be the first time He and Bessent have talked. She doubts the Geneva meeting will produce any substantive results.

“The best scenario is for the two sides to agree to de-escalate on the … tariffs at the same time,” she said, adding that even a small reduction would send a positive signal. “It cannot just be words.”

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has aggressively used tariffs as his favorite economic weapon. He has imposed a 10% tax on imports from almost every country in the world.

But the fight with China has been the most intense. His tariffs on China include a 20% charge, which he says is meant to pressure Beijing into doing more to stop the flow of the synthetic opioid fentanyl into the United States. The remaining 125% involves a dispute that dates back to Trump’s first term and comes atop tariffs he levied on China back then, which means the total tariffs on some Chinese goods can exceed 145%.

During Trump’s first term, the U.S. alleged that China uses unfair tactics to give itself an edge in advanced technologies such as quantum computing and driverless cars. These include forcing U.S. and other foreign companies to hand over trade secrets in exchange for access to the Chinese market, using government money to subsidize domestic tech firms, and outright theft of sensitive technologies.

Those issues were never fully resolved. After nearly two years of negotiation, the United States and China reached a so-called Phase One agreement in January 2020. The U.S. agreed then not to go ahead with even higher tariffs on China, and Beijing agreed to buy more American products. The tough issues — such as China’s subsidies — were left for future negotiations.

But China didn’t come through with the promised purchases, partly because COVID-19 disrupted global commerce just after the Phase One truce was announced.

The fight over China’s tech policy now resumes.

Trump is also agitated by America’s trade deficit with China, which amounted to $263 billion last year.

Tariffs on Switzerland

In Switzerland on Friday, Bessent and Greer also met with Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter.

Trump last month suspended plans to impose hefty 31% tariffs on Swiss goods — more than the 20% levies he placed on exports from the European Union. For now, he has reduced those taxes to 10% but could raise them again.

The government in Bern is taking a cautious approach. But it has warned of the impact on crucial Swiss industries such as watches, coffee capsules, cheese and chocolate.

“An increase in trade tensions is not in Switzerland’s interests. Countermeasures against U.S. tariff increases would entail costs for the Swiss economy, in particular by making imports from the USA more expensive,” the government said this month, adding that the executive branch “is therefore not planning to impose any countermeasures at the present time.”

The government said Saturday that Swiss exports to the United States were subject to an additional 10% tariff, and another 21% beginning Wednesday.

The United States is Switzerland’s second-biggest trading partner after the EU — the 27-member-country bloc that nearly surrounds the wealthy Alpine country of more than 9 million people. U.S.-Swiss trade in goods and services has quadrupled over the last two decades, the government said.

The Swiss government said it abolished all industrial tariffs at the start of 2024, meaning that 99% of all goods from the United States can be imported into Switzerland duty-free.

Wiseman, Tang and Keaten write for the Associated Press. Wiseman and Tang reported from Washington and Keaten from Geneva.