The trade war between US and China began in 2018 when the ex-President of US Donald Trump declared to impose customs duties on Chinese goods. This paper argues the position of the US presidency to interfere with the international free market is the result of a realist perception of the International Market. In this regard, the US economic hegemony for the first time is challenged by the prominent economic growth of China. Thus, the moves of the Trump presidency followed by the Biden administration are more a result of offensive realism, in which the US is attempting to maintain the economic hegemony. Arising out of this, the offensive realism propined by the US poses a risk for the balance of the global economy and international security. However, a “real” economic and military conflict is unlikely to materialize as both the US and China share perpetual competitive but mutual interests. Consequently, following a realist theoretical lens both US and China would find a balance of power in the international arena.

 

Over the years, the US has influenced the international arena through foreign policies that would encourage peace, stability, and prosperity. These liberal ideas that reflect a free market and democracy have been the milestone of the US policies which have shaped the modern evolution of the state conceptualization. However, liberal principles have been propagated by the US through a realist tradition of economic and military dominance (Zaidi & Saud, 2020). In this regard, the US decision to impose trade restrictions on Chinese goods defines a discontinuity with the traditional capitalistic liberal values. Nevertheless, the shift towards a mercantilist economic mode operand takes form through a realist perpetuation of power. In fact, the US in attempting to redefine the national trade surplus compared to China is intrinsically endeavoring to hold the hegemonic power. Additionally, the US presidency after 9/11 has been enlarged with exceptional use of executive power. Thus, also Trump has exercised behind the emergency status quo power that often is referred to as “imperial presidency” posing risks for the US-China relations but also for the US democracy itself (Steinbock,2018). This offensive realism has the objective to revendicate the US hegemony imposing tariffs, that from an economic point of view, causes an injury to the global economic integration. Arise out of this the competition for the unipolarity hegemony, risk of future global economic recession and geopolitical confrontation.

 

In analyzing the trade war between China and US it is necessary to consider the national interests that drive two economic power to undertake the risk of an uncertain strategic conflict. Thus, assuming a mercantilist and realist theoretical approach the main referent of a trade war is the role that powers have in the global economy. In this regard, realism could be applied as an explanatory model for world economic politics based on the concept of state-centric power while mercantilism offers an understanding of the foreign economic policy doctrine (Schweller, 2018). Although both theories have normative divergences both are closely interrelated having the national interest as a point of conjunction (Drezner, 2010). However, even if mercantilism has a close tie with the national economic interest, regardless of the macro economical contextualization. Whereas realism contextualizes state power in conjunction with empirical economic theories, both need to be taken into consideration. In fact, the trade war between China and US is motivated on one hand by the prominence of China as a State that threat the US hegemony. On the other hand, according to the US, the motivation of an “unfair” trade surplus of China is causing an “unjustified” economic growth.

 

In considering the growth of China and the US response to hold the primary hegemony, the future developments in the trade war result still unstable and uncertain. However, its worth’s noting that the IPE of both China and the US is deeply interconnected thus the structural power of the US is fundamental for the Chinese economy (Roden, 2003). In fact, recalling the macroeconomic Solow model, the economic growth of a country is not only defined by the increase in the capital but also by technologies and ideas. In this regard, China being still a developing country continue to use US technology and expertise (Roden, 2003). While the US relies strongly on the competitive Chinese labor force. Thus, the scholar Henry Kissinger defines US-Chinese relations as “cooperative-coexistence” that could be also “competitive” (He, 2017). Consequently, although the US with the Trump administration’s decision to impose trade tariffs on Chinese goods and initiate a trade war that could be viewed as a mercantilist strategy, this argument seems obsolete in the long run. In this respect, the US strategy can be viewed more as offensive realism. On this note, the US in the trade war likely uses a realist approach that contextualizes the state power with an empirical macro economical model.  Thus, in the future developments of this trade war is likely that an equilibrium between competition and cooperation will be reached. Particularly, both the US and China would realize that a mercantilist approach, in the long run, needs reconciliation with the cooperative nature of the free market. On this note, the scholar John Mearsheimer conceptualized the state’s main motivation in the maximization of security, which coincides with the safest position in the international system (Kirshner, 2012).

 

In conclusion, this post analyzed the trade war between the US and China using a realist approach. In this regard, the main assumption made is that both US and China are endeavoring to maximize their power and reach an economic hegemonic role in the world economy. However, this is not plausible as both economies are closely interrelated, and their economic stability depends upon each other. Thus, the mercantilist argument is rejected in favor of a realist perception of power that both China and the US are adopting considering empirical macroeconomics principles. In this respect, it is unlikely that the outcome of the trade war will result in a monopoly of power, instead, in an oligopoly where both US and China will share a prominent hegemonic role. Finally, as both states recognize the risks involved in a hypothetical conflict a balance of interest will be likely reached.

Bibliography list:

1. Drezner, Daniel W. “Mercantilist and Realist Perspectives on the Global Political Economy.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 22. Oxford University Press. Date of access 13 Feb. 2022,<https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-260>
2. Kai He (2017) Explaining United States–China relations: neoclassical realism and the nexus of threat–interest perceptions, The Pacific Review, 30:2, 133-151, DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2016.1201130
3. Kirshner, J. (2012) ‘The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China’, European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), pp. 53–75. doi: 10.1177/1354066110373949
4. Randall Schweller, Opposite but Compatible Nationalisms: A Neoclassical Realist Approach to the Future of US–China Relations, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Volume 11, Issue 1, Spring 2018, Pages 23–48, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poy003
5. Roden, M. (2003) ‘US–China Relations in the Contemporary Era: An International Political Economy Perspective’, Politics, 23(3), pp. 192–199. doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.00196.
6. Steinbock, Dan. (2019). U.S.-China Trade War and Its Global Impacts. 10.1142/S2377740018500318.
7. Zaidi, Syed Muhammad Saad & Saud, Adam. (2020). President Trump’s China Policy: An Offensive Realist Strategy?. Journal of Peace Development & Communication. 4. 108-121. 10.36968/JPDC-V04-I01-06.