The world’s two largest economies are once again locked in a familiar dance of brinkmanship. On October 9, China expanded its export controls on rare earth minerals, crucial for everything from electric vehicles to fighter jets, adding five more elements to a list already tightened in April. This move, effective December 1, targets foreign products containing even trace amounts of these Chinese-sourced materials, a clear signal of Beijing’s intent to wield its near-monopoly – over 90 percent of global processing – as leverage.
In response, President Donald Trump announced on October 10 an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese imports starting November 1, potentially pushing rates on some goods to 130 percent, while threatening curbs on U.S. exports of critical software. Markets shuddered, with the S&P 500 dropping over 2 percent in a single day, evoking memories of the 2018-2019 trade war that disrupted global supply chains and slowed growth worldwide.
This latest flare-up fits into a broader pattern that has defined Sino-American relations for over a decade: a shift from interdependence to managed rivalry. The underlying trajectory remains unchanged – a dual path of competitive confrontation and deliberate decoupling in sensitive sectors like technology and critical resources.
Minor frictions, such as these, are inevitable, and the chances of a sweeping, enduring agreement are slim. History shows that past deals, like the Phase One accord under Trump’s first term, offered temporary relief but failed to resolve core issues: intellectual property theft, state subsidies, and market access. Today, with both nations entrenched in their positions, the relationship resembles a cold war more than a trade spat, where economic tools serve strategic ends.
Yet, amid the saber-rattling, glimmers of dialogue persist. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in South Korea, set for late October, could provide a venue for Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping to meet – their first face-to-face since 2019. China’s rare earth restrictions appear timed as a tactical escalation, building leverage before these talks. Beijing has clarified over the weekend that the controls are not outright bans; export applications meeting regulations will proceed, and it urged the U.S. to return to negotiations.
On the American side, Vice President J.D. Vance emphasized Trump’s role as a “reasonable negotiator” who values his rapport with Xi. Neither the U.S. tariff hike nor China’s licensing system has shifted timelines, leaving a window for intensive bargaining in the coming weeks to avert further pain.
This “escalate then negotiate” dynamic is classic gamesmanship. In the short term, it heightens uncertainty – markets price in volatility, headlines swing wildly, and businesses brace for disruptions. Key milestones loom: details on U.S. software restrictions, the November 1 tariff deadline, and December 1 for rare earth enforcement. If Washington releases stringent implementation rules, escalation could solidify; ambiguity, however, preserves room for compromise. The pattern echoes earlier rounds, where threats preceded concessions, but it risks spiraling into a prolonged cycle if miscalculated.
Why is China acting now? Two factors stand out. First, Beijing has advanced its domestic chip and computing ecosystem significantly. A self-reliant AI supply chain is emerging, albeit less efficient and costlier than U.S. alternatives. This reduces vulnerability to American export bans on high-end semiconductors, allowing China to accelerate substitutions if pressures mount. Second, the rare earth curbs send a broader message: efforts to contain China’s rise in AI, robotics, and autonomous vehicles will carry costs for the U.S. and its allies. By controlling these strategic inputs – essential for semiconductors and defense – Beijing aims to deter full participation in Washington’s tech blockade, fracturing potential coalitions.
Both sides hold strong cards. The U.S. leverages its dominance in software, finance, and alliances; discussions among G7 nations about price floors or taxes on Chinese rare earths signal attempts to counter Beijing’s grip. China, meanwhile, exploits its resource advantages and vast market. Short-term intensification seems probable, but a return to localized de-escalation – perhaps limited tariff pauses or rare earth access assurances – could follow after negotiations. Tail risks, like a canceled APEC meeting or broader sanctions, warrant caution; they could exacerbate global inflation, already strained by prior tariffs averaging 58 percent on Chinese goods.
The costs are mounting for everyone. American consumers face higher prices on imports, from electronics to furniture, while U.S. exporters suffer retaliation – evident in new port fees and shipping sanctions. China grapples with slowing growth and unemployment, making prolonged conflict unsustainable. Globally, supply chains fragment, innovation stalls, and allies like Europe and Japan hesitate to fully align with either power. The trade war’s revival threatens the fragile post-pandemic recovery, with the World Trade Organization noting resilient but vulnerable growth in 2025.
Practical solutions exist beyond endless tit-for-tat. At APEC, leaders should prioritize confidence-building: a moratorium on new tariffs in exchange for transparent rare earth export processes. Longer term, the U.S. must invest in diversifying supplies – bolstering domestic mining, like California’s sole rare earth operation, and partnering with Australia or Canada. China could ease subsidies in state firms to level the playing field. Multilateral forums, such as the WTO, offer avenues for rules on critical minerals, preventing weaponization. Both nations should carve out cooperation in non-sensitive areas, like climate tech, where mutual dependence persists.
Ultimately, full decoupling is illusory in our interconnected world. Managed competition, with clear red lines and open channels, serves both powers better than mutual destruction. As tensions simmer, leaders must recall that true strength lies not in isolation, but in strategic restraint. The coming weeks will test whether they choose escalation or equilibrium.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
