In the middle of growing tensions between the United States and China, people around the world are wondering if this could be the beginning of a new Cold War, as the two countries once again find themselves at the forefront of the international stage
In the last few decades, China appeared as a potential threat for the U.S., rising as a major exporter, a key investor in infrastructure and a major holder of global financial assets. According to the Euractiv, in 2020, the asian country replaced the north americans as the European Union’s largest trading partner, and had successfully completed a comprehensive investment treaty in December of that year.
The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) was the result of seven years of negotiations and was primarily aimed at improving European companies’ access to the Chinese market, strengthening economic ties, and ensuring more transparent investment rules. With the conclusion of this agreement, the Chinese are moving closer to Europe, and the United States is losing some of its influence on the continent, as it has sought to form a united front with its Western allies to pressure China on issues such as trade, technology, and human rights. When the EU signed a direct agreement with the Chinese government, it became clear that Europe had prioritized its own economic interests, which could undermine the U.S. government’s ability to coordinate international pressure on Beijing.
China’s expansion, however, began much earlier. Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it took shape in 1980 with the reforms introduced by Deng Xiaoping. After the death of Mao Zedong, the founder of the communist republic, in 1976, Deng moved to incorporate capitalist practices into the economy while preserving centralized communist control over politics.
Two decades later, global recognition came. In November 1999, by signing an agreement with the United States, China removed barriers to foreign goods and services entering its market and set itself on the path to joining the World Trade Organization (WTO). This marked the first step toward gaining international prominence.
As China asserted itself on the international stage, North Americans felt threatened by the Asian giant’s growing expansion. The fights between them led the world to a new ideological and economic conflict, which made a lot of countries take a side.
It is noteworthy that, throughout the long history of the United States, the government has consistently relied on the strategy of an “external threat” to justify internal issues: during the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union; in the 2000s, it was Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran; and now, China.
During the Truman administration (1945–1953), for example, at the onset of the Cold War—following the victory of the United States and its allies over the Axis powers— the United States went through a period of economic instability -inflation and shortages-, massive strikes, and labor disputes, in addition to the Taft-Hartley Act (1947)—passed by Congress and vetoed by the president—which restricted the power of labor alliances.
In the following years, despite the undeniable growth of the north american nation, internal problems showed no signs of abating: the 2008 economic crisis, the various wars and conflicts in the Middle East—waged “in the name of freedom and democracy”—and social unrest continue to this day.
Is the conflict between China and the U.S. a New Cold War?
In an exclusive interview with Her Campus Cásper Líbero, international relations expert and professor at the Armando Alvares Penteado Foundation (FAAP), Victor Dias Grinberg explained the current international situation and its implications.
He emphasized that the relationship between these countries is not one of outright hostility. In the international relations expert’s view, China and the United States are a source of friction and must be handled with care, given the ups and downs in their diplomatic relations.
Like Russia, China is also influential both regionally and globally, and any U.S. intervention in areas under Chinese influence could lead to disagreements or economic and ideological conflicts, similar to the case with Trump’s tariff hike last year. In addition, from his perspective, only a few countries, or even any, can afford to adopt a definitive and absolute hostility toward China, and the United States certainly isn’t in that position.
According to Victor, the term “Cold War,” used to describe tensions between China and the United States, is too simplistic for this complex scenario that emerged after the original Cold War:
The Cold War had a much more ideologically charged nature, and it also speaks to the way these actors engaged and formed alliances to advance their interests. I don’t think that’s the game China is playing with the United States; it’s a game that isn’t necessarily more direct, but it’s a more open and thematic one. So it’s not a broad axis spanning all fronts. So I wouldn’t use ‘Cold War’ to categorize the China–U.S. relationship, especially because that would even belittle Russia, which also has many interests and points of conflict with the United States[…]”
Victor Dias Grinberg
Furthermore, the political strategies of these two countries differ amid the tensions. While China is more pragmatic, with a centralized and stable government, the United States has a volatile and unpredictable political landscape, especially these days.
“China is very pragmatic when it comes to its growth and the preservation of its political projects and ambitions. So, they use economic diplomacy as a powerful tool to strengthen their relationships with other countries. Cultural diplomacy is also an important pillar for the Chinese, who have robust strategies embedded in government policies.
The United States has the advantage of having shaped much of what we understand as Western culture. So it’s not necessarily a clash, because it’s not about replacement, but rather about different approaches and different moments in time […]”
Both are pragmatic in how they view the world, but the volatility of American politics is much more pronounced because of democracy, republicanism, and the social division that liberal democracies have experienced with increasing left–right polarization, compared to China, which is a more compact and far less politically open system. So they have more, let’s say, ‘patience’ to let these waves pass. Since they don’t experience major political shifts—there, the ruling party is central and stable—they think ‘the relationship might be good now; but democracy tells me this leader will leave at some point, so we think about the next one and how we will engage.’ […]”
Victor Dias Grinberg
The role of the U.S. president and the unpredictability of American politics are a focus of attention for countries around the world, allies and non‑allies alike. With recent tensions driven by U.S. actions in the Middle East and Latin America, many are wondering what the U.S. government’s next steps will be. For Victor, it’s hard to say, as everything depends on shifting circumstances. Trump invests where he sees immediate political gain and often pushes the limits of international norms.
“If we stop to think about what the United States’ main points of focus have been recently—it went through Venezuela at the beginning of the year, it’s flirting with doing something in Cuba, it discusses the Russia‑Ukraine issue, then gets involved in the Israel‑Iran issue, and then returns to Brazil and Latin America.
So it’s not necessarily scattered, but it is cyclical: wherever it sees an opportunity for growth and immediate gain, it tries to achieve something that is valuable to it; it shifts gears, changes its rhetoric, and acts on what seems to be a strategy that works for the administration, its supporters, and the way it governs.”
Other countries respond with actions and reactions. So we also set the agenda and prioritize as events unfold.”
“[…] So it may be that this conflict, which appears to be long-lasting, isn’t long‑lasting at all: he may decide he’s done what he needed to do, turn his back, withdraw the military apparatus, and leave. Or he may double down, depending on how challenged he feels by his opponent.”, the internationalist concluded.
Furthermore, Victor Grinberg also discussed in his interview about how the U.S. president is sensitive to public opinion.
“I think there are reasons that could lead the United States to engage more or less in this conflict, and reasons he must have weighed before entering it, but that aren’t necessarily closely tied to the elections they’re facing. I think they’ll serve as a barometer. He’s very sensitive to public opinion as a leader, perhaps more so than others. He engages heavily with his electorate through his own and the government’s social media channels, and he watches a lot of TV, consumes a lot of news—despite the criticism—so he’s very sensitive to that.”
Due to this instability in the United States, people are wondering whether China will intervene in the conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States orchestrated by Trump, which would escalate tensions to even more alarming levels. However, according to Victor, China has not yet become involved, and could have entered the conflict if it were in its interest to do so.
“Now, for China, everything depends on various factors. China is much more pragmatic regarding its interests; it coldly puts the economy first, and historically, it hasn’t had as many ambitions for political leadership as the United States.”
The Asian country, however, is not known for getting involved in conflicts or seeking international hegemony. The government’s focus is domestic. Due to overpopulation, the government needs to concentrate on the rights and interests of its citizens; with fewer dissatisfied people, there will be fewer uprisings against the government.
Tensions between China and the United States are complex and cannot be reduced to a simple Cold War analogy. The original conflict was defined by a global struggle for hegemony, rooted in opposing ideologies and competing economic systems. Applying that term today oversimplifies the current landscape and also downplays the long‑standing rivalry between Russia and the United States, which continues to shape global geopolitics.
_________________
The article above was edited by Sarah Pizarro.
Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!