When the formalities and greetings are removed, diplomacy essentially revolves around influence. This week in Kuala Lumpur, Donald Trump seems to have re-embraced the traditional method of applying pressure to encourage collaboration. The U.S. President, once more taking on the role of chief negotiator, started his week-long diplomatic trip with ASEAN countries under significant hopes – yet limited confidence.
Trump’s advisors are keen to celebrate success. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant stated that the threat of 100% tariffs ‘forced China to return to the table for discussions.’ This is a typical Trump approach: increase pressure, use intimidation, and then engage in talks. The reasoning is well-known – you shake the tree until the fruits drop.
But history shows that coercion has a limited duration. The United States’ dependence on Chinese rare earth minerals—materials essential for everything from fighter jets to smartphones—is well-known. Approximately 70% of the global supply chain is controlled by China. This provides Beijing with significant influence, particularly since 78% of the U.S. military-industrial complex relies on these imports. When Trump proposed doubling tariffs, Beijing responded with threats of export limitations. In this intense confrontation, both parties eventually backed down.
The outcome? A cautious one-year postponement of China’s intended export restrictions. The United States will ease some aspects of its tariff increases and prolong the existing trade ceasefire. No one is referring to it as peace – not yet – but it represents a significant break.
There’s one aspect that Washington is reluctant to acknowledge: reliance. Despite discussions about separating from China, the U.S. economy is still heavily connected to Chinese production. Rare earth elements serve as a clear example. The contradiction is evident: the most advanced missile guidance systems used by the Pentagon depend on materials processed in China’s manufacturing center.
The Chinese administration has a deeper understanding of this imbalance than most. For many years, Beijing has been investing in international mining ventures – including cobalt from the Congo and tin from Myanmar – securing its power beneath the earth’s surface. Therefore, when American negotiators take pride in postponing export limitations, they are not truly prevailing in a conflict; they are merely gaining more time.
Trump’s supporters view the result as a diplomatic victory. His opponents refer to it as transactional performance. Maybe both perspectives are accurate. Trump’s approach to diplomacy has always been spontaneous – impulsive but surprisingly effective in brief moments. The individual excels in conflict, yet his ability to negotiate deals remains strong.
In addition to minerals and tariffs, the Kuala Lumpur discussions addressed other underlying concerns: agriculture and technology. For American farmers—some of whom have become frustrated due to declining soybean exports—even a symbolic commitment from Beijing holds significant political value. According to reports, China has agreed to boost its soybean purchases, alleviating domestic pressure on Trump from America’s agricultural regions.
Then there’s TikTok. The application that once represented youth culture and Chinese technological influence has now become the latest piece in a geopolitical game. The new agreement—confirmed by US officials—would separate TikTok into a company primarily owned by American investors. For Trump, who previously threatened to ban the platform completely, this serves as a way to assert both triumph and justification. For Beijing, it’s a minor compromise to safeguard broader interests.
Trump and Xi Jinping are set to meet face-to-face in South Korea, marking their first encounter since 2019. This is part of a deliberate initiative aimed at reducing prolonged tensions. Although they continue to compete, both leaders stand to benefit significantly from this meeting.
Trump aims to present himself as a powerful negotiator capable of managing China without triggering economic chaos. Xi, on the other hand, seeks stability without facing embarrassment. Trade de-escalation offers China some relief amid a slowing local economy and U.S. pressure regarding technology exports.
History provides a warning. In 1972, Richard Nixon’s trip to Beijing was celebrated as the start of a new chapter. However, détente did not eliminate rivalry; it simply transformed it. In the same way, this recent easing between Trump and Xi may reduce tensions, but it won’t alter the fundamental nature of competition. The United States and China are no longer just trading partners as they were before – they are strategic rivals connected by necessity.
To be precise, China’s state-run media did not refer to it as a ceasefire. In their view, US officials acknowledge that the most challenging matters—such as intellectual property infringement, cyber security, and technology sharing—continue to be unsettled.
Nevertheless, tone plays a crucial role in diplomatic relations. The tone has changed. Following months of intense rhetoric and threats of tariffs, both Washington and Beijing are now using the language of “mutual respect.” This term indicates that both countries are now concentrating on how to present this easing of tensions.
If history has shown anything, it’s that conflicts between major powers seldom conclude with a formal agreement. Instead, they progress through periods of fatigue, mutual understanding, and, at times, practical considerations. Trump’s administration claims that ‘both China and the United States are eager to reach an agreement.’ Perhaps that’s true. However, desiring peace and maintaining it are entirely different challenges.
It’s not by chance that the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur was selected as the venue. Global powers are currently demonstrating their rivalry in Southeast Asia. Malaysia has consistently been proud of its ‘central role’ in ASEAN diplomacy and sees itself as the bridge between the East and the West. The fact that Kuala Lumpur is hosting these talks reinforces the notion that smaller countries can still influence international politics.
The ASEAN countries, in turn, do not wish to take sides. They gain from Chinese investment and American security assurances. Their message to both major powers is straightforward: maintain a polite rivalry.
The issue, therefore, is not centered on the deal that Trump and Xi might strike this week. It is about resisting the pull of competition once they go back to their respective countries. Domestic politics in both nations encourage conflict rather than conciliation. Trump’s supporters benefit from his “hardline on China” stance. Xi’s authority depends on demonstrating national power and rejecting external influence.
Hence, even with its hopeful tone, the Kuala Lumpur framework should be seen as a temporary truce rather than a formal peace agreement. It offers headlines for leaders, space for diplomats to maneuver, and reassurance for financial markets. However, beneath the surface of calm, the underlying struggle persists—concerning technology, ideology, and global power.
Following years of separation talk and trade conflicts, it can be considered a minor success. The fact that Washington and Beijing have discovered a basis for communication once more is not a minor issue. It is the diplomatic equivalent of oxygen following smoke.
Nevertheless, no one should interpret a break as a conclusion. The struggle for influence in the 21st century—ranging from microchips to sea lanes—will continue beyond any individual administration or conference. Trump’s encounter with Xi could reestablish dialogue, perhaps even confidence, for a time. However, the competition between their countries is inherent, not just personal.
Leave a Comment