← History Uncensored
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
It's not hard to argue that the single most important relationship in the world today is the one between the United States and China. The world's two largest economies, the two AI superpowers, and two of the top three militaries locked together in something so entangled, so competitive and mutually dependent that they're rivals who can't afford to break up. What happens between them shapes the future of the global order. We're talking trade, war, Taiwan, the Middle east, climate change. But it hasn't always been a relationship between equals, not even close. During the 20th century, China was, of course, vast, ancient and civilizationally deep. But it was politically shattered, repeatedly invaded and impoverished. The United States, by contrast, rapidly rose to become the dominant global power militarily, financially, technologically and culturally. In 1947, Mao Zedong declared the People's Republic of China. The US refused to recognize it, backing the rival government in Taiwan. And within a year, the US was fighting Chinese forces in Korea. So before China became America's factory creditor or great rival, they were battlefield opponents. For two decades, the countries were locked in an ideological hostility. Communism versus capitalism. China saw the US as decadent, imperialist, and the US Often framed China as a red menace, a threat to global democracy. The great pivot came in 1972, when Richard Nixon flew to Beijing, the first sitting president to visit China. And this was Cold War realpolitik. Washington needed leverage against the Soviet Union. Beijing needed room to maneuver without Moscow. So they needed each other. Obviously not because they trusted each other, but they didn't really trust anyone else. Nixon's historic visit ended more than two decades of isolation and full diplomatic relations followed in 1979. Then began one of the biggest strategic gambles in modern history. The Americans thought, paraphrasing, let's bring China into the global economy. China will become richer, more open, and eventually more liberal, part of the American built world order. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization after 15 years of negotiations. About 10 years later, China overtook the US as the world's leading manufacturer. Western companies gained access to Chinese labor and factories. American consumers got cheaper goods. China got investment, tech, export markets, and a path to growth. Hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty in one of the most dramatic economic, economic transformations in human history. But there was an assumption in the west that integration would transform China politically. Instead, China became richer, yes, but without becoming liberal. It learned the rules of the US led order and then used those rules to build enough power to challenge that order from within. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. By the 2000 and tens. US policymakers increasingly thought that China had exploited asymmetries in the system. Industrial policy forced technology transfer, IP theft, limits on foreign competition at home and export dominance abroad. And now China was directly challenging American primacy in Asia and beyond. Trump turned that conclusion into tariffs and confrontation. Biden institutionalized it as strategic competition. And a few Years later, Trump 2.0 ratcheted the temperature up again. So how do the US and China stack up economically? Today, the numbers are staggering. Back in 1980, China's nominal GDP was around 200 billion. The US back then, nearly 2.9 trillion, roughly 15 times larger. China was predominantly agrarian, isolated and peripheral to global markets. In 2026, the US remains the world's largest economy. At market exchange rates around 32 trillion, China sits at roughly 20 trillion. But here's the twist. Measured by purchasing power parity, what money actually buys. Inside each country, China's economy is already larger. The IMF puts China at roughly 19.9% of world output, versus 14.5% for the U.S. china is now the largest trading partner for more countries than America. A lot more countries, particularly across Africa, Latin America and Asia. So it is perfectly predictable then, according to game theory and history, that friction would be mounting. So where can we see it most? Let's start with trade. At the peak of the latest confrontation, US tariffs on some Chinese goods reached as high as 145. Bilateral trade contracted sharply. Markets were afraid of a massive global shock, and both sides eventually moved towards a fragile Truce in late 2025. But this was not a reset, just a pause. China's trade surplus with America exists because China makes things that America wants. And America doesn't make enough things China wants at scale. You may have heard that the US wants to sell China more of the three beef, beans and Boeings. The very first American ship to reach China, actually the Empress of China. It was called sailing in 1784, just months after the Revolutionary War ended, returned to America loaded with tea, silk and porcelain, hot commodities at the time. China had things America desperately wanted then, too. But now let's talk about the more targeted weapon. Rare earths. China has a vice grip on them. This is critically important because rare earths sit inside the machinery of modern power. Missiles, aircrafts, electric vehicles, wind turbines, smartphones, advanced manufacturing. Control the inputs and you don't need to fire a shot to create pressure. The International Energy Agency calculates that China controls about 61% of rare earth production and over 90% of their processing. Plus, fresh analysis from Bloomberg Economics found that around 4% of US GDP is derived from industries that depend on them, and most of them don't have good substitutes. So this is leverage. And China has already used this leverage. Its rare earth controls have disrupted carmakers and raised alarm across defense relevant supply chains in the US and allied countries. But rather than outright bans, China can require companies to apply for export licenses, then approve them, delay them, or leave them uncertain. So for a defense contractor, a car plant, an aircraft supplier, that uncertainty alone can slow production and force quite costly workarounds. And a more stringent version of these controls is in the works, extending Chinese licensing rules to some foreign made products that contain Chinese rare earth materials or rely on Chinese rare earth technology. But that was paused after last year's talks until November 2026. So the threat of a chokehold on that supply has not disappeared. It's just on borrowed time. So when Washington worries about rare earths, it's not worrying about obscure geology. It's worrying about whether Beijing can grind the American industrial system to a halt. But Beijing worries about U.S. semiconductor export controls as well. These are the restrictions on advanced chips that power AI, weapons systems and computing. And essentially, it's just the same thing in reverse. So without Chinese rare earths, America's tech and defense manufacturing sectors splutter. Without US Chips, China's AI ambitions could stall. This all reminds me a bit of nitrates from Chile. They were the world's primary source of industrial fertiliser and gunpowder explosives from the 1880s until World War I. They had a virtual monopoly. And Germany, Britain, the US were all desperate for them. Different time, different materials. Anyway, this is the new shape of great power rivalry. Not just tanks rolling across borders, but pressure points buried inside complex supply chains. Next is AI. So America leads in frontier research and the most powerful models. Although this gap is closing and closed in some areas, China leads in deployment, embedding the AI into industry, manufacturing, logistics, robotics, surveillance, faster than anywhere else. The International Federation of Robotics said that China now commands 54% of all new industrial robot installations. When it comes to AI, neither side trusts the other. They barely talk about it officially, even as both recognize that an unmanaged AI race creates genuine strategic risk for both of them. Because this tech can obviously accelerate cyber attacks, weapons, research, and autonomous systems faster than any human institution can keep up. Biden and Xi did at least agree that humans should remain in charge of nuclear launch decisions. Isn't the 21st century just lovely? But this is also, paradoxically, one area where cooperation is possible. Neither side here benefits from An AI arms race that spirals beyond anyone's control. This shared interest, fragile as it may be, could be one of the genuine pressure valves in the relationship, reminiscent of America and the USSR cooperating on curtailing nuclear weapons during the height of the Cold War. I've saved the most combustible issue for last. And that's not just my analysis. China's own Foreign Minister Wang Yi told US Secretary of State Marco Rubio directly that Taiwan is the biggest point of risk in US China relations. Here's why. Taiwan is self governing and democratic, with its own constitution, military and currency. It has never formally declared independence as the Republic of Taiwan. That would be exceedingly risky. But its government says the Republic of China, which is how Taiwan refers to itself, is sovereign and independent from the People's Republic of China, which is mainland China. And Taiwan functions as de facto independent. Beijing claims Taiwan is part of China and hasn't renounced the use of force to take it. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan as independent, but under the Taiwan Relationships act of 1979, passed by Congress after Carter normalized relations with Beijing, it is legally required to make available to Taiwan such defence articles and services as may be necessary to enable it to maintain a sufficient self defence capability. That does not mean that the US is expected to automatically defend Taiwan, but to ensure that it has the means to do so itself. In practice, this has looked like weapons sales, intelligence sharing, military advisors and training. Taiwan, as you probably know, is also the chip maker to the world. It produces the majority of the world's most advanced semiconductors. US leads in the design. Taiwan's semiconductor industry only took off in the 1980s and 1990s, but it has made the island irreplaceable. If Taiwan's chip industry were disrupted or seized, the consequences for the global economy would be immediate and severe. This is a critical node in the tech infrastructure of our world. And then there's the geography. So Taiwan sits at the heart of what strategists call the first island chain, which is the arc of islands running from Japan through the Philippines that, from America's perspective, constrains China's Navy and protects U.S. interests across the Indo Pacific. Here is something less discussed though, which is actually pretty important. In 1982, the US and China issued a joint communique in which Washington said it did not want arms sales to Taiwan to continue indefinitely and intended to reduce them over time. But Reagan also gave Taiwan what became known as six assurances, including that America had not agreed to a deadline for ending those arms sales and that Beijing did not have a veto over future weapons transfers. So China sees Washington as going back on its word here. You said you were going to stop arming Taiwan. America, though, saw this promise as one being made on the assumption that Taiwan's future would be settled peacefully. And China has ramped up military pressure on the island and that has changed the risk and the context. Chinese military ops and probes around Taiwan occur on an almost daily basis now. Analysts at the Journal of Indo Pacific affairs say that these operations are no longer tied to specific political flashpoints, but reflect an overall escalation in scale and tempo. It's pressure normalisation, and many of these intelligence analysts argue it's operational training for blockade, coercion or conflict scenarios. Beijing has reportedly been pressing Washington to change a single phrase. The current US position on Taiwan is that it does not support Taiwan's independence. China apparently wants language closer to opposers, which might sound like diplomatic hair splitting, but it isn't, does not support, leaves some ambiguity. Opposers would represent a significant shift in American posture. Diplomacy fascinates me in that way. A single verb can alter perceptions of resolve and alter the risk of conflict. And Taiwan is not the only crisis now being pulled into this relationship. Washington has been pressing Beijing to use its leverage with Iran, especially over the Strait of Hormuz, while China wants to present itself as a steadier diplomatic power in a Middle east crisis that threatens its own energy security. So what's the state of play? Since COVID mistrust between the US and China has deepened sharply. Both sides say they want stability, but they mean different things by that. America's version means reducing dependence on Chinese supply chains, blocking China's access to the most advanced technologies and preventing Beijing from dominating the Indo Pacific. China's version of stability means that Washington stops treating China's rise as a threat to be contained, especially over Taiwan technology and the regional order in Asia. But this is not a new Cold War, as some people often draw that comparison. It's more complex. The US and Soviet economies were never deeply integrated. The US and Chinese economies are. China is now strong enough to constrain America's choices. America is still more than strong enough to block China's ambitions. Neither can simply impose its will. This is not one superpower replacing another, but more like two giants locked together, suspicious of each other, dependent on each other, and powerful enough to damage everyone if they miscalculate. Thanks for watching a little history behind the headlines with me, Bianca Noblo. If there are any other stories that you want traced back into the past and explained. Do let me know in the comments. That is me, Bianca Noblo talking to you, being more pedantic than the most pedantic one of you and I love it and I'm looking out for any ideas that you guys mention. So please do keep sending them and I will see you next time.