Seeking stability

US officials' visits to China will have limited utility

United States Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, speaking during a visit to Beijing, once again declared that “decoupling” from the Chinese economy was not the goal of US policy under President Joe Biden. Following a meeting with Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng, whose portfolio encompasses economic policy and trade, Ms Raimondo declared it was “profoundly important” for the global economy that the US-China relationship be “stable” and that communication between the two countries be “direct, open and practical”. Concretely, Ms Raimondo’s visit to Beijing resulted in the establishment of a working group with officials from the two governments and representatives of the private sector to focus on irritants in the commercial relationship. A mechanism to exchange information on export controls and their enforcement was also agreed upon.

Ms Raimondo said more information on export controls was meant to “reduce misunderstandings of US national security policies”. But, in fact, China and the rest of the world understand such policies very well. They are meant to lock China out of certain technically advanced or otherwise systemically important sectors. While many of the technologies in question obviously have dual uses, both civilian and military, others are primarily civilian and are clearly meant to ensure that the US and its allies continue to enjoy a technological edge over China. Some other restrictions could also be seen as methods to try and minimise Chinese domination in sectors expected to be important for future growth. There are obvious limits, therefore, to the effectiveness of Ms Raimondo’s diplomatic wording. The most that can be hoped for, perhaps, is reducing issues of export controls. As it stands, some of this enforcement requires field inspections by US officials of how plants in China use advanced technology that’s developed elsewhere. While China, after reopening following the pandemic, has cooperated with such inspections, they are an obvious flashpoint.

It is certainly good news that there are more channels of communication between the US and China, and Ms Raimondo is correct that stability in the relationship is necessary for the global economy. Her outreach comes after three members of Mr Biden’s Cabinet — the treasury secretary, the secretary of state, and Mr Biden’s high representative for climate action — visited Beijing in recent weeks. The Chinese leadership has not reciprocated in a similar vein. But the US’s words have not been met by action, and it is hard to see how export controls could soften, given the fact that the bipartisan consensus in Washington is being tough on China. Even from the business point of view, as Ms Raimondo noted, US companies are finding China “uninvestible” and too risky. It is far more likely that this economic outreach has specific geopolitical ends — to reduce the overall temperature in the US-China relationship and encourage Beijing to cooperate on such issues as climate change. Anything that reduces Beijing’s sabre-rattling will be in the interests of the broader economy and, by extension, India. But the drivers of decoupling — or “de-risking”, as it has now been renamed in recognition of Chinese sensitivities — have not gone away. Nor is it likely that China’s aggressive diplomacy on multiple fronts will cease, regardless of how many senior US officials visit Beijing. A managed decline in the relationship appears to be the most optimistic outcome.