It would spell the end of the US ability to impose its will on the international community, shape other countries in its image and shift the burden of its economic crisis onto others.

They are defensive because China threatens their dominance in advanced manufacturing, but fail to see how Chinese manufacturing helps the global energy transition and benefits Global South consumers.

Donald Trump’s intentions towards China are clear, Beijing has seen him off before and this time, the US has less economic leverage, ironically, thanks to its decoupling efforts. If anything, Trump 2.0 will alienate the world.

Europe’s carbon border tax is shifting the burden to poorer nations while the West’s redrawing of supply chains is preventing China from cheaply and efficiently supplying the global green transition.

Unlike conventional industrial policy, the US’ version is not only focused on domestic industry and science, but also on suppressing competition. Notably, Washington’s Inflation Reduction Act and Chips and Science Act have raised hackles even among US allies.

Through the Belt and Road Initiative and trade, China is contributing to the development of the Global South. US efforts to counter China’s influence, on the other hand, are anachronistic and misguided.

Instead of complaining about the lack of access to China’s market, Brussels should raise its own productivity and rethink the many ways it is stoking bilateral tension while reducing trade.

To mend ties with Beijing, Canberra must regain its strategic autonomy and shift away from the US policy of China containment.

The US-China conflict is a struggle between an aggressor and a resisting party. Casting it as a geopolitical contest suggests both parties share equal responsibility.

China joining the CPTPP would be a catalyst for economic reforms that address developed countries’ complaints while offering member nations easy access to the world’s largest consumer market. With Beijing showing readiness to take the steps needed to meet CPTPP standards, geopolitics seems to be the major obstacle.

Washington’s national security seems to largely involve keeping China far behind technologically and economically so as to maintain US hegemony.

China’s export restrictions on rare metals and the Micron ban reflect its hardening attitude after decades of sanctions and embargoes from the West – the one -way track is likely to become a two-way street.

Far from defensive, proposals such as the IPEF supply chain deal are designed to de-Sinacise critical sectors, prevent China’s rise and cut it off from the world.

China has been a victim of Western sanctions for decades. The G7’s plan to take trade disputes into its own hands only weakens the WTO and suggests selfish geopolitical aims.

The G7 summit’s failure to seriously address the deficit in funding for global development risks making it appear out of touch with the real world. By prioritising its geopolitical goals, the G7 is turning itself into an economic Nato and destroying global peace and prosperity.

Dropping the term ‘decoupling’ in favour of ‘de-risking’ shows the US knows the damage its policies can do, but its behaviour towards China has not changed. With Washington using national security to justify its actions, it is unlikely to abandon moves such as blacklisting companies or restrictions on investment.

Faced with US tariffs, investment curbs and export bans, China has simply opened its economy wider, working to protect itself and the stability of global supply chains. But if the US continues down the path, it will mean global disaster.

US arguments that China’s peace proposal would ratify Russia’s conquest and give it time to rearm simply don’t hold water.

The US move to form what would be a “critical minerals buyers’ club” goes against the WTO principle of non-discrimination. As an advocate and beneficiary of free trade, the EU has a huge stake in preserving the multilateral trading system.

An incident with such grave environmental, energy and security implications should be properly investigated with the guilty party held accountable. Having appeared to blame Russia for the explosions, the US should welcome an international investigation – unless it has something to hide.

Xi and Biden may have managed to avoid a US-China conflict in 2022, but their meeting won’t change the long-term course of bilateral relations. As long as Washington sees China as a threat to be contained, its provocations are unlikely to cease.

Washington’s new assault on China, focusing on tech export controls, is a game changer, targeting whole sectors, redrawing global supply chains and remaking global trade rules.

Washington says it wants WTO reform; in reality, it simply does not want to be beholden to a rules-based order it helped create. By blocking key WTO functions over its grievances with China, the US has turned a platform designed for cooperation into a cockpit for power contests.

China’s economy faces serious short-run challenges but is still in a better position than many to weather global economic headwinds. Strong exports, consistent leadership, pro-growth policies, a focus on innovation and continued foreign investment bode well for long-term prospects.

Contrary to Western perception, Xi enjoys immense popularity at home. Under Xi in the past decade, China has become more prosperous and liveable. And amid trying times for the world, Chinese leadership continuity will mean policy continuity and predictability at home and abroad.

As the party that initiated the new round of tensions, Washington should make the first moves towards reconciliation, while Beijing could scale back military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The two countries must also seize the opportunity of the G20 summit to set up a face-to-face meeting between their presidents.

Few non-Western countries have answered the US’ call to economically isolate Russia, fearing the impact of disruptions to global production and trade on their own struggling populations. Meanwhile, countries like China have already felt the effects of US sanctions and have no desire to inflict them on others.

The US is unwilling to donate vaccine doses to other countries at present, yet criticises China’s contributions to the global vaccine drive. In matters of public health cooperation, the Biden administration is looking a lot like the Trump administration.