As Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming visit to China, an inevitable starting point is to review the logic that guided his previous visits and his entire first term.
For most diplomatic observers, diplomacy is the art of agreements, protocols, and incremental consensus. For Trump, however, diplomacy is essentially a large-scale business negotiation. Reviewing his logic toward China reveals a clear loop: Maximum Pressure → Creating Crisis → Seeking a Deal → Reaching a Visible, Local Agreement.
I. The Underlying Logic: Deals Over Mechanisms
Unlike the preceding U.S. presidents, whose China policy was defined by “engagement” and “shaping”—hoping that integrating China into the international system would spark internal evolution—Trump completely abandoned these establishment fantasies. He simplified the US-China relationship into a balance sheet.
Under this logic, a visit to China was not about reaching a “strategic consensus” through high-level communication, but about leveraging face-to-face contact at the peak of pressure to quickly hammer out a quantifiable “Deal.”
Key characteristics included:
- De-institutionalization: Marginalizing the professional diplomatic machinery of the State Department in favor of direct top-level decision-making.
- Result-Orientation: Prioritizing short-term, visible wins that could be marketed to voters (e.g., agricultural purchase quotas) over long-term systemic improvement.
- Pressure-Driven: Visits often occurred after the escalation of trade wars or sanctions, using the “visit” itself as a valve to reward or alleviate pressure.
II. The Phase One Deal: The Trap of the “Local Optimum”
The famous “Phase One” agreement was a quintessential product of the “Trumpian Deal.” It solved the “buying and selling” problem (trade volume) while deliberately avoiding “institutional” problems (structural reform).
From a game theory perspective, this achieved a local optimum in the short term:
- For the U.S.: It secured quantifiable trade figures, allowing for a political declaration of victory.
- For China: Under extreme pressure, it traded concessions for a temporary easing of the trade war, gaining strategic breathing room.
However, the flaw lay in the lack of structural resolution. As the agreement entered the implementation phase, the absence of a deep trust mechanism meant that minor frictions were rapidly magnified, eventually leading to a stalemate. This proves that: mere transactions cannot override systemic competition.
III. Legacy and Aftershocks: The Paradigm Shift from “Engagement” to “Competition”
Despite the controversies surrounding his personal style, Trump’s most enduring legacy is the end of the illusion of “engagement.”
He forged a strange consensus across the Washington political spectrum: that a structural competition between the US and China is inevitable. This means that regardless of who occupies the White House, future China policies will be fine-tuned under the premise of “competition,” rather than returning to past consensuses.
Furthermore, the “maximum pressure” model he pioneered has, to some extent, become the default template for U.S. policy: create a pain point through tariffs or bans, then seek concessions through negotiation.
IV. Conclusion: Variables for the Return
Looking back from today’s vantage point, we see that Trump’s upcoming visit takes place in a fundamentally different world:
- Technological Escalation: The AI revolution has expanded technical blockades from chips to entire intelligent ecosystems.
- Geopolitical Fragmentation: “De-risking” supply chains has evolved from a slogan into physical infrastructure.
- Cognitive Iteration: After years of intense friction, both sides have a much deeper understanding of each other’s red lines and tactics.
Does the same “transactional logic” still work today? When structural contradictions have evolved into systemic competition, can a high-level visit once again serve as a “pause button”?
This will be the focus of the subsequent posts in this series.
Leave a comment