Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The small, seemingly insignificant actions in geopolitics often reveal much larger truths about the global order. A recent meeting of the U.S.-China financial working group offers a glimpse into the complexities of their relationship. This group, which includes representatives from the central banks and government agencies of both nations, met in China to coordinate changes in their respective banking systems. On the surface, this might seem like a routine event; after all, such meetings occur regularly. However, a closer look reveals a deeper geopolitical undercurrent. The coordination of financial policies between two of the world’s largest economies is more than just a technical exercise. It is a reflection of the broader tensionthat challenges and opportunities of characterize U.S.-China relations.At first glance, the relationship between the U.S. and China appears highly strained. Tensions between the two nations seem ever-present and their military activities suggest the potential for conflict. Both sides have been positioning their weapons systems in ways that provoke anxiety in the other. For instance, in recent months, we have seen joint Russian and Chinese bomber missions probing near U.S. airspace in Alaska, prompting U.S. and Canadian fighter jets to respond. Similarly, China has violated Japanese airspace, raising concerns among U.S. allies in the region.These incidents are not isolated. The U.S. maintains a close relationship with the Philippines, a nation that frequently clashes with China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Additionally, U.S. support for Taiwan continues to be a significant source of tension with Beijing. China views Taiwan as a breakaway province, while the U.S. treats it as a key ally in the Asia-Pacific region. The list of geopolitical flashpoints is long and these examples barely scratch the surface.Amid such military and political tensions, one might expect economic and financial relations to be similarly fraught. Geopolitics often dictates that wars can be sparked by political disagreements, economic threats, or military actions. In this light, financial matters, as a key dimension of geopolitical systems, should logically reflect the adversarial nature of U.S.-China relations. Yet, here lies the paradox: at the same time as military tensions are on the rise, the U.S. and China are quietly coordinating on financial and economic issues.This raises a fundamental question: why would two nations that appear to be on the brink of conflict also engage in efforts to streamline their financial systems and make trade more efficient? Is this merely a technical necessity, or does it signify something deeper about their relationship?The answer may lie in the realization that, despite their differences, both nations have a stake in economic cooperation. While geopolitical tensions may drive military and political actions, economic realities often force nations to find common ground. This is especially true for the U.S. and China, whose economies are deeply intertwined. The financial working group meeting, then, is not merely a technical exercise but a reflection of the broader balancing act that defines U.S.-China relations.The U.S. and China are economically interdependent in ways that make outright conflict unlikely. The two nations are each other’s largest trading partners and the flow of goods, services and capital between them sustains millions of jobs and underpins global economic stability. The U.S. relies on China as a manufacturing hub for everything from consumer electronics to medical supplies, while China depends on the U.S. as a major market for its exports.This economic interdependence creates a paradox. On one hand, it increases the stakes of any potential conflict, as both nations have much to lose if relations break down entirely. On the other hand, it forces both sides to engage in pragmatic cooperation, even when political and military tensions are high. The financial working group’s meeting is a clear example of this pragmatism in action. The U.S. and China may disagree on many issues, but when it comes to ensuring the smooth flow of capital and trade, they recognize the need for collaboration.Another important aspect of this dynamic is the changing perception of China in the international arena. For many years, China was viewed as an emerging military superpower, one that could challenge the U.S.’s dominance in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. This perception was bolstered by China’s rapid economic growth, its ambitious military modernization efforts and its assertive foreign policy.However, recent developments have led to a reassessment of China’s strengths and weaknesses. While China remains a major military and economic power, it faces significant internal challenges that limit its ability to project power on the global stage. These challenges include a slowing economy, demographic pressures and increasing resistance from other nations to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).At the same time, the narrative of China as an economic juggernaut has been revived. Despite its slowing growth, China remains a crucial player in global supply chains and there is still money to be made in its vast market. The U.S., recognizing this, has shifted its focus from military confrontation to economic engagement. This shift is reflected in the financial working group’s focus on removing barriers to investment and trade, rather than on geopolitical competition.
The financial working group’s meeting, then, is about more than just streamlining financial transfers. It is a step toward ensuring that the economic relationship between the U.S. and China remains stable, even as other aspects of their relationship remain fraught with tension. The meeting reflects a recognition that both sides have much to gain from economic cooperation, even if their political and military interests diverge. At the heart of this cooperation is a principle that has long guided U.S.-China economic relations: “implement a deal for payments and leave the rest to the market.” This principle acknowledges the need for a framework that facilitates trade and investment while allowing market forces to shape the broader economic relationship. A pragmatic approach recognizes the importance of maintaining stability in the global economy, even as geopolitical tensions simmer.Despite the frequent flare-ups between the U.S. and China, it is unlikely that the two nations will go to war. From the U.S. perspective, there is little to gain and much to lose from a conflict with China. A war with China, especially a naval war in the Asia-Pacific, would be costly and could disrupt the global economy in ways that would hurt the U.S. and its allies. Furthermore, the U.S. is wary of being entangled in another protracted conflict, particularly at a time when it is still dealing with the aftermath of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For China, the decision to go to war is more complex. While China may be open to a limited conflict in Asia, particularly if it involves reclaiming Taiwan, it is cautious about engaging in a full-scale war with the U.S. China’s military, while formidable, lacks the global reach of the U.S. military and a naval war would expose its vulnerabilities. Additionally, China’s economy is heavily dependent on global trade and a war with the U.S. would likely lead to economic isolation and instability.Given these considerations, both nations have strong incentives to avoid military conflict. Instead, they are likely to continue engaging in a mix of competition and cooperation, particularly in the economic realm. The financial working group meeting is an example of this delicate balancing act. Both sides recognize the importance of maintaining economic ties, even as they prepare for the possibility of future confrontations.
The recent meeting of the U.S.-China financial working group may seem like a small event in the grand scheme of global geopolitics, but it reveals much about the current state of U.S.-China relations. While tensions between the two nations are high, particularly in the military and political spheres, economic interdependence forces them to find ways to cooperate. The financial working group’s focus on streamlining financial processes and facilitating trade is a reflection of this reality. The relationship between the U.S. and China is complex, shaped by both competition and cooperation. While the prospect of military conflict looms large, it is unlikely that either side will pursue war, given the high stakes involved. Instead, the two nations will continue to navigate their differences through a combination of diplomacy, economic engagement and, when necessary, military deterrence. The small things like the financial working group meeting offer a window into the larger truths of geopolitics. They remind us that even in times of tension, nations can find common ground, particularly when it comes to economic matters. As the U.S. and China continue to vie for influence in the global order, their ability to manage their complex, interdependent relationship will be crucial in shaping the future of international relations.
