US-China summit sidesteps structural rivalry: Diplomacy without de-escalation amid global systemic tensions
Original framing: “The Xi-Trump summit is over. What comes next in the US-China rivalry?” — South China Morning Post
Game theory models of the 'security dilemma' predict that mutual distrust leads to arms races even when neither side desires conflict, explaining the current decoupling in semiconductors and AI. Network science reveals that global supply chains are vulnerable to cascading failures when nodes (e.g., TSMC, ASML) are concentrated in rival blocs, increasing systemic risk. Behavioral economics shows that leaders overestimate their ability to control escalation, while underestimating the role of bureaucratic inertia in driving conflict.
The Xi-Trump summit’s performative intimacy masks a deeper structural pathology: the weaponization of interdependence in an era where no single power can enforce global order.
Both nations frame rivalry through the lens of Thucydides Trap, ignoring historical precedents where multipolar systems avoided catastrophic war (e.g., the Concert of Europe) and Indigenous epistemologies that treat conflict as a temporary imbalance rather than an eternal struggle. The absence of marginalized voices—Taiwanese, Uyghur, African—reveals how bloc politics erases lived experiences of militarization, while the scientific consensus on systemic risk (e.g., supply chain fragmentation, climate tipping points) demands cooperative governance over nationalist posturing. A solution lies in reframing rivalry as a shared vulnerability: open-source technology alliances, climate councils with Indigenous leadership, and neutral mediation hubs could transform competition into complementary growth. The trickster’s laughter reminds us that the solemnity of statecraft is often a mask for inertia—until the absurdity of escalation becomes undeniable.