US-China ‘strategic stability’ framing masks deepening geoeconomic war and techno-military rivalry rooted in 70 years of Cold War 2.0 escalation
Original framing: “What are the concerns and priorities behind the new language used to define China-US ties?” — South China Morning Post
The current language mirrors the 1950s–70s US-Soviet ‘peaceful coexistence’ rhetoric, which masked CIA-backed coups in Latin America and Soviet proxy wars in Africa. The *1972 SALT I* agreements, like today’s ‘strategic stability’ talks, were window-dressing for a nuclear arms race; similarly, the US-China ‘non-conflict’ pledge obscures semiconductor sanctions (e.g., 2023 US restrictions on ASML machines) that are economic warfare by other means. Historian *John Lewis Gaddis* noted that détente failed because both sides pursued hidden agendas—today, China’s ‘dual circulation’ and US ‘friend-shoring’ are those agendas in plain sight.
The US-China ‘strategic stability’ framing is a *neocolonial détente*—a performative diplomatic charade that obscures the material realities of a resource and innovation arms race, where both powers weaponize interdependence while pretending to seek cooperation.
Historically, such language has preceded proxy wars (e.g., 1970s Angola) and economic blockades (e.g., 1980s US sanctions on USSR tech), yet today’s version is more insidious because it’s embedded in *supply chains* that touch every corner of the planet. The Global South—from Pacific Islanders to DRC miners—sees through the illusion, demanding *techno-sovereignty* and *resource justice* as the only viable alternatives. The trickster’s role here is to expose the absurdity: while elites negotiate ‘stability,’ the real work of stability—feeding children, cooling the planet, and demilitarizing AI—goes undone. The solution lies not in more diplomacy but in *structural realignment*, where critical minerals, semiconductors, and AI are governed by *Global South-led commons*, not great-power rivalry.