To strengthen its position regarding China, the United States, under Trump, is restoring relations with allies. Conversation with Francesco Sisci.
To counter the Chinese monopoly, the US State Department in Washington recently promoted an agreement with the European Union, Japan, and Mexico on rare earths. After a year of unilateralism, does the Trump administration suddenly appear to have rediscovered the strategic importance of relying on friendly states and allies? And if so, why?
Before the current American administration began, there was a trend in Washington urging greater multinational commitment and alliances to confront China. President Donald Trump, trusting in the strength of the American economy, initially preferred a unilateral approach. In fact, he treated all trading partners the same way—whether they were allies or not. Perhaps the idea was also to send a message to China that trade disputes with America were neither unique nor special.
In reality, this approach eroded relations with allies, fueled anti-American sentiments even among the US’s longstanding and most faithful friends, yet it did not bend China. In fact, Beijing managed to bring Washington into its game. This is because Beijing decided to fully deploy a powerful pressure tool: its near-monopoly on processed rare earths, hinting at an almost equally important monopoly over many processed primary minerals. Additionally, China demonstrated a competitive advantage—at least for now—in terms of quality-price ratio for many capital goods and commercial products.
This reality seems to have prompted a change of mind in America, which now seeks a relationship with allies who are on the same boat regarding China’s advantage. China will not be unprepared for this. In fact, Beijing originally thought this would be the game. However, this certainly puts a different spin on the April summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. This demonstrates that Trump is not ideological. When faced with obstacles, he changes his mind. Surely, this also shows that engaging with China requires deep, comprehensive thought and not being swept away by the first appealing idea that comes along.
In this new context, the European Union has been considered a full-fledged political interlocutor. Could this foreshadow a more constructive attitude from the State Department and Trump towards the EU as such?
The EU’s problem with America goes beyond Trump. European countries, individually and as a union, are neither proactive regarding foreign policy issues that directly concern them—such as Russia or the Middle East—nor regarding long- to medium-term issues that affect everyone, such as Asia and China. Europe must think not only of itself but also about what it can and must do in relation to Russia, the Middle East, and Asia. If it cannot be proactive in initiatives and proposals, then American disillusionment with Europe becomes almost inevitable. In this disillusionment, the EU is the primary victim.
America must engage with the European Union and then with individual states. The EU cannot simply act as an active substitute for individual countries—in fact, it often presents itself as an alternative to, or antagonist of, the United States. In this dynamic, it becomes easy for Americans to consider simplifying the issue—talking only with individual states and dismissing the union altogether. This applies beyond the ideological preferences of this or that president. It’s right for the EU to consider greater economic coordination, improved efficiency, and a strengthened internal market. But today, there is an even greater need for a proactive and precise European policy, alongside America, on global scenarios.
In its initial phase and throughout its significant historical transitions, the EU has been promoted and expanded with American support. The EU can only consolidate through a process conceived jointly with America—not against it. Otherwise, without America, the EU ceases to exist—whether Trump is in office or not. This is the reality, not the illusion of abstract ideas.
From this side of the Atlantic, following the example of Canada and the United Kingdom, each country is trying to establish bilateral relations with Beijing individually. Do you notice any particular myopia in these behaviors?
These behaviors are tactical rather than strategic. I see no genuine interest from Canada or the UK in changing their political and military alliances. More likely, they are sending a warning to the United States: “Dear America, if we don’t collaborate, then we should mind our own business with China.” The aim of this threat, it seems, is still to restore a healthier relationship with the US. I believe China also knows this and does not harbor any illusions.
It’s always difficult to align the diverse national interests of individual countries concerning China. However, would you consider it useful for Europe to develop a common platform to negotiate more effectively with Beijing? And with what priorities?
I believe there is a fundamental issue that everyone has overlooked—except China. The market is extremely important; liberal economics defeated the Soviet empire in the first Cold War, but politics remains dominant. The market functions only if there is an authority to regulate and oversee the balances. If no one controls the calibration of the scales, eventually the market stops functioning properly. If my kilogram is your 900 grams, a positive exchange turns into a dispute. I believe that in the early 1990s, the entire West forgot this basic rule of the market: politics.
China has never forgotten politics. The US pushed for economic reforms in China, not political ones, for various reasons, and that’s where we are today. It’s not a bad place overall, provided we know it. To restore the functioning of the market, differences between local markets—some open, some closed—and various currencies—some free-floating, some not—must be managed through politics. This is a common point among all Western countries: while they have benefited from market economics and expanded those benefits worldwide, lifting billions out of poverty in just a few decades, they have also realized that without politics, the market cannot sustain itself.
To prevent this current situation from slipping into war, a profound political approach must precede the purely commercial one. In this sense, Europe has an existential interest—both as individual countries and as a union—in initiating a dialogue with the United States, China, and other countries in Asia, the Americas, and around the world about the political rules of the market. It’s an extremely sensitive but vital issue: without politics and institutions, there is no market, only war.
Will Xi Jinping’s purges of military and industrial leadership lead to a reduction in China’s military buildup, or will China continue its “power politics”?
I believe Xi Jinping’s power politics will continue, and so will the arms buildup. The issue of corruption means that many funds allocated to defense and training were stolen. Today, if not already restored, these funds should be returned to their original destinations. We shall have a situation where the Chinese military gets more value for the money spent, more bang for bucks.
What is currently missing—and we don’t know for how long— is military leadership. The new generals will need to become aware of their new roles and the new way of managing the army. How long it will take for this to reach a new equilibrium of efficiency remains uncertain. That said, while in the very short term we can afford to be calm, in the medium- to long-term, there’s reason to be more vigilant.
What do the boos directed at Vance during the Olympics mean?
The boos for US Vice President JD Vance during the opening of the Winter Olympics are a sign that cannot be ignored. In recent years, American radicals have supported and encouraged European far-right movements, but the cultural DNA of much of this far right is anti-American. For example, when controversy arose over Greenland, these parties—very dear to Washington—did not hesitate to protest against the US.
On the other hand, the venomous polemics between the US administration and European governments have irritated and poisoned transatlantic relations, especially with traditionally pro-American parties. The transatlantic relationship is strained; thus, it’s unclear whom America should rely on in Europe to sustain the alliance, or even the relationship. In theory, this cooling could open a door to China, but China’s support for Russia makes any political rapprochement with Europe extremely difficult. Today, a new rare-earth agreement between allied countries could be a first step toward restoring a more normal transatlantic relationship.
This should involve rebuilding ties with traditional parties and scrutinizing those with far-right parties. Essentially, it’s about re-establishing a cultural transatlantic link—one that recognizes the fractures of the past but aims to heal and build on them.
(a translation of an article on Startmag published on https://www.startmag.it/mondo/stati-uniti-trump-cina-unione-europea-sisci/)
