How China and the US Perceive Relationships Differently

I'm not a geopolitical senior fellow, but maybe my anthropological background studying China can provide some interesting thoughts about Trump's recent decisions regarding countries like Mexico, Canada, and China.

I want to share a little about China and how a specific difference between Western and non-Western thinking can provide different ways to deal with this kind of problem.

Trump is certainly creating an atmosphere of conflict with his neighbors and China, leading them to face tougher trade conditions. However, Beijing's readiness is not only a geopolitical decision, but also a way to help us understand its perspective on relationships.

China's desire is, of course, to improve its influence, and that is not a problem here—US desires the same. However, the way both China and the US think about it differs. The main difference is how they perceive relationships.

When you talk about non-Western countries, you need to understand that there are cultural differences between them. And of course, I'm talking about culture in the anthropological sense—a way in which different social contexts interpret the meaning of things. Culture here is not about music, food, etc.

Western societies were built on individualistic thinking, while others were not. Even countries like Brazil, which is not a Western country but has been influenced by the West for at least the last 130 years, do not express individualism as strongly as the US or other European countries.

It is a deep discussion that we can’t go too far into here, but in the context of the trade war between the US and China, individualism shapes the understanding of relationships and, more importantly, the meaning of the Other.

In a collective society, the sense of individuality is embedded in relationships, and the idea of "winning" is not only about defeating the Other but also about how their relationship will be. If you understand that, in some aspects, you need the Other and vice versa, the intelligent and strategic approach is to think about the relationship, not just the victory.

Of course, this is not enough to relieve tensions between countries, but it helps us better understand the reasoning behind geopolitical decisions.

In this context, delaying tariffs, for example, can have different meanings. An individualistic perspective does not want to lose the war, but from a collective perspective, it can contribute to a better relationship—not because it is seen as a sign of goodwill, but because it is a more intelligent strategy.

If individualistic thinking takes a more hardline approach—where the Other is always seen as a potential enemy—collective thinking is more relational and, in the beginning, does not immediately react harshly. However, on the other hand, we also need to understand that relationships have their own dynamics, and sometimes the situation will become tense. The point here is the difference in thought processes behind geopolitical decisions, especially between Western and non-Western countries.

Does this mean one approach is good, and the other is bad? Not necessarily. As I said, all relationships are dynamic, and situations can change, shifting our judgment. Everything depends on a country’s aims and its countermeasures.

Trump’s thinking represents Western individualism and, because of that, he is more forceful against countries that, in his view, are enemies. So, uncertainties linger, along with an unpredictable geopolitical dynamic.

China has a positive trade surplus and the patience to step up negotiations with an "angry tiger." But the real question is: how much bandwidth do the other "enemy" countries have to stomach it?

---

For further insights, I recommend this article by Zhao Ziwen, which sparked my thoughts on this topic: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3297350/chinas-trade-moves-against-us-show-its-ready-fight-back-willing-make-deal?module=top_story&pgtype=section