After years of mounting trade and technology pressures, the United States and China are no closer to ending their rivalry, but they appear keen to prevent it from spiraling out of control.
Chinese President Xi Jinping left Washington, Friday, September 25, after a three-day state visit and a summit with US President Donald Trump, which kept the trade calm in place and opened additional channels for dialogue, while the issues of “trade,” “technology,” “rare metals,” and “Taiwan” remained at the heart of the competition between them.
Washington and Beijing extended the trade truce between them for two months, with a limited result compared to the size of the outstanding issues. But the importance of the summit may lie in what also did not happen: no settlement of major differences, and no return to open escalation.
Have the United States and China begun to move from escalating mutual pressures to managing a long-term rivalry and preventing it from turning into a confrontation that is difficult to contain?
From the tariff war to the truce
Over the past years, the economic confrontation between Washington and Beijing has gone through successive stages of escalation and calm, during which both countries used tariffs, technological restrictions, and export measures as tools for pressure.
Ryan Haass, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at the American Brookings Institution, believes that the relationship is experiencing an “uncomfortable calm.” The two countries continue their competitive steps, but neither of them has the superiority that allows it to escalate economically without the other being able to respond.
This equation helps explain the path of the summit. The United States maintains important leverage in advanced technology and semiconductors, while China can respond through American weaknesses, most notably rare metals and supply chains.
Rare metals...Beijing paper
The two sides' possession of mutual pressure cards was clearly demonstrated during the trade confrontation. Chinese restrictions on exports of some rare earths and the permanent magnets made from them revealed the extent of American companies' dependence on supplies that are difficult to replace quickly.
That is why the issue was not marginal at the summit. The White House said the two countries will continue to address shortages in their supply chains for rare earths and other critical minerals with the goal of returning shipments to appropriate levels.
The issue reveals the limits of each party's ability to exert pressure. American tariffs and restrictions can harm China, but Beijing, in turn, possesses tools that can affect American industrial sectors.
Artificial intelligence enters the competition
Artificial intelligence represents another field that combines competition with attempts to reduce its risks. The United States and China are racing to develop the most advanced systems, chips, and infrastructure necessary for them, but at the same time they are beginning to open channels to deal with the risks that may accompany this race.
During the summit, Washington and Beijing agreed to start an ongoing bilateral dialogue on artificial intelligence to discuss its risks and benefits, as well as a communication channel to deal with incidents related to this technology. Before the summit, officials from the two countries had begun discussing this mechanism, an indication of a parallel attempt to reduce some of the risks of the technological race between them.
This dialogue does not mean a decline in the technological race between the two countries, but it reflects an attempt to find channels to deal with some of its risks, in parallel with the continued race for artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and advanced technologies.
The Iran war tests the management of rivalry
The Iran war imposed itself on the Trump-Xi talks, and the two presidents agreed, according to the official White House website, that Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon, and to refuse to impose fees on international waterways. This comes in light of Beijing's close relations with Tehran and its continued purchases of Iranian oil, while Washington seeks to push China to exert more pressure on Iran.
Grant Rumley and Elizabeth Dent, researchers at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy based in Washington, saw before the summit that the war gave Trump an opportunity to put pressure on Xi regarding China’s relations with Iran, especially its oil purchases, while Beijing, in turn, has an interest in stabilizing energy flows from the region.
The war reveals another aspect of the complexity of the relationship between the two countries: their positions on Iran are different, but the continued unrest in the Middle East and the threat to energy supplies does not serve Chinese economic interests. Therefore; This file becomes an additional example of a competition that does not disappear, but both parties are trying to prevent its repercussions from harming their broader interests.
Taiwan... the limits of appeasement
Taiwan remains one of the most prominent files that reveal the limits of any rapprochement between Washington and Beijing. China considers the island part of its territory, while the United States maintains informal relations with Taipei and continues to support its defense capabilities.
The results of the summit did not show a settlement of this dispute. This is why “Taiwan” differs from files such as “fees” or “commercial purchases,” where specific concessions can be reached or a truce can be extended.
Buy time
Edgard Kagan, a researcher at the US Center for Strategic and International Studies based in Washington, said before the summit that Trump and Xi want to reduce tension and achieve more stability in the relationship, despite the lack of trust between officials of the two countries. He pointed out that both presidents believe that time is working in their country's interest. Trump is betting on American progress in artificial intelligence and reducing dependence on Chinese metals, while Xi believes that the United States is going through a period of decline.
From the Chinese side, Wu Xinbo, Dean of the Institute of International Studies and Director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, believes that relations between the two countries are heading towards a new, more stable phase. He says that achieving “strategic stability” requires managing competition and differences effectively, in parallel with enhancing cooperation in areas where the interests of both parties intersect.
From this perspective, the continuation of the calm gives the two sides time to strengthen their positions in the competition instead of entering into a new round of escalation. The United States continues its attempts to reduce its dependence on China in sensitive sectors, while Beijing works to enhance its technological and industrial capabilities.
At the same time, the two countries are trying to keep the channels of dialogue open on trade, investment, and artificial intelligence issues, allowing competition to continue without every point of disagreement turning into a new round of escalation.
Truce or new rules?
One summit is not enough to say that Washington and Beijing have established new rules for their competition. Disagreements over the “trade,” “technology,” “minerals,” and “Taiwan” files still exist, and the trade truce itself is temporary.
But the summit showed that competition no longer necessarily means continuous escalation. In addition to pressure tools, the two parties are working to build channels that allow managing some disputes and preventing their expansion.
This may be the most important significance of the summit: the United States and China are not moving towards ending their rivalry, but rather may be coexisting with it for a long time, while each of them is trying to strengthen its strengths and reduce its weaknesses without pushing the relationship into a confrontation that neither of them wants.
After days of military movements by the opposition Tigray Liberation Front and battles with the Ethiopian federal government, there were regional and international calls to stop the unrest and return to the path of dialogue.
These calls, issued by Qatar, the Emirates, Djibouti, the United States, and the European and African Unions, experts in African affairs who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat believe that they may enhance the current mediation to return the parties to the 2022 agreement, or new mediation, with the presence of a broader coalition from the front that needs a new expanded agreement.
The battles between the government and the Tigray Front continue for the fifth day, according to Ethiopian media. The “Tigray forces” seized 3 airports in the region, and launched attacks in the Afar and Amhara regions in cooperation with their allies there, last week, in the most dangerous escalation since the devastating war that took place between 2020 and 2022 against the federal government forces.
Qatar condemned the “military escalation against the Ethiopian federal forces,” affirming its “full support for all efforts aimed at reducing tension in Ethiopia.” On Sunday, Djibouti also called for reducing the escalation in Ethiopia and settling disputes through dialogue.
Last Friday, the UAE called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, a reduction in escalation, and a commitment to the Pretoria Peace Agreement, renewing its support for all efforts aimed at achieving lasting peace and stability in Ethiopia.
Also, the African Union called in a statement during the past hours for calm, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, also called for an immediate reduction in tensions, reiterating in a statement its support for the efforts of the African Union, including those made by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, aimed at reducing tensions and re-engaging the parties in the talks in good faith under the framework of the Pretoria Agreement.
Finally, the European Union called for an immediate reduction of the escalation in northern Ethiopia, stressing its continued support for the efforts to reduce the escalation, the mediation process led by the African Union, and the meaningful dialogue between the parties.
Ethiopian political analyst Abdel Shakur Abdel Samad believes that these intense positions want to return to the negotiating table and activate the Pretoria Agreement, stressing that returning to the understandings and implementing the agreement is in the interest of the Ethiopian government. It is not interested in being drawn into a war of attrition sought by certain parties, and commitment to the Pretoria path represents the highest interest of Ethiopia and all countries of the region.
The expert in African affairs, Abdel Moneim Abu Idris, points out that the Tigray Front has previously welcomed any peace steps, in addition to the fact that these calls recognize the importance of Ethiopia’s stability for security in the region. Abu Idris believes that this accelerated international movement requires a new equation greater than the 2022 Pretoria Agreement due to the entry of new actors into the field with the formation of the new armed coalition.
A few days ago, 7 groups opposed to the federal government in different regions of the country, including the Tigray People's Liberation Front, the Fano militia in Amhara, and the Oromo Liberation Army, announced an alliance aimed at overthrowing the ruling authority in Addis Ababa.
The Tigray People's Liberation Front previously took power in 1991 and ruled Ethiopia for 3 decades before Abiy Ahmed marginalized it when he assumed the prime ministership in 2018. What contributed to the outbreak of civil war.
Although the “Pretoria Peace Agreement” in 2022 ended that war and established a cautious calm, the clashes renewed in late 2025. The federal government at that time launched drone strikes on Tigray and mobilized its forces on the borders of the region, amid accusations from both sides of violating the agreement.
Abu Idris believes that any mediation, regardless of the party that carries it out, if it is not accompanied by an internal will that wants to turn the page on the conflicts in the country, will not achieve complete success. The new mediation may succeed in reaching a temporary truce, but it could collapse at any time.
Regarding the extent of the response of field leaders within the opposition front, Abdel Samad explained that the military, economic and political reality within the Tigray region and the current balance of power do not give these parties the option of refusal. Which will eventually force it to accept the ongoing efforts to return to the agreement.
