Advertisement
The tension is not accidental. It reflects the limits of economic statecraft in an interconnected system. For American firms, China remains both a critical market and an integral part of global supply chains. Even after export controls and investment restrictions, the architecture of production – from components to assembly – continues to run through Chinese networks. The idea that these links could be quickly or cleanly severed has always been overstated.
Trump’s approach does not resolve this contradiction so much as acknowledge it. Bringing corporate leaders into the diplomatic orbit is less about softening competition than managing it. If a full decoupling is unrealistic, then the alternative is to shape the terms of interdependence rather than abandon it altogether. Engagement, in this sense, becomes a tool of influence – not a concession.
Advertisement


Don't Miss:
-
Israel’s PM says close to killing all architects of October 7 attack
-
German police kill escaped tiger, animal handler seriously injured
-
Around 10 ‘new’ victims in France’s Epstein investigation, Paris prosecutor says
-
South Korea weighs arbitration to avoid Samsung semiconductor plant strike
-
Hong Kong ramps up health checks for travellers from Africa after Ebola outbreak

Alleged cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme ‘goddess’ extradited from Thailand to face conspiracy charges in US
Douglas Farrar on Corporate Crime as a Major Political Issue in 2028
When China’s Appetite Reshaped a Region