It’s an astute question, and the answer, as is often the case in high-stakes international relations, is **nuanced**. While complete reconciliation remains elusive, recent engagements have seen *some* common ground identified, primarily focused on managing competition and preventing escalation rather than resolving fundamental disagreements.
Here’s a breakdown:
**1. The Primary “Trade Frenemies”: U.S. and China**
* **Recent Engagement:** The most prominent example was the **Biden-Xi summit in San Francisco (APEC) in November 2023**. While not *at* the White House, it was a direct high-level interaction between the two leaders on U.S. soil.
* **Common Ground Found:**
* **Re-establishment of Military-to-Military Communications:** This was a significant achievement aimed at reducing miscalculation and preventing accidental conflict.
* **Cooperation on Fentanyl Trafficking:** Both sides agreed to work together to curb the flow of fentanyl and its precursor chemicals, a major public health crisis in the U.S.
* **Commitment to Dialogue:** The leaders agreed to continue high-level exchanges, underscoring a mutual desire to manage the relationship despite deep differences.
* **Remaining “Frenemy” Tensions:**
* **Economic Competition:** Tariffs, export controls (especially on advanced semiconductors), intellectual property theft concerns, and state subsidies remain major flashpoints.
* **Geopolitical Issues:** Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, and China’s relationship with Russia are areas of fundamental disagreement.
* **”De-risking” vs. “Decoupling”:** While the U.S. emphasizes “de-risking” (reducing vulnerabilities), China often views this as a step towards “decoupling” its economy, fueling mistrust.
**2. Other “Trade Frenemies”: U.S. and the European Union**
* **Recent Engagement:** The **U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC)** holds regular meetings (the most recent was in Leuven, Belgium in December 2023, following an earlier one in the U.S.).
* **Common Ground Found:**
* **AI Governance:** Significant progress on coordinating approaches to artificial intelligence regulation and standards.
* **Critical Minerals & Supply Chains:** Collaboration on diversifying supply chains for critical raw materials and ensuring their resilience.
* **Export Controls:** Aligning strategies on export controls, particularly concerning Russia and sensitive technologies.
* **Climate & Green Tech:** Cooperation on clean energy transitions and avoiding a “race to the bottom” on subsidies, though tensions persist.
* **Remaining “Frenemy” Tensions:**
* **Steel and Aluminum Tariffs:** The U.S. steel tariffs imposed by the Trump administration remain a point of contention, despite ongoing efforts to find a resolution.
* **EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM):** The U.S. has expressed concerns about how this will impact American businesses.
* **Digital Services Taxes:** While some disputes have been paused, the underlying issues remain.
* **Agricultural Disputes:** Long-standing disagreements over subsidies and market access.
**Conclusion for Business Daily:**
While the U.S. and its “trade frenemies” — particularly China and the EU — have found some limited common ground on specific issues aimed at **managing competition and fostering stability**, fundamental economic and geopolitical rivalries persist. Businesses should view these moments of cooperation as positive steps in risk mitigation and the establishment of communication channels, rather than signals of a significant shift away from strategic competition. The need for companies to build resilient supply chains, navigate complex regulatory landscapes, and understand the geopolitical undercurrents remains paramount.
