Five years into a once-unthinkable trade war with China, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen chose her words carefully on April 20. In a wide-ranging speech, she reversed the terms of US engagement with China, prioritizing national-security concerns over economic considerations. That formally ended a 40-year emphasis on economics and trade as the anchor to the world’s most important bilateral relationship. Yellen’s stance on security was almost confrontational: “We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force trade-offs with our economic interests.”

Paradoxically, last year set a record for trade between China and the United States, notwithstanding hostilities. But while the internal dynamics for economic interaction and trade remain resilient for now, some analysts see clouds on the horizon.

Will the G20 foreign ministers meeting bring China-U.S. ties back on track? Only with continuous improvements in the overall bilateral atmosphere can any consensus on cooperation — and the stability of the world — be effectively guaranteed.

Removing import tariffs on Chinese goods could lower consumer prices in the U.S. amid inflation, dissipate the U.S.-China trade war, and support the administration’s overall strategy to strengthen its presence and influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

U.S. announcements and actions show some new approaches. In short, trade plays second fiddle to the White House’s strategic objectives — meaning that commercial interests will be sacrificed whenever Washington has need. Trade with China is viewed through a geopolitical lens.

The U.S. secretary of state restated and reinforced the Biden administration’s approach, proposing an “invest, align, compete” strategy for success over China. The speech revealed significant clues about the features of America’s basic strategic game ahead.

The United States has recklessly dismissed China’s efforts, even though many factors beyond China’s control have influenced its ability to fulfill its side of the deal. The agreement should be implemented jointly and thoughtfully, not by finger-pointing.

The Biden administration’s long-awaited strategic framework for trade with China may not be more effective than Trump’s. But it’s imperative to avoid harm and to push for new engagement consensus.

The unfortunate Japanese experience in boosting domestic demand and setting trade policy can be drawn upon today. Hopefully, China will not repeat the mistakes of Japan. Frictions between China and the United States can be addressed if they are willing to meet each other halfway.

The deadline for China to reach the Phase 1 Trade Agreement targets has come and gone, and China has officially fallen short of its commitments. The two countries now must decide how to move forward.