Friction is inevitable for two powers both at the nascent stage of a new era; after all, this era is unprecedented in history.

There are three important elements.

The conclusion of the USMCA on September 10 revealed a few hidden surprises, including Article 32.10, the “non-market clause” demanded by the U.S. This provision is egregious, unprecedented, and likely to be repeated by the U.S. in future negotiations with other trading partners.

China stands for multilateralism, and against Trumpism.

China's central bank announced measures to lower financing costs and spur growth amid concerns over the country's economy.

Though trade diversions from the Sino-American trade war have benefited some Asian nations, much of the region, so far, has greeted it with trepidation. There is increasing worry about the unintended consequences not only for regional trade linkages, where China plays a pivotal role, but also the decades-long cold peace in Asia, which is looking increasingly fragile.

It would not be hard for Beijing to offset a loss of demand in a trade war with the US.

As the international community is becoming more aware of the threat the U.S.-Sino trade war poses to global growth, what was originally a bilateral tariff conflict is spreading across regions.

Why have the US tariffs had the opposite effect to the one intended?

In light of growing uncertainty toward the neoliberal economic infrastructure, Chinese economic reforms could defuse the tension threatening this system.