While such a characterization ignores fundamental differences between now and then, the combination of China’s rising technological and economic might, along with obvious differences in governance, values, and philosophies does suggest a period of intensifying competition in US China relations, if not outright US China rivalry.

This heightened sense of competition breeds a more guarded approach to economic integration between the countries. Increased levels of trade and FDI, especially in strategic sectors, are no longer uniformly viewed as benign or desirable – from either country’s perspective, leading some to argue that we could be heading towards a decoupling of global value chains

Towards a global trade war?

US China relations are not the only ones under strain as their trade relationships taking on more overt geopolitical overtones.

Historical tensions and antipathies are now playing out in Japan Korea trade. Each country has slapped trade restrictions on the other, ostensibly due to security concerns. The more proximate cause however was a South Korean court decision which stirred up still-festering wounds from Japan’s colonial era. In any case, geopolitical issues are now driving a sharp deterioration in Japan Korea trade, which has to date been a large and mutually beneficial trade and investment relationship.

Meanwhile, in the Western Hemisphere, the US recently threatened to implement punitive tariffs on Mexico on the basis of entirely non-trade-related geopolitical issues: dissatisfaction with Mexico’s migration policies.

In Southeast Asia, products and services which include or reference the politically sensitive “nine-dash-line” map (which takes an expansive view of China’s territorial claims) are being restricted, modified, or in some cases prohibited. The resulting trade distortions are being felt in sectors ranging from motor vehicles with navigation apps to motion pictures.

Moving forward, the impact of geopolitical issues on trade will likely intensify. For instance, an increasing number of third countries will find themselves drawn into the tensions of the US China relations whether they wish to be or not.

Consider article 32.10 of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which essentially says that if one of the partners enters into an FTA with a “non-market economy” the other two parties can abrogate the trilateral deal and default to a bilateral agreement. The implications of this provision are crystal clear. Although the word “China” does not appear, it is clearly directed towards China and is designed to give Canada or Mexico reason to pause before they consider pursuing a China trade agreement. Perhaps more importantly, US officials have been entirely open about their intention that this provision serve as a template for inclusion in future trade agreements.

The broader geopolitical issues that permeate US China relations are thereby being explicitly inserted into bilateral or regional trade agreements the US pursues with third countries.

Trade negotiations and trade policy deliberations are now being influenced by geopolitical risk to an extent we have rarely seen before.

WTO rules need reform

WTO rules unfortunately do not shed much light on how to manage the complexities of trade, geopolitical issues, and security.

While WTO rules do attempt to nominally deal with trade actions taken on the basis of national security, these provisions are glaringly insufficient.

GATT Article XXI(b)(iii) permits a WTO Member to take any action “which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.”

The remarkable broadness of this provision gives license to member economies to essentially do what they deem appropriate under the rubric of national security strategy. This might have been a workable approach in previous times, when trust and restraint were higher, but it is entirely inadequate in today’s world.

Russia WTO national security case signals initial progress on clarifying WTO rules

A WTO Dispute Settlement ruling in April 2019 marks the first potential, tentative step towards greater clarity on WTO rules for trade and security. Ukraine had brought the case against Russia, arguing that in the aftermath of Russia’s 2014 military intervention, Russia had contravened WTO rules by restricting Ukraine’s access to trade routes.

In its defense, Russia argued that it was justified in taking these steps under the national security provisions contained in GATT Article XXI. The WTO Dispute Settlement Panel however rejected Russia’s argument, in particular its claim that the national security provisions were “self-judging”.

This was the first time that the national security exception had been invoked or probed, and as such is the first attempt to flesh-out exactly what it means. But we still have a long way to go. And in the meantime, Pandora’s box has been opened, and trade actions will continue to be taken on the basis of national security concerns that are oftentimes flimsy at best.

Needed: More transparency and better WTO rules

Trade policy was undeniably simpler when national security and geopolitical issues were largely relegated to the background. In adjusting to the new realities, a couple of principles might be helpful.