In diplomatic circles, brevity is key. President Donald Trump's recent, concise Truth Social post might well have signaled his strategy for U.S.-China relations, pleasing a Beijing keen on its image, yet unsettling American allies apprehensive about China's growing international influence.
TL;DR
- President Trump's mention of "G2" grants China a status it has long pursued, pleasing Beijing.
- The G2 concept implies China and the U.S. are peers, a notion that unsettles American allies.
- China historically opposed "containment" and seeks to expand its global influence.
- Trump's use of G2 may lead to anxiety among allies fearing disadvantageous deals with China.
“The G2 WILL BE CONVENING SHORTLY!” Trump wrote moments before he headed into a widely watched summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Oct. 30 in South Korea, reviving a phrase that dates to the early 2000s but had been rejected by Washington for at least the past decade — including during Trump’s first term.
The concept of G2, or Group of Two, was initially put forth by American economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005, emphasizing the crucial need for the world's two largest economies to engage in dialogue. This term has since evolved to signify a balance of power between these two countries, a status Beijing has persistently sought as it transitioned from a regional force to a significant global entity.
But that equilibrium, and how China might approach it, stirs fears among U.S. Allies and partners.
“The G2 concept implies that China and the United States are peers on the global stage and their positions should be given equal weight,” said Neil Thomas, a fellow on Chinese politics at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
The former president's revival of this previously dismissed phrase occurs as analysts and observers, including advisors in Beijing, attempt to understand his administration's evolving China policy, which remains undefined amidst a more assertive Chinese government.
It’s spreading
To grasp the term's importance outside of diplomatic discussions, one must examine China's history.
Since the early 20th century, and even prior to its communist regime's establishment, China opposed Western efforts to “contain” it. Following World War II, the “containment policy” emerged as a frequent term to characterize a tactic that the Chinese administration perceived as an institutionalized method of maintaining its disempowerment and subordinate position.
During the early 2000s, a significant portion of China's diplomatic efforts focused on dismantling this cornerstone of the global system. Even now, China's celebrated “Belt and Road” initiative aims to expand Chinese sway and, to some extent, counter what was formerly termed containment.
On a weekend post, Trump described his “G2 meeting with President Xi of China” as a success for both nations, stating: “This meeting will lead to everlasting peace and success. God bless both China and the USA!”. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the phrase in an X update following his he spoke with China's Defense Minister Dong Jun.
Mira Rapp-Hooper, who previously served in the Biden administration, cautioned that Trump's employment of the phrase will probably result in “provoked significant anxiety in allied capitals, where allies fear that the Trump administration will cut deals with China that may leave them at a disadvantage.”
Bergsten expressed satisfaction with the term's recent resurgence, stating his intention was never for the G2 to supersede other international bodies or multilateral groups, like the G7 or G20, but rather to collaborate “the necessary cooperation between the two big superpowers.”
“It does not mean the U.S. And China telling the rest of the world what to do, or trying to dictate to the rest of the world,” he said.
“I think (Trump) was using it as shorthand for the two biggest, most important economies getting together to talk about the whole range of global economic issues,” Bergsten told The Associated Press on Friday. “So it really, it is the vision that I had 20 years ago when I proposed the concept.”
China reacts to the new G2
Chinese commentators immediately picked up on Trump’s use of G2 — and somewhat triumphally.
“Trump’s G2, to some extent, is that the U.S. Has accepted the reality that it no longer has the unipolar position but wants to build a bipolar world with China,” commented Housha Yueguang, a popular blog account known for its nationalist leanings. “It means Europe is no longer important, let alone Japan or India.”
The day after Trump posted the remark, a journalist for an Indian news service asked at a Chinese Foreign Ministry daily briefing whether the two countries were working for the creation of a G2 group, which the journalist said could change the world order.
Guo Jiakun, a ministry spokesperson, stated that both nations “can jointly shoulder our responsibilities as major countries.” Guo followed Beijing's stance that the country would “continue to practice true multilateralism” and “work for an equal and orderly multipolar world.”
Zhao Minghao, a Chinese scholar focusing on China-U.S. Relations, stated that the new G2 “does not mean China and the U.S. Co-ruling the world,” doesn't signify that cooperation will supplant competition in their bilateral dealings.
“It means the two countries will again examine the importance of the China-U.S. Relations and be willing to conduct more communications and coordination,” Zhao wrote in an article published on the Hong Kong news site hk01.com.
Washington has rejected the term in the past
Twenty years ago, when China's economic ascendancy was accelerating, Bergsten put forth the idea that it was crucial for the two nations, which he foresaw becoming the sole economic titans, to convene to “get any kind of progress on international economic issues.”
For several years, the concept was debated and followed, but it lost momentum as China and the United States grew apart following the economic downturn.
Rapp-Hooper, formerly the senior director for East Asia and Oceania within the Biden administration's National Security Council, is currently a partner at The Asia Group. She noted that the phrase gained traction during the initial years of the Obama administration. According to her, it originated with several high-ranking officials who believed the two nations ought to shape their relationship via collaboration on worldwide challenges.
She stated that while China adopted the phrase, Washington began to dismiss it because it suggested that the U.S. And China would unilaterally make significant international decisions, excluding other U.S. Allies.
“It is a term that plays very poorly in countries like Japan, Australia and India,” Rapp-Hooper said. “They hear the United States deferring to Chinese preferences in Asia, potentially at a cost to their interest.”
Kurt Campbell, deputy secretary of state in the Biden administration, said there were “real anxieties in Asia about the way the actual G2 was manifested.”
Campbell, who now chairs The Asia Group, stated that it wasn't solely the idea of nations making choices impacting the region. “It was how China used the concept or the idea of it to make other surrounding nations feel insecure.”
It is a concept, he said, that “has been powerfully delegitimized.”