US-China strategic competition to keep escalating as world watches on, Rudd says

South China Morning Post | Lucy Quaggin

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd warned at Harvard University on Friday that strategic competition between the United States and China is expanding across military, economic, technological, and ideological domains. His assessment followed a September summit in Washington between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump.

Rivalry remains intense despite personal diplomatic overtures. To manage trade tensions, Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent negotiated an extension of the Busan trade truce from November 10, 2026, to January 10, 2027. Alongside targeted tariff reductions, both nations pledged government-to-government dialogue on artificial intelligence and crisis communication mechanisms to avoid Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap. Beijing favors presidential diplomacy to prevent disruption prior to the ruling Communist Party’s 21st Party Congress. The two leaders are scheduled to meet twice more at the Shenzhen APEC summit and the Miami G20 gathering, marking four face-to-face encounters in a single year.

Comment

Leader-level summitry across Shenzhen and Miami functions as a centralised command mechanism designed to regulate strategic competition. By concentrating crisis prevention directly within executive channels, Washington and Beijing bypass sluggish institutional frameworks. This top-down control allows both states to pursue aggressive artificial intelligence development while insulating sensitive domestic political events like the 21st Party Congress from unexpected shocks.

Another consequence of this top-heavy framework is the operational fragility it creates for theater-level commanders. Tactical deconfliction mechanisms, such as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, risk being sidelined when operational communication is subordinated to presidential schedules. Consequently, localized friction in the South China Sea could outpace the deliberate response cycle of leader-level diplomatic channels.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which carries greater risk in managing bilateral friction — over-reliance on top-down presidential summitry or the subordination of tactical deconfliction channels like the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement?

The pattern suggests that relying on presidential summitry creates systemic vulnerability during sudden operational crises. While top-level meetings establish overarching policy bounds, they cannot replace real-time theater deconfliction when tactical assets interact in contested airspace or maritime domains. Consequently, the subordination of mechanisms like the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement heightens the risk of rapid miscalculation before executive channels can intervene.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here