Is China versus the United States the updated version of Behemoth versus Leviathan?

By: Ricardo Israel - 03/11/2025

Behemoth is a gigantic biblical beast from the Book of Job, mentioned only once. It is a monster that has existed since the beginning of creation and can only be destroyed by God. Its rival is Leviathan, which some consider its counterpart. If Behemoth is of the land, Leviathan is of the sea. Metaphorically, both are still used in non-religious contexts to refer to extremely gigantic and powerful entities.

When I was a political science student, Ernesto Laclau frequently referred to them to emphasize an argument while guiding my doctoral thesis, especially regarding authors who discussed the modern state from a liberal perspective. I was reminded of them in connection with the meeting between Trump and Xi in South Korea, the true summit that took place on the sidelines of the APEC annual meeting, the Asia-Pacific forum that accounts for more than 50% of international trade and 60% of global GDP. Everything indicates to me that we witnessed the first act of the new structure that will set the rules of global economic exchange, in the same way that the US and the former USSR did with the power structure in the process known as détente in the last century. Furthermore, they are similar in that it was also a negotiation between two and no more than two, and where Europe was already as irrelevant then as it is now.

The US and China appear to be initiating a geopolitical negotiation process—a process that is both political and economic—where, in the context of tariffs, rules will be established to replace the certainties that are disappearing in international trade. Given the power of both countries, the entire world will undoubtedly end up accepting them. It is a process with no guaranteed outcome, but, given its complexity, if this first general negotiation between two giants, conducted as equals, is successful, the agreement reached will represent the new rules for the entire world.

If anything sums up what Trump is doing, it's modifying that American creation that was the set of rules that gave rise to the post-World War II world, politically in conjunction with Moscow, but economically, it was more of an independent creation, as was the architecture of international organizations headed by the now much-criticized UN, which, moreover, has not played any role, not even a minimal one, for what it was created for, that is, the pursuit of peace, whether this time in the Middle East or in the invasion of Ukraine, and it will play even less in the restructuring of the world economy that the US is currently promoting from the White House.

Indeed, the meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping is undoubtedly the most important so far in 2025, and since they had not met since 2019, it had an immediate effect on reducing tensions, on the behavior of the markets, and perhaps even more importantly, on the price of gold falling, that traditional refuge when there is a smell of worsening.

In military terms, it wasn't a meeting for a Peace Treaty, nor even for a Ceasefire; it wasn't necessary. It had only been convened, and they were meeting for a truce, more than fulfilling its purpose. It was a true Summit, one of the old-fashioned kind, when the term was reserved during the Cold War for meetings between the President of the United States and the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, unlike later, when the name lost its meaning and was used for any meeting of any significance.

The meetings were also prepared with the care that such gatherings once deserved. First, the technical teams contacted each other to separate what could be agreed upon from what simply could not, and postponed any points of disagreement. Then, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China's International Trade Representative Li Chenggang met on the Sunday before the summit, in what was the fifth round of talks since April, following the last meeting in Madrid. They agreed that the trade war between the two powers was becoming a simple battle, as the intense meetings produced a breakthrough: the US would not implement the latest 100% tariff increase announced by President Trump, while China agreed to resume soybean imports and suspend restrictions on mineral exports for one year. The issue of rare earth elements was the most important condition set by Washington for the summit to take place.

Meanwhile, two days later, the US and China revived diplomatic dialogue days before the meeting between the top leaders, as foreign ministers Marco Rubio and Wang Yi held a telephone conversation to agree to meet halfway between their positions, and that further progress would be made on the next steps.

For their part, Trump and Xi arrived at a favorable political moment for both, given that Trump had strengthened his international standing after the ceasefire achieved in Gaza, which is not peace, but is an achievement as important as the return of the hostages alive, something no one else could have been in a position to achieve, restoring the US to its role as an indispensable power, while Xi held his meeting of the real power in China, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, where the outcome belied that he was in trouble, and on the contrary, he once again resorted to arresting and prosecuting his internal opposition, accusing other leaders of “corruption”, which in Beijing can lead to a firing squad.

In any case, the result achieved—the first-ever genuine general negotiation process—should be valued for its significance as the opening of a new chapter, the outcome of which is by no means guaranteed, given that other truces have crumbled, both this year and in 2024, due to the mutual distrust of each other's intentions, now prevalent among decision-makers in both capitals. In fact, the last major agreement signed between the two leaders was a so-called "phase one" trade deal in 2020, but the Office of the United States Trade Representative recently announced an investigation into alleged non-compliance by China.

This is the beginning of what appears to be a true negotiation between equals, which, due to its magnitude, is taking place for the first time between the two powers. This is because when this relationship began in 1972 with the visit that the Nixon-Kissinger duo made to the counterpart of Mao and Zhou Enlai, geopolitical reasons predominated exclusively, since what the US was interested in was that after the chaos self-inflicted by the Cultural Revolution, China would not fall into the hands of the then powerful Soviet Union and as an incentive, China was offered its integration into the world market.

The results are plain to see. A transformation perhaps only comparable to the first Industrial Revolution, which it may have even surpassed in the number of people lifted out of poverty. However, there was never a complete overhaul in the following decades; we merely witnessed China's impressive growth, and when negotiations did take place, it was for partial and limited objectives. Furthermore, and this has much to do with the sense of abuse prevalent in the US, until Trump's first term, China enjoyed privileges created for the developing world, such as the most-favored-nation clause, even after it had become the world's factory.

Today, China has prepared itself to challenge for the title of 21st-century superpower, and we know for certain that this is its goal, not only because I believe there is a date set for its proclamation—October 1, 2049, the centenary of the founding of the People's Republic by Mao—but also because history books show that it is meticulously emulating what the U.S. did to the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century to dethrone it, including strengthening its armed forces, starting with the navy, investing in strategic minerals and infrastructure worldwide, among other actions. It still has a way to go, but in recent decades the gap has narrowed, year after year.

The current revision of post-World War II agreements being pushed by the White House prominently features a review of the rules governing international trade, rules that have proven so favorable to China. In other words, the US is entering an environment that remained largely unchanged despite the collapse of the USSR, since, unlike China, the USSR's strength lay in military power and political dominance, while it remained a marginal player in the global economy.

The US resorted to the mechanism of tariffs to produce a shock treatment, which has worked so far, since practically no country has wanted to give up the US market and in general they have sought to adapt to a reality where, in addition, as also for China, there have been frequent changes of opinion and a high degree of personalization of the decisions, on the part of President Trump.

This has worked, for example, with Europe, where the leadership of the European Union quickly accepted Trump's demands, but not with China, which has won the negotiation that has now been legitimized, since it has successfully resisted the containment that was imposed on it in the image and likeness of what was done with the USSR, but the difference was marked by China's economic power, and what the pandemic already demonstrated, its role in the supply chain.

This is how China not only resisted the imposition of sanctions, but also emerged with its own, demonstrating something that characterized the US in its process of becoming a superpower, for example, what has just been recognized, the Chinese purchasing power, measurable in the case of soybeans, and the possibility of blackmailing the whole world with its virtual monopoly of rare earths, vital for new technologies as well as for the most advanced weaponry.

In any case, this is an area where, unlike the rules being modified in international trade, the geopolitical issue has an importance that surpasses the strictly economic or financial, since what is at stake is nothing less than the dispute to be or remain the main superpower of the 21st century, a position that is played out in international trade as well as in Artificial Intelligence (AI), since it obeys motivations that are still poorly understood today, such as the American desire to once again be decisive in consumer goods industries through the return of those that left the country, as well as in welcoming foreign investment and in once again having an important part of the value chain in its territory.

This, I believe, is where many economists who are criticizing Washington's decisions are going wrong. Besides underestimating the attractiveness of the US market, they fail to understand the existence of a national security component that exists to maintain the strength of the dollar, a key element for the international power of what is still a superpower that is investing heavily in the use of modern nuclear power plants after abandoning this path years ago, due to the need to have a lot of clean energy soon for the effects of AI. So much so that even Bill Gates surprised everyone by suddenly changing his mind on the subject, because Microsoft aspires to be a major player in this new technology.

If an agreement is reached in these negotiations, we will witness a geopolitical division of the world equivalent to that of the last century, only this time the distribution of spheres of influence will also take the form of a new division of labor. As before, this will give rise to new international norms to replace those that are disappearing. The reason for this is that, due to the economic power of both superpowers, all other nations will have to adapt to a new reality.

Even in preparation for the staging that took place in South Korea, both China and the US had previously hardened their stakes, where the maximum provocation was the Chinese announcement that it would not authorize the export of rare earths to the US and the American response of up to doubling tariffs in some cases, to quickly de-escalate, also applying old tactics, since we at least know of their use by the Romans.

In my opinion, the advantage still lies with the US, as it is less dependent on international trade and the other country's market, unlike China, where exports remain the basis not only of its power, but also of how improving the quality of life of its population maintains the social contract within its borders. Furthermore, the strength of the dollar makes a difference, since the Chinese currency simply is not and has never been a factor of economic exchange, just as China is not a financial powerhouse, unlike its industrial strength.

Nothing guarantees success, but given the lack of alternatives, everything points in that direction. In fact, even the rare earth element issue is more complicated than it initially appears, considering the many years the US wasted while China monopolized not only the market but, above all, the power, and so far, without any self-criticism or political accountability in Washington.

To begin with, what the US is doing will take time, since all mining projects are long-term, and the rare earth production process itself is highly polluting, so there will surely be environmental complaints. In fact, several Western companies send their materials to China for processing. Therefore, geopolitical pressures will undoubtedly have to modify aspects of the green legislation that currently prevails in the West.

In this regard, I personally find it striking that the US is seeking a solution to the rare earth issue in Australia or Ukraine, and that no Latin American country, as weak as few others on the issue of tariffs, has proposed a partnership, not even those that are being helped, such as Argentina and the Venezuelan democratic opposition, to prevent a leader like Trump, who is disconcerting due to his sudden changes of opinion, sometimes within the same day, from losing interest as quickly as he has shown it.

This handshake between Trump and Xi Jinping perhaps marks the end of an all-out trade war and the beginning of a different kind of war, one of positions. China conceded, but earned a place, that of being considered an equal, something that wasn't certain at the outset.

What scenarios are emerging? It's unclear, since in this negotiation process, the most coveted factors will be geopolitical rather than economic, aided by whoever wins the AI leadership race. In any case, the tension experienced was difficult to bear, so an agreement will be cause for celebration for those who believe that the world's economic health depends more on collaboration than confrontation.

It also demonstrates how right Kissinger and Zhou Enlai were to postpone the Taiwan issue for decades—until the following century, as Kissinger writes in his memoirs—because ambiguity and subtlety prevailed. In his statements after the meeting, Trump was more talkative than Xi, who, however, compared the relationship between China and the US to a “high-seas vessel” where it was necessary to “stay the course.” However, he did not clarify whether he meant a cruiser or an aircraft carrier.

In my case, I remembered something that is lacking today among leaders who claim to speak for the entire world, and that is the idea of the Greeks of the golden age of Athens, who referred to the good ruler as the "Great Helmsman," the one capable of guiding the ship of state to safe harbor, both in calm seas and in storms, avoiding, of course, both the Leviathan and the Behemoth, which great thinkers feared so much in the name of freedom.

If one reviews what remains a useful text for understanding China and its history, the book On China (Henry Kissinger, Penguin, 608 pp., 2011), it shows that such rulers have not been abundant in its history, just as it is difficult for one to emerge today in the US since polarization prevents bipartisan agreements, and the confirmation bias of "us" versus "them" is aided by algorithms, which in both cases confirm prejudices and any idea different from our tribe is seen as a threat.

I have no doubt that I prefer a world where the superpower remains the U.S. over the current dictatorship of China, but I am equally or even more concerned that a negotiation could be achieved where the enemy becomes merely the adversary.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».