Power Parity: G2 or not G2: Trump revives a loaded idea

NEW YORK: In diplomacy, even short words matter. And with a brief Truth Social post, President Donald Trump may have revealed his approach to the US-China relationship — to Beijing’s delight but to the worry of US allies uneasy about China’s growing power.

“The G2 WILL BE CONVENING SHORTLY!” Trump wrote moments before heading into a closely watched Oct. 30 summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea. The phrase revived a concept dating to the early 2000s — but long rejected by Washington, including during Trump’s first term.

“G2,” or Group of Two, was first proposed in 2005 by American economist C. Fred Bergsten to stress the need for dialogue between the two largest economies. Over time, it came to imply parity — a balance Beijing has long coveted as it rose from regional power to global heavyweight.

But that idea of equality — and how China might use it — unsettles US allies.

“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.

Trump’s revival of the term comes as analysts, including those advising Beijing, parse his still-unformed China policy amid a more assertive Chinese government.

Baggage of history

To understand its resonance, it helps to revisit China’s modern diplomatic history.

Since the early 20th century — even before Communist rule — China has bristled at Western efforts to “contain” it. After World War II, “containment policy” became shorthand for keeping China disempowered. For decades, Chinese diplomacy sought to overturn that perceived constraint, an impulse reflected today in its vast Belt and Road infrastructure drive — designed to spread influence and counter containment.

In a weekend post, Trump called his “G2 meeting with President Xi of China” a “great one for both countries,” adding that it would “lead to everlasting peace and success. God bless both China and the USA!”

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the term in an X post after talking with Chinese Defence Minister Dong Jun.

Mira Rapp-Hooper, a former Biden administration official, warned that Trump’s language likely stirred “significant anxiety in allied capitals, where partners fear that the Trump administration will cut deals with China that leave them at a disadvantage.”

For Bergsten, however, the revival was welcome. He said the idea was never meant to replace other global forums like the G7 or G20 but to encourage cooperation between “the two big superpowers.”

“It doesn’t mean the US and China telling the rest of the world what to do,” Bergsten said. “I think Trump was using it as shorthand for the two biggest, most important economies getting together to talk about global issues. It’s really the vision I had 20 years ago.”

Quiet triumph for Beijing

Chinese commentators immediately noticed Trump’s post, and many read it as validation.

“Trump’s G2, to some extent, is that the US has accepted it no longer holds a unipolar position but seeks a bipolar world with China,” wrote Housha Yueguang, a nationalist blogger. “It means Europe is no longer important, let alone Japan or India.”

The day after Trump’s post, an Indian journalist asked at a Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing whether the countries were forming a G2 that could “change the world order.”

Spokesperson Guo Jiakun replied that China and the United States “can jointly shoulder our responsibilities as major countries.” He reiterated that Beijing would continue to promote “true multilateralism” and “an equal and orderly multipolar world.”

Zhao Minghao, a scholar of China-US relations, argued that the new G2 “does not mean China and the US co-ruling the world,” nor that competition would vanish.

“It means the two countries will again examine the importance of their relationship and be willing to conduct more communication and coordination,” Zhao wrote on the Hong Kong site hk01.com.

Washington’s scepticism

Bergsten said he introduced the concept two decades ago, believing that only China and the US — soon to be the world’s two economic superpowers — could make progress on global economic issues. The idea briefly caught on but faded after the 2008 financial crisis as Beijing and Washington drifted apart.

Rapp-Hooper, who served as senior director for East Asia at the National Security Council under President Biden, said the term reemerged in the early Obama years among officials who hoped U.S.-China cooperation could tackle global problems.

While Beijing embraced it, Washington distanced itself, fearing it suggested the two would make decisions without key US allies — particularly Japan, Australia and India.

“It’s a term that plays very poorly in those capitals,” Rapp-Hooper said. “They hear the United States deferring to Chinese preferences in Asia, potentially at their expense.”

Kurt Campbell, deputy secretary of state under Biden and now chairman of The Asia Group, said there were “real anxieties in Asia about the way the actual G2 was manifested.”

It wasn’t just about the two countries’ decisions, he said. “It was how China used the idea to make other nations feel insecure.”

The concept, Campbell added, “has been powerfully delegitimised.”

Still, Trump’s brief post — just six words long — has thrust the term back into diplomatic debate, signalling a potential shift in how the world’s two biggest powers frame their relationship. Whether it marks a new partnership or revives old rivalries remains to be seen.