Trade negotiations between the United States and China have broken down because the US government says the Chinese were walking back their agreement on matters that had previously been addressed. US negotiators and President Donald Trump were furious, and on May 10, Trump more than doubled US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China. The lead Chinese negotiator, Liu He, told reporters that, because a final agreement was not reached, revisions were not “walked back,” a line that the US side does not seem to buy. The Chinese government has now retaliated, announcing that it will raise tariffs on $60 billion worth of US goods.

The recent crisis in Venezuela showed diverging Chinese and American attitudes towards global governance: China’s longstanding commitment to non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and rejection of military force as a tool of diplomacy; contrasted with the Trump administration’s response, that displayed America’s penchant for interventionism backed up by the US military.

While China’s Belt and Road Initiative offers a solution to problems that require international assistance to address, this is not Beijing’s altruism at work. The BRI is still a money-making investment and an opportunity for China to increase its connectivity throughout the globe.

Late last month at a security forum in Washington, DC, Kiron Skinner, Director of Policy Planning for the US Department of State, described today’s US-China conflict as “a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology, and the United States hasn’t had that before.” As a trial balloon, this apparent attempt to define the Trump administration’s confrontation with China did not fly.

The US-China trade war has distorted a clear-eyed view of how both par-ties arrived at the current confrontation. Rather than “hegemonic” policies being pursued by China, it is more accurate to say that both sides have delayed difficult structural reforms and are now paying the price.

A racially charged speech by a senior US State Department official has revived the controversial “Clash of Civilizations” thesis. But despite the Trump administration’s provocative re-definition of China as a strategic competitor, the long-term benefits of Sino-US cooperation will show this “clash” to be a false narrative.

The ongoing US-China trade war and increased tariffs have raised the prospect of a long-term “decoupling” of the world’s two largest economies. But who would this breakup hurt most? A look at US and Chinese industries shows that the burden for such a harsh strategy would fall disproportionately on American firms and consumers, while failing to stop China’s economic rise.

The outcome of the US-China trade war is anticipated to be quite different from the experience of Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, due to China’s relatively lower dependence on the US and having learned from Japan’s experience.

Over the past two years, American foreign-policy elites have increasingly cast China not only as a competitor to the United States, but as an enemy on a par with the Soviet Union. Although anti-Chinese rhetoric in the US is not new, President Donald Trump’s administration has greatly sharpened and amplified it. This is despite the deep economic ties between the two countries, a multitude of scientific and educational collaborations, and China’s consistent policy of non-intervention in US affairs.

In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, America’s Republicans and Democrats are now on the same page on one key issue: Blaming China for all that ails the United States. China bashing has never had broader appeal.