The Trump administration has begun applying military pressure on China, not only in traditional areas of friction such as the South China Sea and Taiwan, but using arms control. Recent American withdrawal from the US-Russia INF Treaty may be part of a strategy to draw China into a potential new nuclear agreement.

The trade war has not gone as U.S. policymakers expected—China has not given up easily. This overconfidence came from an inflated view of America’s market boom, which is merely a short-term “sugar high” produced by Republican tax cuts. A more serious misjudgment was underestimating China’s economic strength and national resolve.

While the current China-US trade war is undoubtedly hurting both economies, the conflict may prove beneficial Chinese society in the long sweep of history—the conflict may provide a catalyst to push forward a new model of Chinese reform and opening based on high standards.

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.