In the aftermath of the 2025 U.S. tariff escalation, tensions with China have reached a boiling point not just economically with tit-for-tat responses from the Beijing, but also diplomatically and even more deeply in the cultural space. While President Trump’s sweeping tariffs may have been intended to force a global trade reset by pushing world leaders to renegotiate trade agreements seen as unfair by the US administration, recent comments from Vice President J.D. Vance far from encouraging constructive discussions, have on the contrary, added significant fuel to an already volatile fire.

In a high-profile speech, Vance referred to the Chinese as “peasants from whom the U.S. borrow money to buy the goods the chinese peasants manufacture” adding that “it is not a recipe for economic prosperity”.  The reaction from Beijing was immediate and angry. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned the remark as “ignorant and impolite.”

As someone who has spent the past 30 years working across Asia and engaging with Chinese counterparts across various industries in the region,  I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the strategic, cultural, and psychological complexity that defines China’s approach to business and diplomacy. That’s why I can say confidently that this kind of rhetoric from the U.S., whatever its intended domestic political effect, strikes me as not only unhelpful, but dangerously misguided and counterproductive. 

Beyond the fiery headlines, what we are witnessing may be a far more problematic miscalculation from a key US leader, one rooted in the failure to understand China’s history, cultural identity, and psychology of power and relationships.

Diplomacy by Insult: A Risky Gambit

The ‘hammer’ bulldozer strategy of imposing steep tariffs, issuing ultimatums, and now delivering open verbal slights may resonate with a certain domestic political base, especially with voters who feel left behind by globalization. It signals strength, a willingness to disrupt the status quo and defiance in the face of a powerful competitor.

But when dealing with China, a country with 5,000 years of civilizational history and a deep sense of national identity, this kind of posturing rarely achieves the intended result. Instead, it can actually entrench resistance, reignite historical trauma, and poison the diplomatic well.

In my experience working with Chinese businesses and institutions, relationships are everything and how those relationships are managed matters. Respect, humility, and consistency are not signs of weakness in the Chinese context. They are the currency of influence. History matters too!

Understanding the Chinese Lens: Why Learning History Matters

To understand why Vance’s “peasants” comment struck such a nerve, one must consider China history and particularly we must recall a chapter of history Western policymakers often overlook: the “Century of Humiliation” a formative period etched into China’s national psyche.

• Between 1839 and 1949, China was subjected to a series of defeats, invasions, and “unequal treaties,” starting with the Opium Wars, where Western powers imposed trade rules at gunpoint and extracted territory and concessions. 
• These events led to the loss of sovereignty, national pride, and economic control leaving deep wounds that still shape China’s foreign policy today.
• The memory of these humiliations is not distant history, they are actively taught in schools, nourishing patriotism and a sense of ‘getting back’ referenced in political narratives, and remembered in in foreign policy.

The U.S. may think it’s projecting strength with its rhetoric but China may interpret it as a return to imperialist humiliation.

For Chinese leaders, this isn’t just about trade. Avoiding a repeat of this humiliation is existential. It’s about identity, memory, and dignity.

This help to explain why notions of face (面子 miànzi), respect, and non-humiliation are central and non-negotiable values in Chinese diplomacy. They are not superficial cultural quirks; they are deep psychological needs forged in trauma. Insulting China on the world stage is not just bad manners, it is a strategic misstep that may harden positions, not soften them. As a result an insult on the world stage, especially from a powerful Western figure, will almost certainly close doors rather than open them.

Preserving Face vs Brute Force: The Psychology of Risk in Negotiation

In negotiation theory, we learn that cultural intelligence is crucial. What works in one setting can backfire in another. Having worked with Chinese partners in both corporate and governmental settings, I’ve seen the following cultural dynamic play out many times:

• While in Western negotiation styles, confrontation and “brinkmanship” can be seen as effective tactics to assert dominance and extract concessions. 
• In Eastern, particularly Confucian-based cultures like China, brutal confrontation is often seen as immature or uncivilized. Compromise in public under pressure is often seen as a humiliation.
• Public insults force a counter-response not just because of ego, but because of the need to maintain social legitimacy.
• Power is wielded more subtly through in-direction, patience, and symbolism where private, face-preserving resolutions are far more productive.

This is where the ‘hammer’ bulldozer approach may show its limits and fail. By publicly confronting and insulting a Chinese counterpart, it forces them to defend face at all costs. Even if they were willing to compromise privately, they now cannot yield publicly without appearing weak a fatal blow in Chinese political culture. The ‘hammer’ approach removes the space for subtle negotiation, it backs leaders into a corner, and forces confrontation instead of search for agreement.

In short, Vance’s remark likely made a deal with the Chinese harder, not easier.

Strategic Blowback: Risks of the Bulldozer ‘hammer’ Approach

From a geopolitical risk management perspective, the current U.S. approach towards China carries a number of significant risks:

1. Entrenchment of Hostility: American leaders may believe they are being strong and direct but instead of pushing China toward compromise, these tactics may drive Beijing to double down, retaliate harder, and rally domestic support against a “foreign aggressor” fueling a nationalist backlash. And even if short-term economic pressure eventually forces China to concede, the public humiliation will leave deep scars. It will likely drive future retaliation, economic, diplomatic, or even strategic once leverage shifts.

2. Decoupling and Fragmentation: China will accelerate its pivot toward BRICS+ and the Global South. Hostile U.S. rhetoric only speeds up efforts to de-dollarize, de-Americanize supply chains, and build alternative institutions, weakening U.S. influence in global trade and finance.

3. Diplomatic Isolation: Even U.S. allies who share concerns about China’s trade practices may grow uneasy with reckless language and aggressive U.S. tactics that undermine cooperation, global norms, and mutual trust.

4. Misreading the Game: By treating China as a transactional enemy or ideological foe rather than a sovereign actor with its own interests, legitimacy and worldview the U.S. risks playing the wrong game and losing the long-term strategic advantage.

A Better Way Forward

None of this means the U.S. shouldn’t strongly confront unbalanced trade practices, supply chain dominance or protect its national interests against China encroachments. But how they approach that challenge matters. Having observed Chinese decision-making processes, I believe there are more effective paths. Confrontation must be risk smart, strategic, and culturally calibrated.

Based on my experience navigating China’s business and policy environment, here’s what would work better. They are three complementary strategies rooted in effective risk management and geopolitical awareness that I would recommand:

• Strong Yet Respectful Pressure
  Use  strong trade levers like tariffs and export controls, but pair them with respectful language and diplomacy to allow for private negotiation channels that enable appropriate adjustments rather than forcing public surrender. 
• Multilateral Alliances and Coordination
  Work with allies, Japan, the EU, ASEAN, etc. to build collective leverage on issues like market access and IP theft. A coordinated front to engage China based on shared rules and mutual interests without inflammatory rhetoric carries more weight than unilateral ultimatums.
• Strategic Values-Based Framing
  Reframe U.S. demand around common rules, sustainable reciprocity and fairness, not moral superiority or insults. Firmness and respect are not mutually exclusive.

Conclusion: Don’t Mistake ‘Chest Beating’ Noise for Strategy

The ‘Hammer’ bulldozer may be loud and play well on the campaign trail, but it’s a high-risk, low-reward strategy when you are dealing with a country like China.

In geopolitics risk management, knowing your counterparty is half of the game.

Indeed from a risk management standpoint, diplomacy isn’t just about showing strength. It’s about understanding your counterpart, managing perceptions, and negotiating outcomes that reduce systemic risk, not escalate it.

As someone who has lived and worked across the Asia-Pacific region, I have seen what works and what backfires. Insults and ultimatums rarely bring results. Respect, strategy, and cultural awareness do.

If the U.S. truly wants to rebalance trade and reassert its leadership, in short, get a better deal with China, it must wield its power with discipline beginning with listening, not disdain and use approaches and tools needed to nurture long-term success. Otherwise, it may win a few headlines but lose the long game.