Bridging US-China Relations Through International Organizations – Analysis

To understand the dynamics of U.S.-China relations, it’s essential to explore various schools of thought in international relations. This theoretical framework provides insights into how cooperation can be fostered despite strategic competition and economic rivalry.

Realists argue that every country is a potential adversary, and without a world state, nations face precarious conditions and security threats. They perceive international relations as a competition for dominance among states. Constructivists emphasize norms, beliefs, and the role of identities in shaping the behavior of states, while liberals highlight cooperation and the significance of international institutions in mitigating conflict. Despite their focus on the state, liberals also value the role of non-state actors.

According to Professor James D. Bowen of Saint Louis University, a fitting metaphor for liberalism is a college campus or high school. While one may feel confined, there are numerous opportunities to join organizations, make friends, meet new people, and achieve mutual benefits. Alternatively, one could choose to be a bully and engage in constant conflict. It is an environment where individuals can shape their experiences as they see fit. Liberal institutionalists emphasize the interstate system, acknowledging the significance of states while also recognizing the importance of other actors such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs) (Ozkan & Cetin, 2016). China and the United States can foster cooperation and achieve mutual economic gains through their active engagement in international organizations and forums like the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Liberalism emerged from ideological battles against totalitarianism and developments in social sciences. Its fundamental values encompass individual freedom, liberty, restrained government, open markets and trade, and adherence to the rule of law (Bell, 2014). These principles foster an optimistic worldview, envisioning a better future. Liberalism views human nature as having the potential for good (Marietta, 2012). Trade is central to liberal traditions, serving as a medium for communication where needs and preferences are exchanged beyond mere commercial purposes.

U.S.-China memberships in International Organizations

After the Second World War, the United States and its allies established an international order, with the U.S. as the leading hegemon. This order promoted cooperation (Ikenberry, 2018) and was built on key institutions such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), (Gaillard, Gotoh, & Michalek, 2023) which aimed to enhance international trade and reduce trade barriers, including tariffs (McRae, 2025). Washington also led the creation of various multinational organizations, including United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions, which privileged the U.S. and its key allies, benefiting all under the established rules and fostering international economic cooperation (Young, 2021). Following the Cold War, the U.S. further established the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank, collectively known as the liberal international order. GATT promoted trade, the IMF addressed payment issues, and the World Bank aimed to alleviate poverty. Together, they sought to foster international cooperation, stimulate business, and support the international liberal order (Gaillard, Gotoh, & Michalek, 2023).

Liberals are optimistic and suggest that integrating China and other developing countries into global networks has created job opportunities for millions, improved living conditions, reduced poverty, and developed a new middle class ( Stahel, 2022). Under Deng Xiaoping, a Chinese politician and reformist leader, Maoist China transformed its economic approach in 1978, opening up to Western traders and exporters (Gaillard, Gotoh, & Michalek, 2023) and bringing China out of isolation (Naughton, 1993). The efforts of leaders in Beijing and Washington, along with significant support from the American business community, facilitated China’s entry to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 (Celico & Guoyou, 2017). Prior to this, Western nations hoped to incorporate China into the liberal international system. This integration began with Mao Zedong’s outreach to U.S. President Richard Nixon(1969-1974 ) (Nichter, 2017), ending up with the formal relations with the People’s Republic of China (Gaillard, Gotoh, & Michalek, 2023). Later, President Jimmy Carter reinforced China’s entry into the WTO, leading to decades of enhanced economic collaboration. This era promoted liberalization, open markets, and free trade, driven by the policies of international organizations ( Stahel, 2022).

Despite their differing ideologies and national interests, the United States and China have utilized international organizations to foster ties and mutual benefits. China is a member of nearly all universal organizations, demonstrating the effectiveness of engagement. However, Taiwan’s status continues to pose a significant threat to peace, necessitating cautious diplomacy from China, the U.S., and Taiwan (Russett, 2016).

China and the U.S. in the World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995, is one of the most successful multilateral organizations, building on the basis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) from 1947 (WTO, 2025) . Initially, it had only 23 members with a simple mission of trade liberalization. Today, the WTO, as the successor of GATT, comprises 166 members, accounting for 98 percent of global trade (Irwin, 2017). Leaders of West hoped that economic engagement with the world would lead China to join the liberal club, an approach that has proven more illusory than real. Many countries focus on the interests of trading with China over potential losses (Well, 2013).

Historically, China maintained tight state control over imports and the publication of reports (Tuan & Hsu, 2001). However, post-accession, the allocation of imports became more governed by supply and demand rather than central control. The WTO’s international rules-based trading framework has advantaged the global community, especially the United States, with trade increasing from $58 billion in 1948 to over $25 trillion in 2020 (Murphy, 2020). Beyond the elimination of tariffs, the WTO functions as a crucial platform for international negotiations. By 2016, the United States had successfully resolved 75 out of 79 WTO cases it had initiated.

China understands the rules of the game and has expanded its network of trading partners while enhancing trade terms with existing ones. To comply with WTO requirements, China significantly invested in legal capacity, learning to defend its interests effectively within the WTO framework. China recognized that it could resolve disputes by influencing the analysis of laws to effectively protect its access to international markets (Shaffer & Gao, 2018). This led to an increase in the involvement of private companies and a rise in the number of legal professionals in China.

International scholars argue that the entities designing rules and regulations within the WTO, primarily the United States and the European Union, wield considerable influence. Leftist scholars describe the WTO as a ‘soft war’ pursued by Westerns, particularly the U.S. and the U.K., to unlock the Chinese market to Western corporations. In contrast, reformers have used international legal norms as an opportunity to improve their domestic policy goals (Shaffer & Gao, 2018). China’s accession to the WTO required the country to adhere to international trade standards that sharply differed from its past practices, where the State had significant influence on the market. Since China’s accession to the WTO in 2001, its global trade has surged significantly, despite grievances regarding unfair practices like intellectual property theft, dumping, labor issues, and environmental pollution.

China’s compliance with WTO regulations has led to significant changes in its trade policies, benefiting both China and its trading partners. When China joined the WTO, it became a global manufacturing hub ( Stahel, 2022). U.S. trade in goods and services with China grew from $100 billion in 2000 to approximately $659.4 billion in 2015 (Celico & Guoyou, 2017). In 2024, trade between China and the United States was substantial, with the U.S. importing around $438.9 billion in goods from China and exporting approximately $143.5 billion to China (2024 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, 2025).

Before the World Economic Forum in Davos, In his 2016 keynote address, President Xi of China emphasized the importance of continuing to develop global free trade and investment, advocating for the liberalization and facilitation of trade and investment through openness, and rejecting protectionism (Shaffer, 2021). China’s successful emergence as a socialist market economy challenges the notion that even diverse political systems can foster economic growth and social progress ( Stahel, 2022).

In conclusion, the participation of China and the United States in international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) highlights the importance of liberalism in international relations. Despite their strategic competition and economic rivalry, their involvement in these multilateral forums has fostered cooperation, created job opportunities, and generated mutual benefits. The liberal principles of trade and economic integration is effective in reducing geopolitical tensions and enhancing global economic governance. As the twin engines of economic growth, the U.S. and China continue to navigate complex rules and policies to promote a free trade agenda, demonstrating the enduring relevance of liberalism in shaping international relations. However, protectionist approaches by states can pose a risk to liberal principles, which can be a future research question.

Bibliography

Stahel, G. (2022). G20: A platform for cooperation between China and Europe,”. Routledge, 20-30.
Bell, D. (2014). What Is Liberalism? Political Theory,”. Sage Journal, 3-9.
Celico, A., & Guoyou, S. (2017). U.S.-China Bilateral Economic Relations. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 53-57.
Cristol, J. (2019). International Relations Theory,. Oxford Bibliographies, 2-3.
Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics.”. John Hopkins University , 51-69.
Drezner, D. W. (2019). This Time is Different. Foreign Affairs, 2-7.
Gaillard, N., Gotoh, F., & Michalek, R. (2023). The Future of Multilateralism and Globalization in the Age of the U. S. -China Rivalry. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group.
Grant, T. A. (Director). (2011). Theory in Action: Liberalism [Motion Picture].
Greener, B. (2007). Liberalism and the Use of Force: Core Themes and Conceptual Tensions. Alternatives, 295.
Gries, P. H. (2007). Harmony, Hegemony, & U.S.-China Relations. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma , 44-48.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The End of Liberal International Order, ” . Royal Institute of International , 7–23.
Irwin, D. A. (2017). The GATT in historical perspective. Cambridge: Routledge.
Jr, R. O. (1987). Power and Interdependence revisited. International Organizations, 725-740.
Kates, S. (2011). The Global Financial Crisis: What Have We Learnt? . Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Kirton, J. (2019). G20 Governance for an Inclusive Liberal Order,”. Chinese Journal of International Review, 2-9.
Layne, C. (1994). Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace. International Security, 5-49.
MacMillan, J. (2007). Liberal internationalism, . In International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century : An Introduction (p. 21). Florence: Taylor & Francis Group.
Marietta, M. (2012). A Citizen’s Guide to American Ideology: Conservatism and Liberalism in Contemporary Politics. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group.
Mark V. Kauppi, a. P. (2023). International relations theory. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
McRae, D. M. (2025, April 07). UN Audiovisual Library of International Law . Retrieved from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/gatt/gatt.html
Muhammad Faiz Ramli, a. H. (2022 ). Liberal Institutionalism Theory Approach in Asean’s Security Cooperation through Regionalism. Akademika, 73–77.
Murphy, J. G. (2020, Feburary 6). U.S. Chamber of Commerce, . Retrieved from Why American Business Needs the WTO: https://www.uschamber.com/international/why-american-business-needs-the-wto
Naughton, B. (1993). Deng Xiaoping: The Economist. The China Quarterly , 491–495.
Nichter, L. A. (2017). The Nixon Administration and American Foreign Relations,” C. hapman University, , 2.
Ozkan, E., & Cetin, H. C. (2016). The Realist and Liberal Positions on the Role of International Organizations in Maintaining World Order,”. European Scientific Journal, 89-99.
Posen, C. R. (2013). Responding to Financial Crisis: Lessons from Asia Then, the United States and Europe Now. La Vergne: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Russett, B. (2016). Liberalism. In M. K. T. Dunne, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 45-69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryan Hass, R. M. (2025). Advancing U.S.-China Coordination amid Strategic Competition. Center for Strategic & International Studies, 1-5.
Shaffer, G. C. (2021). Emerging Powers and the World Trading System : The Past and Future of International Economic Law . Cambridge: : Cambridge University Press.
Shaffer, G., & Gao, H. (2018). China’s Rise: How It Took on the U.S. at the WTO,”. University of Illinois Law Review, 115-1116.
Spiro, D. E. (1994). The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace. International Security, 58-70.
Tuan, F., & Hsu, H.-H. (2001). US-China Bilateral WTO Agreement and Beyond. In H.-H. H. Gale, In China: Agriculture in Transition (pp. 4-5). Florence: Diane Publishing Co.
Well, M. T. (2013). Saving Multilateralism: The G20, the TWO, and Global Trade” . Lowy Institute for International Policy,, 3-5.
Wigell, M. (2015). Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies: neo-realism, neomercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism. Asia Eur Journal, 145-150.
WTO. (2025, April 1). WTO. Retrieved from Who we are: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/who_we_are_e.htm
Young, D. D. (2021, 8 16). The Post-War International Order: Past, Present, Future? Retrieved from British Online Archives: https://britishonlinearchives.com/posts/category/contextual-essays/417/the-post-war-international-order-past-present-future
Yueqing Wang, Q. B. (2020). History of Chinese Philosophy Through Its Key Terms, . Singapore: Springer.