Absent free trade, their advantages dwindle.
So the current "just shy of declared adversarial relationships" is optimum for them. Pushed further, say by retaining exclusive access to a game changing technology, and they start losing trade relationships (arguably, already have as manufacturing reallocated to SE Asia).
That said, in spite of tarrifs from the west, China still has plenty of skin in the game, and the hypothetical suggests that trade would still be open enough for China to profit
That's very arguable when it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another.
And what did the US get in return? Currency manipulation, large scale economic espionage and mercantilist behavior, protectionism of Chinese markets and industries, fentanyl, militarization of South China Sea and bullying the countries there, largest and fastest military buildup since 1930s Germany, supporting Russia vs Ukraine, threatening war over Taiwan, etc. "Unrestricted warfare".
The US didn't cause China to do any of that, that was all the CCP's decision. Responses like economic derisking/decoupling (aka trade war) are completely legitimate and unsurprising.
This is hilarious revisionism. We didn't do any of that out of generosity, we did it for profit. We saw a huge pool of cheap labor and decided we wanted to let our companies exploit that. We rubbed our hands together and grinned while selling them the proverbial rope.
Regardless of the motivations and machinations on either government's part.
But if by "we" you mean the large portion of the US middle class whose financial security and upward mobility was obliterated, then no "we" did not do it for profit and were extremely generous, sacrificial even, in lifting hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty when the CCP was unable to do that on their own.
It's not like this is any surprise, Ross Perot was even explicitly warning about it back in 1992: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4
If the US had a sensible culture (and hence democratically driven government policy) behind education, a skilled labor pool could have emerged to develop high-tech manufacturing that leveraged China's low-skill labor pool. Instead, China has 'hid its strength, and bided its time', establishing its own high-skill labor pool and advanced manufacturing capability, giving it substantial leverage over the entire world, without so much as starting a proxy war, usurping foreign lands, assassinating foreign political leaders, etc.
US hegemony is absolutely its own to lose, but it all depends on the culture driving it.
I'm intrigued by the metrics you're using to conclude that the US has been more generous towards China than it has been towards, say, Israel or even Mexico, as a matter of state policy. Especially considering that US placed China under trade embargo and singlehandedly denied it UN representation for 20+ years.
The actions you are describing as representing a historically unprecedented level of generosity seems essentially to boil done to US agreeing to maintain normal trade relations with China, similar to those it has with nearly every other country. Worth noting that the US extends Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to all its trading partners — it's not some exclusive or rare privilege as its name might suggest but a standard practice in international trade.
Partly due to what it cost the US public. Free trade with smaller countries hurts less than one-sided free trade with a protectionist mercantilist country 4x your population. (one-sided due to required joint ventures, unilateral bans on US social media, currency manipulation, among others)
> and singlehandedly denied it UN representation for 20+ years.
To be pedantic, the US didn't deny China representation for 20+ years, just the CCP. The ROC was a founding member of the UN and permanent Security Council member. US just opposed the CCP replacing it until 1971. Given the instability of CCP regime during that time - famine, Cultural Revolution - that wasn't an unreasonable position.
> similar to those it has with nearly every other country.
Except the Communist bloc countries, USSR, Cuba, etc. Extending MFN to China while they were still Communist was unprecedented.
The fentanyl histrionic in your earlier comment is especially good paired with this endorsement of the 50s/60s KMT, who were busy fighting an insurgency to establish and maintain a heroin cartel.
Afaik, their domestic middle class market isn't nearby big enough to singlehandedly fuel their economy.
And they'll economically-politically run up against the "middle class wants things like political power and freedom" if they try to balloon that class too quickly.
Losing Taiwanese, Korean, Australian, and EU specialty and raw material imports would hurt. A lot.
Goodbye substantial amounts of integrated circuits, oil, and iron and copper ore.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_... https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Yea...