INTRODUCTION

The reference to a “G2” resurfaced when US President Trump publicly announced that “The G2 will be convening shortly,” signalling a possible US-China duopoly in global decision-making. The Trump-Xi Busan meeting revived an older idea first articulated by economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005. However, despite dramatic optics, the summit lacked institutional depth and showcased a transactional, spectacle-driven diplomatic approach. The renewed G2 talk generated global unease, especially among allies and emerging economies, given the risks of marginalisation and disruption of regional balances in the Indo-Pacific.

WHY IN THE NEWS 

Trump’s declaration that the US and China would meet as a “G2” revived the idea of a US-China duopoly at a moment of systemic geopolitical flux. The Busan meeting created significant global debate because, despite high-profile optics and selective trade concessions (soybean purchases, tariff relief, fentanyl cooperation), there were no structural commitments or conflict-management mechanisms. The sudden bypassing of broader multilateral processes unsettled allies and intensified concerns of shrinking strategic space for countries like India, especially amid shifting economic projections that show a long-term move toward a tripolar world rather than a bipolar G2.

G2 Revival: What Does the Busan Moment Signify?

1. Performative Diplomacy: Trump framed the meeting as a G2 encounter, signalling a claim to architect a new global order driven by bilateral spectacle rather than institutional negotiations.
2. Transactional Bargains: China resumed US soybean imports; the US eased select tariffs and technology restrictions; cooperation was pledged on fentanyl precursors and rare-earth supply chains.
3. Absence of Structure: No new institutions, principles, or crisis-management mechanisms were created, making the meeting high on optics but low on structural impact.

China’s Strategic Calculus Behind the G2 Optics

1. Symbolic Parity: Great-power parity aligns with China’s long-term ambition for equal status with the US, enhancing its global narrative.
2. Economic Off-ramp: Tariff relief and tech flexibility help stabilise China’s domestic economy amid headwinds such as overcapacity and slowing productivity.
3. Controlled Ambiguity: China avoided endorsing a formal duopoly, using strategic ambiguity to retain flexibility while cultivating Global South networks.

Structural Fragility of a US-China Duopoly

1. Deep Bilateral Contradictions: Taiwan, technology dependence, and military rivalry create structural barriers to stable cooperation.
2. Lack of Institutional Grounding: No formal mechanisms exist to manage disputes or align long-term strategic objectives.
3. Risk to Alliances: The G2 idea signals that alliances are expendable, undermining confidence among US partners in Asia and Europe.

Global Implications of the G2 Notion

1. Destabilising for Allies: Japan, South Korea, Australia fear erosion of regional balance if the US deprioritises alliances.
2. Institutional Marginalisation: G2 bypasses multilateral institutions, weakening global governance frameworks.
3. Supply-Chain Reconfiguration: A US-China bilateral alignment could redirect global supply chains, adversely affecting Indo-Pacific economies.

Why the G2 Idea Alarms India

1. Risk of Strategic Sidelining: A bilateral shortcut between the US and China may marginalise India despite its rising economic weight.
2. Supply Chain Dependence: India’s dependence on Chinese imports (electronics, APIs, critical minerals) becomes more vulnerable.
3. Quad Uncertainty: A possible thaw between the US and China creates ambiguity around the Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad commitments.
4. Manufacturing Disadvantage: Reduced US pressure on China undercuts India’s ambition to position itself as a credible alternative manufacturing hub.

Long-term Trend: A Tripolar, Not Bipolar, World

1. Economic Projections: PwC and Goldman Sachs project by 2050 a tripolar structure: China (1st), India (2nd), US (3rd) in PPP terms.
2. Limits on China’s Rise: Demographic contraction and industrial overcapacity constrain China’s long-term dominance.
3. India’s Structural Advantages: Young workforce, expanding market, tech ambitions support India’s rise as a major economic pole.
4. US Position: Innovation strength persists, but political polarisation and ageing demographics slow future growth.

CONCLUSION

Trump’s revival of the G2 is more spectacle than substance, reflecting a transitional phase rather than a durable geopolitical redesign. Structural contradictions, alliance concerns, and global economic shifts limit the feasibility of a US-China duopoly. The long-term trajectory points to broader multipolarity, with India emerging as a critical pole in global politics. The Busan moment thus underscores the instability of great-power bargains that bypass wider global participation and institutional frameworks.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2021] “The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.” Explain.

Linkage: The PYQ statement directly connects to intensifying US-China strategic rivalry, which shapes the global balance of power, technology races, and Indo-Pacific security dynamics. It is highly relevant for GS-II (IR) as it influences India’s strategic space, Quad calculus, supply-chain realignments, and the emerging multipolar world order.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now