The increasingly contentious relationship between China and the United States is putting pressure on countries to choose sides, with the Covid-19 pandemic accelerating the process of nations stepping away from each other rather than tackling the crisis together. If current trends continue in the long run, there could be a reordering of the global economy into two major competing spheres of influence, one centred on the US and the other on China, analysts said. Beijing and Washington’s already strained relationship has worsened this year, with the two sides sparring over the coronavirus pandemic, the new Hong Kong national security law, anti-racism protests sparked by the killing of African-American George Floyd, and military activities in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is expected to meet Yang Jiechi, a member of the Communist Party Politburo and one of the nation’s top diplomats, to try to defuse the growing conflict. But whether the Hawaii talks will result in a detente that slows a long-term decoupling trend is unclear. A key obstacle is China’s adoption of an increasingly aggressive diplomatic stance as it pushes its top international policy ambition, the Belt and Road Initiative , as an alternative economic path on the world stage. At the same time, the US is retreating from international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, and instead creating institutions and trade treaties tailored to American interests, said Paul Poast, an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Following World War II, the US led the “liberal international order”, which was underpinned by a network of international organisations and treaties, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and its successor, the World Trade Organisation, that excluded China until the end of the Cold War, Poast said. The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the geopolitical rivalry between the US and China, resulting in renewed efforts by Washington to bring together countries that have an interest in balancing China’s growing economic influence, Poast said. These new economic initiatives point to a future in which there could be two competing orders. A Chinese-led belt and road order and a US-led liberal international order Paul Poast “These new economic initiatives point to a future in which there could be two competing orders. A Chinese-led belt and road order and a US-led liberal international order,” Poast said. New international alliances are emerging to address relations with China, which has shifted away from passive and low-key global engagement towards a more assertive and high-profile one dubbed “ wolf warrior diplomacy ”, said Alex He Xingqiang, a research fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. The wolf-warrior approach has seen Chinese diplomats be more confrontational in defending China’s interests – ranging from technology, trade, finance and security issues – not only with the US, but also with India and Taiwan, especially when it came to disputed territory in the South China Sea, analysts said. The European Union has sought to avoid choosing sides in the China-US conflict, with foreign policy chief Josep Borrell saying the 27-nation bloc would instead find its own way to cooperate with both nations on areas of mutual interest. However, following a videoconference between the group’s foreign ministers and Pompeo on Monday, Borrell called for a bilateral dialogue with the US to deal with China’s “growing assertiveness”. “I suggested to launch a distinct bilateral dialogue focusing on China and the challenges its actions and ambitions mean for us – the United States and the European Union,” EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell told reporters. Borrell’s suggestion comes just days ahead of Monday’s EU-China summit, amid an ensuing lack of commitment by Beijing on widening market access and levelling the domestic playing field for European businesses. China has sought to diversify its trade relations given growing resistance to its policies from developed Western nations. In particular, it is pushing for completion the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), as it seeks to set the terms of trade and pave the way for Chinese companies to extend their reach in Southeast Asia, which is an important part of the Belt and Road Initiative, said Kyle Sullivan, China practise lead at Crumpton Group, an international affairs consultancy. It has been proposed that the RCEP would be signed by end of the year, which would create the world’s largest free-trade zone, accounting for half of the world’s population. Member nations reviewing the agreement are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. But even before the coronavirus pandemic, RCEP negotiations had been plagued with continued disagreements over the details of the trade zone, with India opting out in November last year. Japan may be forced to give up on its plans of reaching a RCEP agreement this year because its top priority has turned to shoring up its virus-hit economy for an extended period, the Japan Times reported in April. As the world order starts to fracture, it is difficult to see new coalitions forming with any substance or imminent economic influence, analysts said. Last week, lawmakers and politicians from several countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Britain, the US and the European Parliament, formed a new coalition, The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, to tackle the “challenges” presented by China’s ascendancy on the world stage. At the end of the day, most countries will still see the need to carefully balance their relationship with China and avoid placing themselves in any one camp, especially one that is designed more overtly to keep China out Reva Goujon Since May, US President Donald Trump has also been pushing an economic alliance called the Economic Prosperity Network with its trading partners, aimed at removing or limiting China’s participation in global industrial supply chains, which could hurt the world’s second-largest economy. Both alliances, however, would be unlikely to agree on a substantial coordinated policy that would risk drawing Beijing’s ire, said Reva Goujon, a managing director at Crumpton. “At the end of the day, most countries will still see the need to carefully balance their relationship with China and avoid placing themselves in any one camp, especially one that is designed more overtly to keep China out,” Goujon said. “There remains deep suspicion toward globe-spanning [free-trade agreements] in this age of rising trade protectionism.” He, from the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said the alliances were merely “loosely organised” networks formed to pursue values-based initiatives and uphold the “moral high ground”, so it was difficult to assess their actual influence.