Fentanyl-related Issues in China-U.S. Relations by ZHA Daojiong
To effectively regulate cross-border fentanyl flows and combat illegal activities, both sides should focus on functional cooperation, strengthening collaboration in public health and judicial areas.
Welcome to the 25th edition of our weekly newsletter! I am SUN Chenghao, a fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University, Council Member of The Chinese Association of American Studies and a visiting scholar at the Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School (fall semester 2024).
ChinAffairs+ is a weekly newsletter that shares Chinese academic articles focused on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-European relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by me and my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu.
Through carefully selected Chinese academic articles, we aim to provide you with key insights into the issues that China’s academic and strategic communities are focused on. We will highlight why each article matters and the most important takeaways. Questions or criticisms may be addressed to sunchenghao@tsinghua.edu.cn
Today, we have selected an article written by ZHA Daojiong, which focuses on Fentanyl-related Issues in China-U.S. Relations.
Summary
Since its introduction in the 1970s, fentanyl has undergone continuous development and production as a medical product to meet legitimate needs in pain management. Meanwhile, fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances became a formidable challenge for various countries’ regulatory and judicial bodies as well as international cooperation in narcotics control, resulting from abuse by the world’s illicit drug markets of scientific knowledge and technologies of synthetic chemistry. For over forty years, Chinese and American epistemic communities of scientific research, medical care, and law enforcement cooperated over fentanyl related issues.
The Biden administration, continuing Trump administration policies, drew a causal linkage between the level of cooperation with China and abatement of fentanyl overdose cases in the United States, fentanyl-related issues risks becoming pivotal in the evolution of overall bilateral relations between the two countries. This can be seen in the U.S. putting the urgency on resumption of counternarcotics cooperation on par with that of military contact at the China-U.S. summit meeting in November 2023.
But in both China and the United States, narratives about fentanyl-related issues are multiple. For the purpose of more effective regulation of cross-national flows of fentanyl-related substances and combat unregulated and illegal activities, both sides should proceed from faith in functional cooperation and strengthen interactions in the fields of public health and judicial cooperation.
Why It Matters
After Trump’s return to the White House, he announced a 10% tariff increase on Chinese imports, citing China's failure to curb the export of fentanyl. This move could either serve as a tool for negotiation with China or as a form of “punishment”. Regardless of the motive, it is likely to exacerbate tensions between the two countries and potentially undermine U.S.-China drug control cooperation.
For a long time, the United States has faced a severe public health crisis due to the widespread overdose of synthetic fentanyl, while China, as the world’s largest chemical producer, has engaged in decades-long exchanges and cooperation with the U.S. on addressing the fentanyl issue. However, as China-U.S. relations have soured, the fentanyl dispute may further complicate an already strained bilateral relationship.
China-U.S. drug control cooperation has been progressing systematically for years, and in early 2024, the two countries engaged in further cooperation, achieving significant results. However, challenges still remain in their collaboration: Firstly, Trump’s decision to impose tariffs over the fentanyl issue may politicize the problem, negatively impacting bilateral cooperation. Secondly, unexpected events in China-U.S. relations, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2023, have previously stalled fentanyl-related cooperation. Thirdly, given the complexity of the fentanyl supply chain, even enhanced cooperation between the two countries may not fully address the issue of fentanyl precursor chemicals being exported to the U.S. Lastly, there are differences in regulatory approaches between the two countries: China enforces a zero-tolerance policy on drugs, while the U.S. focuses on product regulation but has not effectively curtailed the demand for fentanyl.
After Trump takes office in 2025, the fentanyl issue may become one of the entry points for China-U.S. dialogue. Therefore, understanding why the fentanyl issue is important, the process of establishing the China-U.S. drug control mechanism, and recognizing the “political” nature of the issue are crucial for understanding the fentanyl problem within the context of China-U.S. relations.
Key Points
Fentanyl Crisis: A Key Issue in China-U.S. Relations Amid Geopolitical Tensions and Drug Control Cooperation
In January 2024, the reactivated China-U.S. anti-drug cooperation working group held its first joint meeting in Beijing, with a primary focus on the fentanyl issue, following the 2023 agreement between the two countries’ leaders.
On the other side of the world, Biden administration prioritized cooperation on fentanyl alongside military exchanges, a shift that echoes past efforts, such as the 2017 link between China’s fentanyl exports and the U.S. opioid crisis. This ongoing issue highlights the cross-border nature of drug control, with China strengthening its enforcement measures, including dismantling fentanyl-related criminal networks.
However, political dynamics complicate the collaboration, as U.S. legislative actions have sometimes hindered cooperation, such as restricting Chinese entities from accessing U.S. technology. The fentanyl crisis exemplifies how international drug cooperation intersects with broader geopolitical tensions, making it a key narrative in U.S.-China relations.
What is Fentanyl: The potent synthetic opioid 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine is the notorious fentanyl. Initially used for medical purposes in the 1960s, it was listed by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine for cancer pain relief. However, its misuse and illegal production have created severe public health crises, especially in the U.S., where fentanyl is often mixed with other drugs, increasing overdose risks. Its abuse has led to global control measures, with authorities focusing on fentanyl derivatives, analogs, and precursors used in illegal manufacturing. Despite its medical benefits when used appropriately, fentanyl’s illegal distribution and misuse make it a deadly substance, requiring stringent international regulation to curb its harmful impact.
“Designer Drugs” and “New Psychoactive Substances”: Fentanyl, a prominent “designer drug”, signifies a new phase in the illicit drug market, as outlined by Gary Henderson in 1988. He highlighted the discovery of fentanyl derivatives like 3-methylfentanyl, which was found in synthetic drugs seized in California in the early 1980s. These substances, resembling heroin, marked a shift towards highly potent, easily synthesized drugs, bypassing traditional plant-derived narcotics. Henderson predicted that future drugs would be synthetically produced, easily accessible, and increasingly difficult to regulate. The term “designer drugs” emphasizes their intentional chemical design to evade regulation, yet the creation of such substances is not exclusive to illicit markets; it spans legitimate pharmaceutical research. This dynamic, coupled with the rise of "New Psychoactive Substances" (NPS) globally, underscores the complexity of regulating fast-evolving, harmful substances like fentanyl, which poses significant public health and security threats across borders.
China-U.S. Exchanges and Cooperation on Fentanyl Substances：
The earliest Chinese academic mention of fentanyl, based on a 1979 U.S. medical visit, observed its use in cardiac anesthesia. Over decades, anesthesiology remained a key area of U.S.-China medical exchange, where Chinese practitioners gained firsthand experience in fentanyl-based pain management. This reflects a broader pattern of China learning from international best practices in controlled substances.
Different Regulatory Approaches——Preemptive vs. Reactive Scheduling：Both China and the U.S. regulate fentanyl through scheduling, but their approaches differ. China employs a preemptive blanket ban, listing entire fentanyl analogs since 2019, making all unauthorized production and distribution illegal. In contrast, the U.S. historically followed a reactive approach, individually scheduling substances as issues arose. However, recent shifts, including the Temporary Emergency Scheduling Act (2021), indicate U.S. movement toward preemptive control. Internationally, both nations adhere to UN anti-drug treaties, though national classification standards differ.
Institutionalized Cooperation and Its Limitations：China-U.S. counter-narcotics collaboration has evolved since the 1980s, formalized in the 2001 Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement and a 2005 bilateral intelligence-sharing memorandum. However, these mechanisms remain reactive and case-driven, hindered by shifting political priorities and outdated legal frameworks. Unlike treaty-based cooperation, the absence of a joint investigative or prosecution framework weakens enforcement. The U.S.’s unilateral actions, such as sanctions and arrests of Chinese entities, often provoke diplomatic protests, complicating sustained collaboration.
Diplomatic Narratives vs. Scientific Realities: In spite of decades of scientific and regulatory exchange on fentanyl, public discourse often focuses on diplomatic tensions rather than substantive cooperation. This creates a misleading perception that China-U.S. fentanyl engagement is predominantly adversarial. In reality, their shared challenge of combating synthetic drug proliferation underscores the need for functional, depoliticized cooperation beyond punitive measures. Future efforts should prioritize sustained regulatory harmonization and law enforcement coordination, rather than rhetorical blame games.
A Politicized Narrative of fentanyl crisis in China-U.S. Relations:
The Trump and Biden administrations have maintained a confrontational and continuous approach toward China, framing the fentanyl crisis as a critical issue in bilateral relations. The dominant U.S. narrative, reinforced by policymakers and media, portrays China as the primary source of illicit fentanyl and its chemical precursors, despite the significant role of Mexican cartels in trafficking. Washington’s pressure on Beijing to tighten control over precursor chemicals reflects a broader geopolitical strategy rather than an objective assessment of supply chains.
Scientific and Regulatory Perspectives——Beyond Geopolitical Rhetoric: Contrary to the political discourse, scientific and regulatory discussions in both countries reveal a more nuanced perspective. U.S. pain management research, including a 2017 National Academies report, rarely emphasizes fentanyl’s foreign origins, instead framing the crisis as a structural public health challenge. Similarly, Chinese academic and regulatory literature acknowledges opioid abuse as a global issue and emphasizes the necessity of balanced drug control—restricting misuse while ensuring medical availability. Chinese experts recognize the need to learn from U.S. experiences in opioid regulation while refining domestic drug policies.
Tracing the Supply Chain——A Complex Reality: The origins of illicit fentanyl in the U.S. are multifaceted. While China historically played a role in precursor chemical exports, reports, including those from the RAND Corporation, highlight that domestic U.S. sources have contributed to opioid crises since the 1980s. Cases of fentanyl production in Kansas and major busts in Mexico challenge the simplistic notion that China alone fuels the epidemic. Notably, China has progressively strengthened drug regulations, expanding its control list and cooperating with international law enforcement.
Diplomatic and Law Enforcement Cooperation——Achievements and Barriers: Despite political tensions, functional cooperation has persisted. China has enhanced its compliance with U.S. postal tracking requests, improving customs data sharing from 32% in 2017 to 85% in 2019. However, U.S. policymaking remains fragmented, with multiple agencies offering divergent assessments of China’s drug control efforts. While China emphasizes joint enforcement and regulatory measures, the U.S. continues to politicize the issue through initiatives like the 2023 “Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats”, which notably excluded China, signaling diplomatic pressure rather than genuine multilateral engagement.
Geopolitics and the Weaponization of the Crisis: The fentanyl issue has been absorbed into broader U.S. strategic competition with China. Leading American think tanks, including the Congressional Research Service and Foreign Affairs, oscillate between advocating for punitive measures against Chinese pharmaceutical firms and recognizing the crisis as a domestic regulatory failure. The U.S. political landscape—where legislative narratives compete for influence—has amplified the “China connection” framing, often aligning with broader geopolitical tensions rather than evidence-based policymaking.
Toward a Constructive Approach: The fentanyl crisis illustrates how domestic political narratives shape foreign policy. While China and the U.S. share common interests in combating synthetic drug trafficking, political rhetoric undermines pragmatic cooperation. Moving forward, depoliticizing drug control and enhancing multilateral enforcement mechanisms could mitigate further damage to U.S.-China relations and improve global narcotics governance.
Conclusion
Fentanyl regulation, whether for legal pharmaceuticals or illicit substances, is a global challenge due to the resilience of drug markets fueled by synthetic chemistry knowledge. Overdose crises tied to opioids and psychoactive substances demand international cooperation. In U.S.-China relations, the fentanyl issue is complex and long-term, requiring pragmatic solutions beyond geopolitical narratives.
First, drug abuse and trafficking affect all nations. While the U.S. faces an opioid crisis, overdose risks stem from multiple factors globally, including prescription misuse, recreational drug use, and misleading pharmaceutical marketing. U.S.-China collaboration in pharmacology, virology, and drug control has benefited public health.
Second, illicit drug markets adapt to enforcement. Blocking identified substances is necessary but insufficient. Real-time precursor shipment data exchange, as the UN Narcotics Control Board suggests, enhances international cooperation.
Third, U.S. election cycles may again politicize fentanyl, framing it as a trade issue. While cooperation resumed post-2023 Biden-Xi summit, scholars must counter misleading narratives.
Fourth, oversight of analytical instruments like NMR spectrometers is crucial. Implementing banking-style “Know Your Customer” (KYC) standards could improve control.
Finally, biotechnology may become a contested field, disrupting China’s biopharmaceutical sector. Ultimately, fentanyl control should be science-based, detached from political tensions, and supported by judicial cooperation integrated into domestic law.
About the Author
Zha Daojiong 查道炯: Dr. Zha is currently Professor of School of International Studies in Peking University. He focuses on non-traditional security issues in contemporary China-foreign relations in his teaching and researches, including energy, minerals, food and cross-border water resources. He focuses on China’s interactions with Asia-Pacific countries, Europe, and Africa, aiming to enhance China’s practical exchanges with foreign entities. His research interests include international political economy, non-traditional security, and political risk management for Chinese enterprises operating abroad.
About Publication
The Chinese version of the article was published by The Journal of International Studies（《国际政治研究》）, which is a bimonthly academic journal sponsored by Peking University and published by the School of International Studies of Peking University and the Pan-Chinese Universities Association of International Politics Studies. As a leading journal in international studies in China, it is open to contributions by Chinese and foreign scholars and invites submission of academic articles on international relations theories, international security, international political economy, area studies as well as Chinese politics and foreign policy.
