Well, it's over. The tumult and the shouting dies; the captains and the kings depart. We now know that there will be no change in the broad direction of American policy. Might there have been?

The Americans certainly thought so. This campaign brought out huge amounts of fear, excitement and hatred. President Obama was depicted as a limp-wristed socialist who would ruin the economy; Governor Romney as a hard-hearted slave-driver who would think only of the rich. In fact I am not sure it would have made very much practical difference if the Republican candidate had won. The realities of the American economy and society don't leave much room for bold choices. And, if Americans exaggerated the importance of this election, what about the rest of the world? What about China?

I know there has been a certain amount of China-bashing in the context of the presidential election. This is, sadly, just a part of the electoral cycle; US leaders are no longer thinking in Cold War terms, but a large part of the American public have never quite let go of that world-view, and of course it is a very easy one to appeal to when a politician is trying to appear super-patriotic. China is nothing like the former Soviet Union, but there are certain features, like the name of the ruling party, which fits too neatly into the over-simplifications which all electorates feel safe with. Americans are notoriously uninterested in much of what goes on beyond their own shores, and some may not have realized that the Cold War – against "those goddamn Commies" – has been over for twenty years.

The new administration will be most anxious to correct the belligerent impression given by some of the campaign rhetoric; it is certain that it will be anxious to get off on the best possible footing with the new Chinese leadership. China should not listen too closely to some of the more bombastic campaign promises. At least the US will not have a President who has made a public commitment to designate China as a "currency manipulator". Actually it wouldn't have made very much difference; a President Romney would have found a way to climb down from this confrontational position, adopted purely for electoral purposes. All it meant is that, under the Trade Act, he would have had to announce the initiation of negotiations in international fora, promising to raise the subject with China at the WTO. Given that the US has been complaining about China's currency policy for years, it is reasonable to suppose that President Obama will do exactly the same, maybe without the aggressive rhetoric. Realities have not changed. Turmoil in world currency markets over the last ten years has made China's tightly managed currency policy looking like quite a good idea. Yes, it brings trading advantages with it, but it is not principally motivated by a desire to undermine the USA or the rest of the world; it is aimed at protecting the renminbi from wild swings which might seriously derail economic growth. And the Chinese policy has been one of gradual relaxation, allowing the currency to appreciate slowly and predictably in value, to alleviate the imbalance against the dollar, while discouraging speculation. In the medium term, this problem will resolve itself, and I'm sure the serious thinkers in the US (including Presidential advisers) are fully aware of this, whatever poses have to be struck for electoral purposes.

China is no longer pursuing an active policy of amassing huge foreign exchange reserves (with the eager assistance or improvident governments all over the world!) and presumably intends to continue a policy of managed revaluation of its currency. The $200 billion trade imbalance in China's favour, another major source of concern which can at times express itself in outbreaks of China-bashing, also shows signs of beginning to rectify itself, or at least of not getting any worse. China's refocus on its mushrooming domestic market is relieving pressure as well.

But Americans will keep up the struggle; the state of their economy demands it. The major issue facing the President, in his second term the same as in his first, is American jobs. And Obama is more committed than Romney would have been to the belief that one of government's primary functions is to create and preserve jobs. His second administration will be expected to fight a tough battle on trade issues; but it will be conducted in the spirit of two big beasts of the jungle locking horns on an equal basis, not in the spirit of spite, enmity and disdain.

US public finances are at a critical stage (a stage which China, too, will face in time). Everyone knows the central problem of American public finance; that the populace expects an enormous amount from the government, but is not prepared to pay the taxes required to provide it. Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. So, for decades, the only way out of the impasse has been to borrow; and that is why China is currently sitting on around two trillion dollars' worth of US Treasury bonds. Nothing is likely to change there either. It doesn't represent a threat to either side – indeed it gives solidity to the global financial universe by locking two of its major participants in a mutually supportive framework, as neither can allow any significant instability to creep in.

Security issues might prove more difficult. Both sides will be keen to avoid serious confrontation over the presence of Huawei in the Western technology markets. Nobody wishes to revive Cold War rhetoric and spy-mania. But there is a real problem here; the maintenance of its own security is a proper concern for every nation. Britain maintains security and counter-intelligence services, as we admitted in 1994: so does the USA, as has always been known; one assumes that China does too. Mutual respect for other powers' security concerns is always an essential part of peaceful co-existence. This is nothing to do with establishing or protecting hegemony; in fact US and Chinese security are vital to the security of the whole world. There is no truth in the idea that the US is interested in disadvantaging and weakening China. Instability in China would be more dangerous to the world than any degree of Chinese strength.

Another issue will be the tension between Japan and China over the Diaoyu Islands. The current contretemps might almost have been deliberately timed to embarrass the US at election time. Fortunately the East China Sea is simply too far away for most Americans to be able to focus on, so it has hardly surfaced in the election campaign. But the issue has the potential to disrupt American strategy in the region. The US-Japan Treaty is one of the linchpins of that strategy, and this prevents the US from giving too much consideration to Chinese concerns. In fact the US has made a rod for its own back here; it was either carelessness or Cold War prejudice which caused the US to attach the Diaoyus to the prefecture of Okinawa after the war, despite the generally recognised principle that all recent Japanese conquests should be restored. And so now the US-Japan security treaty is deemed to cover the Diaoyus, and the Americans are stuck with the results of their mistake. Obviously their main impulse will be simply to prevent confrontation; it remains to be seen how they will respond to a real increase in tensions. But it is certain that the new US administration will not want to quarrel with China over this issue.

So, "four more years", as the President's supporters have been chanting. For the new Chinese administration, this will mean four more years of assurances of economic cooperation punctuated by the odd bit of unhelpful rhetoric on currency and trade issues, of increasing American reliance on China to use its growing influence in the interests of global security and stability, of steady growth in business and student travel in both directions, of occasional confrontations over Chinese dissidents, of careful American manoeuvring between China and Japan, and of American recognition that it will never again be possible to leave China out of account. Exactly as there would have been had Mitt Romney been elected. Neither America nor China is planning to change the game right now.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/timcollard.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.