The article uses the example of the US and China - but free trade is one-way with china, china could historically sell freely into the US, but selling into Chin

The article uses the example of the US and China - but free trade is one-way with china, china could historically sell freely into the US, but selling into China was always made much harder by the Chinese government, by artificially keeping their currency low, as well as more overt control. This is one (of several) reasons why the top US tech firms dominate everywhere except china. Maybe there is a useful analogy here: mutual love and respect is a great foundation for a strong long-term relationship between two humans. But one party dominating or abusing the either is not a good basis for such a relationship. I suspect it's also true as another comment noted, that mutual free trade is necessary but not sufficient. As the old saying goes, "No nation has friends only interests." So if a core national strategic interest (e.g. "Taiwan is part of china" from the Chinese government's point of view) comes into tension with the idea of mutually beneficial trade, it's obvious which one will make way for the other.