Commentary: Busan Summit Steadies Rocky U.S.-China Relations

The continuation of the U.S.-China trade war, originating in Donald Trump's first presidential term and persisting through Joe Biden's administration and now into Trump’s second term, underscores the enduring and bipartisan nature of bilateral conflict spanning economic and technological spheres. The United States and China, as the world’s top two economies and leading representatives of developed and developing nations, have maintained a relationship seen as globally pivotal, akin to U.S.-Soviet dynamics in the Cold War era. The recent face-to-face meeting between the leaders of both countries in Busan, South Korea, has been deemed a crucial measure for stabilizing a relationship teetering on the brink of “decoupling” [para. 1].

Over the past several years, U.S.-China relations have been marked by abrupt changes, disrupting long-standing understandings and introducing new influencing factors. The latest summit—Trump's first since re-assuming office—invites early assessments about possible shifts in the bilateral dynamic [para. 2].

One significant development is the partial easing of “quasi-trade embargoes” and technology restrictions that had escalated since Trump’s launch of an all-encompassing “tariff war” in April. Earlier, it was generally believed that certain boundaries would prevent the relationship from deteriorating too far and that a “Cold War 2.0” should be avoided. However, scenarios such as a complete economic decoupling or even confrontation have become plausible. In this light, the Busan summit is widely viewed as a positive achievement and a step back from these more dangerous possibilities [para. 3].

Summit diplomacy has reached unprecedented significance in managing tensions between the U.S. and China. President Xi Jinping emphasized during the meeting that both heads of state must navigate the “great ship” of relations with responsibility, particularly amid ongoing challenges. Citing recent telephone calls and correspondence between the two leaders, the article notes that these personal interactions have become the most valuable strategic asset in the relationship, elevating their influence to new heights. The repeated engagement between the leaders, even during tense periods, has maintained a baseline of civil discourse and respect [para. 4].

The structure of U.S.-China relations has traditionally been one of “cooperation amid differences, contention without rupture.” While this remains largely true, the interactions of top leaders have proven decisive at critical moments. Both Xi and Trump have frequently maintained direct contact this year, demonstrating the importance of personal ties in preventing escalation and fostering engagement, even as broader relations have grown more complicated [para. 5].

Furthermore, the trajectory of U.S.-China relations has been the most significant external force affecting China’s development since the normalization of relations nearly fifty years ago. While China has grown stronger economically with a vast domestic market and robust industries, the stability and long-term health of U.S.-China relations continue to be a crucial determinant of China’s external environment and future prospects [para. 6].

Managing U.S.-China relations is an intrinsically complex undertaking, with friction and disagreement being natural given the two nations’ differences and economic power. While a perfect win-win result may be elusive, both sides are urged to prioritize dialogue, cooperation, and effective conflict management to avoid mutually damaging outcomes. The article concludes that, unlike the U.S.-Soviet relationship—often characterized by zero-sum rivalry—the U.S.-China relationship must strive for principled coexistence and constructive ties. The Busan summit delivered important reassurance to both countries and the global economy by reaffirming ongoing engagement at the highest level [para. 7].

(Reporting by Huang Shan, Caixin Media. Views presented are the author’s and not necessarily those of Caixin.) [para. 8][para. 9]