President Trump recently concluded a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Busan, describing it as a “12 out of 10.” Both nations issued statements claiming the summit was productive and positive, yet the meeting is unlikely to reset the complex U.S.–China relationship. Reports reveal significant discrepancies in the understandings of the agreements, suggesting that the discussions were more verbal than formalized in writing. This raises questions about the reliability of the outcomes.
Historical context plays a crucial role here. The Phase One trade deal from Trump’s first term exhibited China’s tendency to break agreements, further complicating trust between the two countries. Despite optimistic statements from officials, unresolved issues persist alongside differing global ambitions. Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Xie Feng encouraged both nations to “seize the momentum” from the meeting, hoping for renewed cooperation amid ongoing challenges. He highlighted proposed changes like cutting fentanyl-related tariffs and enhancing agricultural trade, suggesting a pathway to improved relations.
However, a closer look at the details reveals a lack of clarity. While the U.S. announced intentions to halve fentanyl tariffs on Chinese goods, China’s response was vague at best, simply referencing an anti-drug agreement rather than concrete commitments. On agricultural purchases, while the U.S. specified quantities of soybeans, China remained ambiguous, merely stating intentions to expand trade. Moreover, on topics like tariffs, both sides echoed sentiments of cooperation, but China’s claims lacked the specificity that the U.S. provided. This fundamental difference in how both countries view the outcomes hints at future conflicts over implementation.
Even if every commitment voiced by Trump were honored, the primary issue would linger—China’s goal to surpass the U.S. in military and economic power by 2050. This overarching ambition is deeply rooted in the Chinese leadership’s perspective on international order, further entrenching the rivalry.
Centrally important in this dynamic is Taiwan, which embodies the severe clash of interests. The U.S. resists any forceful reunification of Taiwan by China while also advising against a formal declaration of independence from Taipei. The stakes are high; the U.S. may feel compelled to intervene militarily should Beijing act against the wishes of the Taiwanese people. For China, Taiwan is linked to regime legitimacy and territorial integrity, framing the issue as non-negotiable.
The strategic significance of Taiwan extends beyond politics. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) produces a vast majority of the world’s semiconductors, and any instability in the region could disrupt global supply chains, risking a staggering $1 trillion hit to the global economy. This makes Taiwan a focal point in U.S.–China tensions.
The regional security landscape further complicates matters. The U.S. has forged a network of alliances with nations such as Japan and Australia, which China perceives as threats. Conversely, Beijing seeks a regional structure devoid of U.S. military influence, leading to contrasting visions of the future. This fundamental conflict means that one side will ultimately prevail, while the other must concede. There isn’t room for both visions to coexist peacefully.
In essence, the recent trade truce is not a transformative solution. While it may provide short-term relief and potentially enhance GDP, it does not erase the rivalry that exists between a traditional superpower and a rising authoritarian state aiming for a fundamental reshaping of global dynamics. The most likely scenario is one of ongoing cycles of tension interspersed with brief periods of détente.
"*" indicates required fields
