BEIJING, May 22, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — This is a news report by China Daily:
Scholars at a China Daily seminar said the recent summit between President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in Beijing pointed to a realistic goal of keeping rivalry within boundaries, strengthening communication and reopening space for cooperation.
At the Symposium on the Future of China-US Relations — organized on Thursday by China Daily’s Opinion Channel, the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Chinese Association for American Studies — Chinese and foreign scholars discussed the meaning of “constructive strategic stability” and how it could guide the next stage of bilateral ties.
Yuan Zheng, deputy director of the CASS’ Institute of American Studies, said the new positioning should be understood as a way to keep competition from overwhelming the relationship. “Constructive strategic stability should mean cooperation as the main direction, competition within bounds, differences under control and peace within reach,” Yuan said.
Einar Tangen, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said the idea of a constructive relationship of strategic stability may point to a broader strategic understanding in which the two countries continue to compete.
Liu Weidong, editor-in-chief of Contemporary American Review, a Chinese academic journal published by the IAS, said US policy toward China is moving toward a more realistic form of competition based on recognition of China’s strength. He attributed the shift partly to China’s steady rise in comprehensive national strength, partly to China’s strategic composure in its interactions with the US, and partly to the Trump administration’s realist policy approach.
Fred Teng, president of the America China Public Affairs Institute, said the Beijing summit should be judged not on the basis of immediate trade announcements or export deals, but by whether it helps create mechanisms to handle disputes before they become crises.
“The real choice before China and the United States is not friendship or confrontation. The real choice is managed competition or unmanaged rivalry,” Teng said.
Such a framework could also reopen room for practical cooperation. Denis Simon, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said scientific and educational ties may not regain the openness seen in the 1990s and 2000s, but full separation would be neither realistic nor desirable. Areas such as climate science, public health, agriculture, basic research and education, he said, still require sustained engagement.
Ross N. Mitchell, a professor at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, brought a scientific perspective to the discussion. He compared a constructive China-US relationship to the Earth’s magnetic field, saying the two sides could form a “dipole” that helps generate stability and protection for the wider world if competition is managed responsibly.
Siddharth Chatterjee, former UN resident coordinator in China and distinguished visiting professor at Schwarzman College of Tsinghua University, placed the issue in a wider global context. Drawing on his UN experience, he recalled China-US public health cooperation in Kenya, saying it showed that when the two countries work together, they can create tangible global public goods.
For many countries, Chatterjee said, stable China-US relations are not merely a diplomatic issue. They affect whether countries can focus on development, public health, climate action and poverty reduction, rather than being forced to choose sides. “Many countries do not want to choose between China and the US. They want a relationship that is fair, stable and cooperative,” Chatterjee said.
