Turning a pause into lasting stability

A significant outcome of President Xi Jinping's recent state visit to the United States was that it created strategic breathing space for China-US relations. The task now is for both sides to make the most of this opportunity, turning reduced tensions into greater stability, deeper cooperation and a more constructive relationship.

During his visit, Xi held extensive discussions with US President Donald Trump on bilateral relations and major international and regional issues. The two sides reached a series of understandings covering trade, artificial intelligence, counternarcotics, security and people-to-people ties, while agreeing to maintain channels for dialogue and crisis communication.

Taken together, these outcomes mean more than a list of individual agreements: the two countries are trying to put guardrails around competition. Trade arrangements can reduce immediate economic friction; new channels on AI and military crisis communication can help prevent technological or security disputes from escalating; and continued cooperation on counternarcotics and the search for the remains of US service members missing in China since World War II show that cooperation in areas of common interest remains possible even amid broader differences.

The significance of the meeting therefore lies not only in what was agreed, but in the space it has created for further engagement. Strategic stability is rarely achieved through one breakthrough. It is built gradually through reciprocal actions, functioning communication channels and a willingness to manage disagreements without allowing them to overwhelm areas where cooperation remains possible.

The economic dimension is particularly important. More than 7,000 Chinese enterprises operate in the US, while more than 84,000 US-invested enterprises operate in China. Their activities support employment and supply chains on both sides. A 2026 US-China Business Council survey found that 95 percent of US respondents consider their China operations somewhat to very important to their global competitiveness. These figures illustrate why economic decoupling is far more complicated than political rhetoric suggests.

Yet the agreements do not eliminate the fundamental disputes. Reciprocal tariffs, agricultural purchases, rare-earth supplies, critical minerals, technology controls and market access remain sensitive issues.

A similar dynamic is evident in artificial intelligence. The dialogue has taken on a deeper institutional character, which is valuable in itself. However, this dialogue should not be confused with a convergence of positions. Washington seeks to maintain technological superiority and manage security-related risks. In contrast, Beijing aims to secure room for development and rejects any attempts to turn technological interdependence into a tool for unilateral pressure. The newly established channel of engagement may reduce the risk of miscalculation, but it does not eliminate strategic competition.

This is, therefore, not the end of differences, but an opportunity to manage them more constructively.

That distinction matters. Regular leader-level meetings can reduce miscalculation, preserve economic stability and create mechanisms for addressing crises. Xi mentioned the "Thucydides Trap" to underscore the danger of allowing competition between a rising power and an established power to become a zero-sum struggle. Strategic stability requires competition to remain bounded.

The deeper question is how both countries can use this respite to strengthen stability and create more space for cooperation.

Both countries have an interest in using this period to strengthen economic resilience, reduce vulnerabilities and create more stable conditions for development. It allows China to deepen economic relationships with the wider world while reducing vulnerabilities created by dependence on foreign technology and markets.

The US can also benefit if it uses this time productively. It can diversify critical supply chains, coordinate with partners, strengthen domestic industrial capacity, improve crisis-communication channels and reconsider strategic planning. Yet Washington faces formidable constraints, including high public debt, fiscal pressures and questions about the capacity of its military-industrial base to sustain multiple strategic commitments.

This is why the summit should not be judged primarily by its ceremonial grandeur or the warmth of the leaders' personal relationship. Its real value lies in the window for action it opens.

How effectively both sides use this window will help determine whether today's breathing space can develop into lasting stability and greater cooperation.

China could consolidate gains in key economic and technological sectors and continue pursuing high-quality development. The US may rebuild its manufacturing capacity, reduce vulnerabilities and formulate a coherent long-term strategy. Both sides have room to grow, and their competition should be a healthy one, in which each strives to do better rather than to bring the other down.

The summit by no means ended the competition between China and the US; it bought both sides extra time to prepare for what lies ahead. The task now is to use this respite to strengthen the foundations for a more stable, constructive and mutually beneficial relationship.

The author is a former prime minister of the Kyrgyz Republic.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.