President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping are scheduled to convene on Thursday in Busan, South Korea. Negotiators from the U.S. and China appear to be nearing agreements on various issues including tariffs, technology, rare earth elements, soybeans, and potentially even fentanyl and TikTok. However, once the pleasantries conclude, both nations will likely confront the same fundamental divisions that existed at the start of Trump’s presidency.

Should Trump and Xi indeed endorse a trade accord, it is probable that the world’s two largest economies will conclude a rather limited agreement. This is because, in the absence of a defined long-term strategy, any deal brokered by Trump will not adequately address what both nations require for fostering peace and economic well-being.

The U.S. president’s well-known transactional approach is insufficient to establish the foundation for a intricate relationship with an emerging geopolitical adversary, especially one that flourishes under long-term strategic planning and a single-party governance system.

A Lasting Strategy Outperforms Transactional Approaches

Any personal rapport—or lack thereof—that Trump and Xi may cultivate will hold little significance if both nations perceive the other as the primary cause of global issues. If the prevailing American sentiment is that China engages in unfair trade practices and seeks world dominance, then the Chinese perspective is that America represents merely the newest in a succession of colonial powers intending to suppress their nation.

While this may represent a distinct type of Cold War compared to the U.S.-Soviet confrontation, it remains a stalemate necessitating that both parties formulate principles for a contentious relationship. Furthermore, Washington requires a strategy to define these principles. Beyond merely adopting a “tough” stance on China, we must ascertain our true objectives and what outcomes are genuinely achievable.

A top priority should be a strategy to curb China’s excessive industrial output, which accounts for 30% of global manufactured products, with only half consumed domestically. This year, its merchandise trade surplus is anticipated to surpass the level seen in 2024 for cars, solar panels, and other products that saturated international markets. Instead of imposing disproportionate trade agreements on allies and partners, Washington ought to collaborate on a consistent message to Chinese leaders: that a business strategy leading to domestic deflation and foreign animosity cannot be sustained.

China’s expansive outreach to developing countries poses another risk. The Belt and Road Initiative has provided generous loans and investments, fostering growth and creating markets for Chinese trade. However, the conditions of these agreements have left many borrowing nations with unsustainable debts that are exceptionally difficult to restructure. For the current period, 75 of the world’s poorest countries are required to make $22 billion in loan repayments this year, causing China to appear more as a debt collector than a development banker and risking deeper poverty for these nations.

On the diplomatic front, Beijing and Washington ought to dedicate at least as much effort to resolving conflicts. Should Russian President Vladimir Putin eventually choose to negotiate a cease-fire in Ukraine, can China play a role in ensuring the agreement’s permanence? China’s response was notably limited when American bombers targeted Iranian nuclear sites, yet could it still encourage the Supreme Leader towards a peace settlement as discussions recommence?

Furthermore, there are critical flashpoints within China’s immediate region. Any trade relationship stemming from the current discussions will only be as robust as the stability in the Asia Pacific. At a minimum, comprehensive dialogues are needed concerning North Korea’s volatile leadership, Beijing’s territorial assertions in the South China Sea, and naturally, Taiwan. Trump’s distinct refusal to outline the U.S. response to an assault from the mainland could be perceived by Xi as tacit approval.

Advantages of a Sustained Strategy

Moreover, there are numerous advantages derived from consistent dialogue on challenging topics, including climate policy, matters concerning the Arctic, cybersecurity frameworks, artificial intelligence regulations, safeguarding intellectual property, readiness for pandemics, food security, reform of the United Nations, space initiatives, access to financial markets, deep-sea mining regulations, quantum computing benchmarks, student immigration, human rights, and many other areas.

Incorporating influential Congressional Democrats into these discussions would also be prudent, preventing disruptions to the process due to subsequent presidential campaigns. This approach would also serve China’s interests, as it will seek assurance that any accord will endure beyond Trump’s presidential term.

Following three decades of increasing mutual reliance, China and the United States are now heavily focused on disentangling their relationship to reduce reciprocal dependence for crucial supply chains. Consequently, the volume of bilateral trade and financial transactions is expected to keep diminishing.

However, the world’s two largest economies and geopolitical adversaries cannot merely confine their discussions to subjects like terbium and H100 chips. Xi Jinping maintains a strategic vision for “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by 2049, marking the 100^th anniversary of the Communist Revolution. Following this week’s summit, Donald Trump might detail how the United States intends to interact with China until that time, specifying areas for collaboration and identifying his non-negotiable boundaries.

Such an approach, however, would necessitate a degree of strategic foresight uncharacteristic of a president widely known for his improvisational style.