The meeting between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump can be interpreted as “Controlled Competition + Mandatory Cooperation”

Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) — It appears that the administrations of Xi Jinping and Donald Trump are attempting to move toward a model of “controlled competition + mandatory cooperation” rather than direct confrontation. In particular, the two leaders’ emphasis on “constructive strategic stability” can be interpreted as meaning that China and the United States will continue to remain rivals; however, neither side wants this rivalry to evolve into war or economic decoupling. It may also be interpreted as an acknowledgment by both parties that they are obliged to manage the global system together.

When Trump’s visit to China is evaluated within the context of economics and trade, it is clearly seen that Xi Jinping adopts the approach that “economic relations are mutually beneficial, and equal negotiation is the only correct path.” Xi’s emphasis that the trade talks produced “positive and balanced results” and the desire for American companies to continue investing in China also support this approach. Trump, on the other hand, appears to encourage American companies to expand cooperation with China. Within this framework, it may be argued that China is seeking to preserve its manufacturing power, while the United States is attempting to maintain its superiority in capital, technology, and global finance. At the same time, it may also be considered that both sides recognize that a possible economic war would seriously damage not only their own economies but also the global economy.

Beyond economics, China’s principal message appears to be: “We do not want war with the United States” and “A new model of major-power relations should be established.” It is also understood that the U.S. side does not completely reject this approach; rather, both sides appear willing to find common ground on keeping military communication channels open, maintaining diplomatic contacts, and establishing crisis management mechanisms.

The Taiwan issue stands out as the most sensitive topic. Xi Jinping strongly emphasizes that Taiwan is the most important issue in China–U.S. relations and that mismanagement of the matter could lead to conflict. However, when carefully examined, it is seen that China, rather than issuing a direct threat of war, is conveying the message that “the United States should act cautiously.” The fact that the U.S. side also refrains from using openly confrontational language on Taiwan demonstrates that both sides currently seek to avoid direct military confrontation.

If the US/Israel–Iran war were to drift into a stalemate similar to the Russia–Ukraine war, it can be expected that Trump would try to encourage the Beijing administration to persuade Tehran to reach an agreement with Washington.This is because China purchases a significant portion of Iran’s oil that is under U.S. sanctions. When Trump’s visit to China is evaluated, it appears that such discussions have gained further strength. Nevertheless, it is also seen that Trump argues that China’s support is not needed regarding Iran.

At the same time, when the news texts published by China’s official institutions regarding the meeting are examined, the expressions “world stability” and “future of humanity” convey a message concerning the multipolar world order. China believes that the U.S.-centered unipolar order is weakening; however, it is understood that Beijing wants the transition process to proceed in a controlled manner. The United States, meanwhile, appears to recognize that it cannot completely stop China, but instead seeks to manage it through balancing. Therefore, it may be argued that relations between the two countries are evolving not toward full alliance or full hostility, but toward a model of “managed competition.”

Indeed, the world appears to be increasingly moving toward a multipolar international order. For example, during the Türkiye–Kazakhstan High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council Meeting held on May 14, 2026, emphasis was also placed on the multipolar world, and references were made to the doctrine frequently voiced by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in international affairs: “The world is bigger than five.”

Nevertheless, attributing excessive meaning to the U.S. visit to China may not be a very realistic approach. It may be argued that, through this visit, the parties were testing one another, while Trump was seeking a way out of tensions with Iran, particularly in light of the approaching U.S. elections. In addition, it is noteworthy that one of the rare issues upon which the United States, China, and Europe appear to have reached consensus is the Middle Corridor. It is seen that China is offering serious investments and incentives for the Middle Corridor, while the United States is attempting to become involved in the process by approaching the Zangezur Corridor project as the “Trump Route.” In this context, it may be considered that, apart from climate change, the Middle Corridor has become one of the strategic issues on which international actors have reached the broadest consensus on a global scale.