Analysis: Xi Jinping's New Positioning for China-US Relations Meets with Discrepancy from the United States
An analysis by the Hong Kong Economic Times suggests that while Chinese President Xi Jinping has proposed building a "constructive strategic and stable relationship," the U.S. has not publicly endorsed it. This reflects America's unwillingness to accept a "bipolar political" structure of equals with China, highlighting a fundamental structural difference between the two nations.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 18, 2026 at 12:29
- 🔍 Collected: May 18, 2026 at 13:01 (32 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 18, 2026 at 13:12 (10 min after Collected)
(CNA, Reporter Chang Chien, Hong Kong, 18th) The Hong Kong Economic Times published a commentary today stating that regarding Chinese President Xi Jinping's proposal to build a "constructive strategic and stable relationship between China and the US," Washington officials have not publicly echoed this phrasing in their statements, nor have they denied it. This reflects the United States' unwillingness to accept a "bipolar political" structure where it is on equal footing with China.
The article points out that after the China-US summit on the 14th, Xi Jinping proposed building a "constructive strategic and stable relationship between China and the US" as a new positioning for bilateral relations, and stated that US President Trump agreed with this framework.
According to the analysis, Xi's proposal of this strategic framework is an attempt to provide strategic guidance for China-US relations for the next three years and beyond, emphasizing cooperation as the mainstay, competition with limits, manageable differences, and the prospect of peace. It aims to transcend a simple "competition" or "confrontation" framework to find a manageable model of coexistence.
However, the article states that compared to China's positive framing, Washington officials have not publicly echoed this phrasing, nor have they denied it. This temperature difference—where "the Chinese side interprets positively, while the US side remains silent"—is a microcosm of the current China-US relationship.
The article argues that although China and the US have a substantive consensus on macro-level issues such as avoiding direct military conflict and maintaining high-level communication channels, there are still huge and irreconcilable structural differences in their understanding of specific strategic positioning, power boundaries, and the rules of the game.
The article suggests that, contrary to China's expectations, the US side appears very cautious, even deliberately distant, regarding the term "constructive strategic and stable relationship." This attitude is not accidental but is based on America's internal political consensus and global strategic considerations.
According to the analysis, in Washington, viewing China as the "primary strategic competitor" is a rare bipartisan consensus between the Democratic and Republican parties. The US believes that China's rise in economy, technology, and military is posing a comprehensive challenge to the US-led international order.
Under this strategic judgment, any public statement from the US acknowledging the establishment of a "strategic stability" with China could be interpreted by domestic political opponents as being soft on China, or as acknowledging China's "sphere of influence" in the Asia-Pacific and even globally, which is unacceptable in the current US political climate.
Especially in today's China-US context, the United States is unwilling to accept a "bipolar political" structure of equals with China. The stability understood by the US is one built on the absolute strength advantage of the United States and its allies, i.e., "peace through strength."
The article believes that the US is more inclined to use phrases like "setting up guardrails" and "responsibly managing competition," rather than the "strategic stable relationship" that China hopes for, which carries a certain sense of strategic compromise.
Furthermore, the US is also concerned that once it publicly acknowledges China's conceptual phrasing, it will be tying its own hands on specific issues such as the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, or economic and technological restrictions.
Moreover, in recent years, the United States has been vigorously promoting its "Indo-Pacific Strategy," rallying allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NATO to jointly counter China. If the US unilaterally defines a new type of stable relationship with China, it could trigger suspicions among allies that the US is "secretly colluding with China over their heads," thereby shaking the US collective defense system. (Editor: Chu Chien-ling) 1150518
Choose to stand with the facts. Your every contribution is a force for protecting press freedom. Download the CNA "First-Hand News" APP to grasp the latest news in real time. The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.
The article points out that after the China-US summit on the 14th, Xi Jinping proposed building a "constructive strategic and stable relationship between China and the US" as a new positioning for bilateral relations, and stated that US President Trump agreed with this framework.
According to the analysis, Xi's proposal of this strategic framework is an attempt to provide strategic guidance for China-US relations for the next three years and beyond, emphasizing cooperation as the mainstay, competition with limits, manageable differences, and the prospect of peace. It aims to transcend a simple "competition" or "confrontation" framework to find a manageable model of coexistence.
However, the article states that compared to China's positive framing, Washington officials have not publicly echoed this phrasing, nor have they denied it. This temperature difference—where "the Chinese side interprets positively, while the US side remains silent"—is a microcosm of the current China-US relationship.
The article argues that although China and the US have a substantive consensus on macro-level issues such as avoiding direct military conflict and maintaining high-level communication channels, there are still huge and irreconcilable structural differences in their understanding of specific strategic positioning, power boundaries, and the rules of the game.
The article suggests that, contrary to China's expectations, the US side appears very cautious, even deliberately distant, regarding the term "constructive strategic and stable relationship." This attitude is not accidental but is based on America's internal political consensus and global strategic considerations.
According to the analysis, in Washington, viewing China as the "primary strategic competitor" is a rare bipartisan consensus between the Democratic and Republican parties. The US believes that China's rise in economy, technology, and military is posing a comprehensive challenge to the US-led international order.
Under this strategic judgment, any public statement from the US acknowledging the establishment of a "strategic stability" with China could be interpreted by domestic political opponents as being soft on China, or as acknowledging China's "sphere of influence" in the Asia-Pacific and even globally, which is unacceptable in the current US political climate.
Especially in today's China-US context, the United States is unwilling to accept a "bipolar political" structure of equals with China. The stability understood by the US is one built on the absolute strength advantage of the United States and its allies, i.e., "peace through strength."
The article believes that the US is more inclined to use phrases like "setting up guardrails" and "responsibly managing competition," rather than the "strategic stable relationship" that China hopes for, which carries a certain sense of strategic compromise.
Furthermore, the US is also concerned that once it publicly acknowledges China's conceptual phrasing, it will be tying its own hands on specific issues such as the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, or economic and technological restrictions.
Moreover, in recent years, the United States has been vigorously promoting its "Indo-Pacific Strategy," rallying allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NATO to jointly counter China. If the US unilaterally defines a new type of stable relationship with China, it could trigger suspicions among allies that the US is "secretly colluding with China over their heads," thereby shaking the US collective defense system. (Editor: Chu Chien-ling) 1150518
Choose to stand with the facts. Your every contribution is a force for protecting press freedom. Download the CNA "First-Hand News" APP to grasp the latest news in real time. The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.