International relations are built upon the foundations of geographical realities, national interests, strategic priorities, and power dynamics. The recent two-day summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in Beijing featured a high-profile business delegation spanning agriculture, aviation, electric vehicles, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and semiconductor chips. Ironically, while the visit focused heavily on business agendas and strategic manoeuvres, it largely failed to interrogate the deeper human and environmental crises of the future, often described within the framework of the “Anthropocene.”
US President Trump’s visit to Beijing came in the aftermath of wide-ranging strikes against Iran beginning four months ago, aimed at dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz under US dominance. However, Iran remained an unresolved challenge for the United States, while the ceasefire continued to remain precariously fragile ahead of Trump’s China visit.
The visit was defined by warm rhetoric and symbolism. Trade remained near the top of the agenda despite recent tensions surrounding the war in Iran. Despite their differing strategic interests, both the US and China have realised the need to strengthen trade relations. Alongside tariffs, both sides also discussed the Taiwan issue, recalling the need to avoid the “Thucydides Trap” amid ongoing arms sales to Taiwan. Despite broader strategic engagements, the Taiwan issue remains the most critical flashpoint in US-China bilateral relations. Although economic interdependence across the Taiwan Strait has deepened, geopolitical tensions have intensified since Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit. Trump, meanwhile, remained unusually silent when questioned about Taiwan during the visit.
Strategic stability and traps
The central question of the Xi-Trump summit was whether China and the United States could avoid the “Thucydides Trap” and pioneer a new model of major-power relations. It was Graham T. Allison who argued in 2015 that the defining question of the twenty-first century is whether China and the United States can escape the “Thucydides Trap.”
Meanwhile, China has already begun addressing three other major traps. The first is the “Middle-Income Trap,” where a country’s rapid economic growth begins to stagnate. Although the US trade deficit with China has declined from $400 billion to $200 billion over the past decade, China has simultaneously expanded its commercial integration with Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) partners, reaching approximately $3.4 trillion in 2025 and strengthening its role as a global manufacturing and supply-chain hub.
The second is the “Tacitus Trap,” in which governments lose public trust — a phenomenon Nepal witnessed during the Gen Z movement in September 2025. The third is the “Kindleberger Trap,” which occurs during periods of global power transition.
The Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing, therefore, carried significance far beyond bilateral diplomacy. Avoiding these various “traps” has been part of China’s long-term strategic stability approach under Xi’s leadership for more than a decade.
The summit also addressed issues related to rare earth elements, semiconductor restrictions, chip technology, fentanyl, and AI competition. The visit to the Temple of Heaven carried symbolic meaning as well, projecting ideas of harmony, peace, legitimacy, and good governance rooted in the traditional Chinese philosophical doctrine known as the “Mandate of Heaven.”
Missing facts and challenges
One of the major shortcomings of the meeting was the limited attention given to global challenges such as climate change, despite its growing urgency and long-term security implications. The absence of climate security from such a high-level agenda indicates that, despite being one of the most pressing global concerns, it was not prioritised during this diplomatic engagement.
This reflects how climate change, though widely recognised as a critical global issue, continues to be sidelined in major geopolitical discussions. Yet it remains a confrontational challenge for all nations. Climate change continues to operate as a form of “slow violence” — often invisible and gradual — emerging from activities such as resource extraction, mining, oil and gas drilling, deforestation, overfishing, hunting, excessive water withdrawal, and the extraction of rare earth elements for semiconductor chips.
These activities disproportionately affect developing countries, which remain highly vulnerable to climate impacts despite contributing the least to global emissions.
The environmental consequences of war further exacerbate the crisis. For instance, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has reportedly generated 311 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, while the Israel-Palestine (Gaza) war has produced approximately 33.2 million tonnes. Similarly, the US-Israel-Iran conflict has contributed around 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, worsening the global climate crisis.
Another major gap was the overwhelming focus on strategic competition and economic interests, while broader human security concerns — particularly those affecting developing nations — received far less attention.
Similarly, the gender dimension remained weak in terms of representation and participation. Only two businesswomen were part of Trump’s delegation, representing sectors such as aviation, technology, finance, and manufacturing, while only one woman represented Xi’s side.
A further shortcoming was the lack of visible gender representation in high-level discussions, reflecting the continued underrepresentation of gender perspectives in global diplomatic and geopolitical decision-making.
Expected reality
Despite these shortcomings, the meeting can still be interpreted as sending a positive signal. It reflects an effort to maintain dialogue between major global powers, which remains essential for sustaining international peace and stability. By keeping communication channels open, the summit helps strengthen prospects for global peace and may help build a more cooperative and resilient international order.
Ironically, however, while the United States appears increasingly willing to dismantle aspects of the global order it once helped create, China has positioned itself as one of the strongest defenders of the UN Charter, multilateralism through mechanisms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and broader institutional stability.
At the same time, NATO allies and European Union members have increasingly distanced themselves from the US due to Trump’s aggressive foreign policy approach, further complicating the evolving global order.
