As Chinese President Xi Jinping sat down with his US counterpart and guest Donald Trump in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People on May 14, the US publication People’s World published an article issued in the name of its editorial collective, saying that “the eyes of working people around the world are fixed on this two-day summit with both urgency and hope.”
It went on to note that the “relationship between the United States and China has deteriorated badly in recent years. Military posturing in the Asia-Pacific and the signing of new war pacts like the AUKUS nuclear submarine scheme have raised the specter of catastrophic conflict. A ‘new Cold War’ framework—driven by Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment—has pushed the two largest economies on earth toward confrontation rather than cooperation… This summit is an opportunity to step back from the brink and push the reset button.”
According to the US comrades, in his opening remarks addressed to Trump, President Xi posed the right question: “Can the United States and China avoid the ‘Thucydides Trap,’ the historical pattern in which a rising power and an established one blunder into war? That question deserves a serious answer, and it demands more than diplomatic pleasantries. It demands concrete commitments.”
We reprint the article below.
As U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping sit across from one another at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, the eyes of working people around the world are fixed on this two-day summit with both urgency and hope.
The relationship between the United States and China has deteriorated badly in recent years. Reckless tariff wars have disrupted global supply chains and squeezed workers and consumers in both countries with inflation and layoffs. Military posturing in the Asia-Pacific and the signing of new war pacts like the AUKUS nuclear submarine scheme have raised the specter of catastrophic conflict.
A “new Cold War” framework—driven by Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment—has pushed the two largest economies on earth toward confrontation rather than cooperation. That path leads nowhere good. This summit is an opportunity to step back from the brink and push the reset button.
President Xi, in his opening remarks, posed the right question: Can the United States and China avoid the “Thucydides Trap,” the historical pattern in which a rising power and an established one blunder into war? That question deserves a serious answer, and it demands more than diplomatic pleasantries. It demands concrete commitments.
On trade, the two sides must move beyond the destructive cycle of tariffs and retaliation launched by Trump that has benefited no one but arms dealers and certain sectors of big capital. Working people in Detroit and Shenzhen alike pay the price when commerce becomes a weapon. Expanding fairly negotiated market access, stabilizing supply chains, and building genuine mutual benefit—not zero-sum competition—must be the goal.
On technology, the potential of artificial intelligence and other emerging fields is too great, and too consequential for humanity, to be squandered on a race for military and economic dominance. With the jobs of millions at stake, dialogue about how each country addresses questions of a just transition would be to the benefit of all. The same goes for the environmental impacts of data center construction. Frameworks for cooperation, not walls of restriction, are what workers and communities need.
On Taiwan, Xi was direct: Mishandling this issue risks “clashes and even conflicts.” This publication has long held that military adventurism in the Taiwan Strait would be a catastrophe for the peoples of the entire region. Dialogue, restraint, and respect for the One China principle are the only responsible course.
On the Middle East, both powers have agreed that energy waterways must remain open and that nuclear weapons proliferation is undesirable. These points of agreement should be the foundation for broader diplomatic engagement, not new pretexts for confrontation.
As People’s World regularly said during the last Cold War: Détente is not surrender, peace is not weakness. The people of both the U.S. and China—and the world—have everything to gain from leaders who choose cooperation over conflict.
Mister Trump, the current US president, is an unethical lawless individual, a convicted felon, an aggressor and a war criminal.
He committed the unlawful blockade of Venezuela then attacked that nation and kidnapped its President and First Lady; he is currently strangling the people of Cuba through an unlawful blockade; together with Israel and with the complicity of much of the West, he unleashed a brutal war of choice and aggression on Iran and he is currently trying to impose a crushing blockade on the Iranian people.
All this on the watch of the People’s Republic of China – and that of the Russian Federation.
Why do you allow this? How could you tolerate such crimes?
How come the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation didn’t up to now impose a single sanction or any form of coercive measure on Trump, his criminal regime and the USA as a whole?
Why have you made no attempt to hold accountable an obvious, blatant and proven aggressor, a mass murderer? – Think of the school children of Minab.
What is left of the Multipolar World which you and the Russian Federation have been championing?
What happened?
Bitterly wondering and craving for answers in The Netherlands
Dear Lekx,
I can’t claim to be an expert on this and I don’t think that I can speak on behalf of any government or official. Nevertheless, I’ll try to explain how I see these questions and hope you can find some answers.
Please keep an open mind as my response might be a little controversial.
As a Chinese person, my journey of learning Chinese history gave me lots of despair. War happens, the worst of human nature on full display and the really hopeless part is that we are doomed to repeat it because we learn from history that we don’t learn from history.
The sad yet undeniable truth is that there is no “just” world, we want good things to happen but there is never guarantee that everyone get what they deserve.
And I found it very important to keep this in mind and make peace with it otherwise we can’t continue to function as individuals in a society because a society needs consensus that good things happen to good people. I am not saying because bad things happen and will keep happening therefore it is okay to happen. It is not.
But by learning our history I made peace with myself because the world is too complicated and most things are outside my control. The only thing I can do is to carry on with life and follow the trend of history. That applies to countries as well.
Politics is a limited tool, it is not magic. It cannot defy physical world, nor can it create resources. And it certainly does not guarantee solving all the problems we face.
Wanting a savior is bad, trying to play God is worse. I understand why people might want a “world police” to enforce rules and correct wrongs, but international relations do not work like that. Throughout China’s history, especially after 1949, China only resort to military action when there is perceived threat to China’s safety. And avenging for another country thousands of kilometers away is not China’s thing, nor the best way to spend resources.
Expecting China to solve everyone’s problem is simply impossible, China is still a developing country and have many urgent issues that needs to be solved. The best China can do is to protect its own interest first, preparing itself for any future problems, trying to gauge the historic trend and plan accordingly, and most importantly, not descends into chaos again.
None of that is easy and amount of work went into insulating China is beyond imagination. This is good governance at work and what politics is able to achieve, suddenly taking care of everything is not what politics can do. You can call it cynical, you can call it selfish but I think not reaching too far is how you handle things responsibly.
China did not create the current situation but still found itself in this chaotic world and has to play with what it has. As sad as it sounds, I don’t think restoring order/justice around the globe is China’s task, let alone reforming it. The core of China’s foreign policies has been “be independent, be self-reliant, non-interference, no alliance”. Take Iran for example, China’s public moves recently are trying to coordinate behind the scene (therefore not very visible to public audience) and use existing mechanisms (UNSC) to implement a political solution, because there is no other reasonable action to take(at least no public ones), there is not much to do beyond that.
Imagine, for a second, say a major power decide to drop a team of special forces and “take” belligerent countries’ key commanders captive and ship them off to Hague and call that justice. Would that reverse all the bad things that has been put in motion? Will that erase all the bloodshed and bring dead people alive? It won’t, and it will only create bigger problems for everyone.
Lastly, multipolar means no single power is strong enough to dominate others and more countries get to set global agendas instead of just one or two.
Hope you come back and see this post,
With love, resignation and calmness from a rainy Nanjing.
Greetings to you, respected Comrade J. W.,
Thank you for your answer and reflections.
I understand your stance, even though i do not share it on some major aspects.
My deepest conviction is that the world is shaped by us, by our thoughts, decisions and deeds.
So, the world is as just as we make it.
Allow me also to point out that what is happening now in the world, all these horrendous injustices and crimes, is not a historic trend, a trend in the world: it is Trump of the USA who is gone rogue, is violating the law, International Law, and is aggressing other nations, particularly the nations which are in good and friendly terms with the People’s Republic of China – and with the Russian Federation.
I do not think that people expect China to be the world police.
International Law and UN Charter are in a sense the world police; they however can not act on their own. They need to be applied and upheld.
I can also not speak on behalf of all Dutch Socialists/Communists, let alone all the outer world; i nevertheless can say with certainty that many people out there wish that China would be more active in upholding International Law, that China is more actively involved in ensuring that International Law is respected by each and all, that China will take the lead in defending, implementing and enforcing International Law and UN Resolutions, and in holding accountable those who violate these laws, principles, decisions, Resolutions – whoever these culprits are.
It’s worth noting en passant that the capitalists and imperialists, all the West and its allies promptly organized themselves and mobilized the whole world and all possible legal, economic, financial, military, cultural, sportif, mediatic,… means to assist Ukraine, which the West considers a friend and potential ally, and to hold accountable and punish Russia, following the launch by Russia of its Special Military Operation in Ukraine – and thus the violation by Russia of International Law.
There is even an international arrest warrant on President Putin, as we all know.
Let’s consider Cuba, the oldest, most genuine and last remaining Communist/Socialist Nation in the northern hemisphere and the Americas. And a good friend of the People’s Republic of China.
So, is the People’s Republic of China going to farther sit idly by, watch and let Trump – this declared enemy of Socialist and Communist governments worldwide, this self-proclaimed deadly crusader against Communism/Socialism, this lawless unethical individual – destroy Cuba, Cuba too?
And even if we approach this issue from the strict “defense of own interests” perspective, the ‘selfish and cynical path’ so to speak, if China won’t protect its friends and allies (including and beginning with ideological soulmates such as Cuba in particular) against imperialist onslaught and/or would not provide these wronged friends and allies with all needed means to defend themselves, then there is the risk that China could end up all alone facing the bellicose capitalist, imperialist and even fascist/nazi American monster and/or a US-led monster who would then not only be strengthened by the natural resources of the countries conquered, but would also have at his disposal their human resources, knowledge and technology – the imperialists already have Venezuelan oil; they are now eyeing and targeting Iran’s oil and other critical resources, at China’s doorstep.
The People’s Republic of China could also by then lose the sympathy, solidarity and support of Socialists and Communists, of Socialist/Communist parties, groups, organizations and forces throughout the world.
The violations, injustices and crimes of the Trump regime and the USA and the impunity they in so doing enjoy are detrimental to a multipolar world; they indeed are the exact opposite of what the features of a multipolar world are and ought to be.
Truly, a world in which International Law is respected would be a just world – is at the very least preferable and better than the current one.
A multipolar world would be a just world.
A world built on solidarity between people and cooperation between countries, “a world of shared prosperity”, would be a just world.
A Socialist/Communist world would be a just world.
With kind and warm regards from a sunny Rotterdam
I hope you won’t find my response condescending, but if you do, I apologize.
A lot of our difference (and the different actions taken by our countries) can be explained by the different culture background we are from.
Western countries have more individualist society (English-speaking countries among the most individualist ) and Eastern society leans towards collectivism.
This explains why I place less importance on the weight of my personal choices. It would be wrong to believe one of them is superior, but there are areas where one of them suits better than the other.
The arrest warrant on Putin is a good example in upholding international, I admit I forgot that in my answer. I am frustrated that my country is not able to cut ties with Israel, let alone punish the state terrorists that is the Israeli state. But I can foresee the cost of direct involvement(Israel might force China’s hand on Taiwan, Japan or try to destabilize China) so the best course of action could be narrowing their option for new offensive, which is also in China’s interest. However, if pundits are right, not lifting the selective export ban of rare earth to weapon manufacturer is actually hurting their ability to sustain military operation. That is “不战而屈人之兵,善之善者也” being demonstrated.
I complete understand if people read the latest episodes as renewed appetite for neo-colonialism but I read them as undisciplined muscle memory for an era that can’t come back.
It is also not my first time reading “if China doesn’t fight back, it won’t have any friends left.” or “why doesn’t China protect its allies” or “US is taking out China’s friends one by one and it will come for China eventually”. I reject this notion completely. Firstly, that is not how China see this world, being self-reliant and not forming alliance and relying on smart balancing is what protected China from some of the most vulnerable moments since 1949. Counting on someone to protect you is always a bad idea in international politics. Second, the center of gravity in global affairs is shifting to Asia no matter how hard some might try to reverse it, which means the relative power of the West is diminishing. Third, I also believe there is a critical error made in assuming the capitalists and imperialists are united, they are not. Each faction has their own interest and enemies, they (and the collective West) do appear united, but that doesn’t mean they can punch above their weight all the time. I used to believe that China won’t have any friends if America force everyone to pick sides, but I come to realize that this is wishful thinking (for the neo-imperialists).
With respect,
J.W.