By Özgür Altinbaş
China has recently experienced significant diplomatic traffic. All leaders of the United Nations Security Council permanent members have visited China within a six-month period. The visits of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin also drew considerable attention. We discussed this process with Chinese journalist (CGTN) Xu Yawen and Han Hua, co-founder and Secretary-General of the Beijing Club for International Dialogue. The Chinese experts stated that Beijing’s central position in global diplomacy has grown stronger.
‘Building Ties with China is a Strategic Necessity’
Xu Yawen recalled that the leaders of the United Nations Security Council countries visited China within six months. Yawen stated, “The visits have constituted an unprecedented diplomatic phenomenon. This demonstrates that China is a central focal point of global political and economic relations and serves as a stabilizing anchor in an increasingly fragmented international system. This trend also reflects a widespread recognition that engaging with China is no longer optional but has instead become a strategic necessity.”
Yawen noted that, when evaluated collectively, the agreements reached during these meetings have contributed to global economic recovery, reduced geopolitical uncertainty, and strengthened multilateral approaches in an increasingly polarized international environment.
‘Trump Arrived with Pragmatic Goals’
Stating that Trump’s visit to Beijing was based on pragmatic goals, Yawen summarized this as “stabilizing China-US relations amidst geopolitical and economic uncertainties and providing economic benefits for American companies.”
Emphasizing that the US side aimed to alleviate commercial frictions, strengthen coordination mechanisms, expand market access, and increase China’s procurement of American agricultural and aviation products, the Chinese journalist provided the following assessment:
“Both sides signaled a desire to prevent competition from turning into conflict, agreeing on building a ‘constructive China-US relationship based on strategic stability.’ On the economic front, preliminary consensus was reached on stabilizing tariffs, reciprocal tariff reductions, expanding agricultural trade, and establishing institutionalized dialogue mechanisms such as the Trade Council and the Investment Council. These measures aimed to increase predictability and reduce volatility in bilateral economic relations.”
‘Major Divergences Remain Unresolved’
Yawen stated that major structural divergences, particularly the Taiwan issue, remain unresolved. Reminding of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s warning to Trump regarding Taiwan, the Chinese journalist said, “Although Trump stated that he does not support ‘Taiwan’s independence,’ subsequent inconsistent signals from the US side have continued to fuel strategic uncertainty and mutual distrust. Overall, while this summit did not resolve structural contradictions, it prevented relations from deteriorating further and contributed to a more stable international environment.”
‘Creating a Predictable External Environment’
Yawen stated that the most important outcome of the Xi-Trump summit was the parties’ agreement to build a “constructive China-US relationship based on strategic stability.” She conveyed that this approach rejects zero-sum conflict and bloc competition, instead advocating for structured competition, managed differences, and avoiding systemic conflicts.
Underlining that the meeting stabilized bilateral trade expectations from an economic perspective, the Chinese journalist added:
“Both sides expressed readiness to expand cooperation in trade, agriculture, and people-to-people exchange programs. The progress made in economic consultations reduced market uncertainty, boosted business confidence, and supported global supply chain stability.
For China, this situation consolidates its high-standard opening-up policy and creates a more predictable external environment for development.”
‘The Xi-Putin Meeting is a Turning Point’
Yawen also evaluated the Xi-Putin meeting. The Chinese journalist stated that in the face of intensifying geopolitical competition and rising strategic divergences among major powers, the Xi-Putin meeting went beyond bilateral relations, noting, “The meeting represents a strategic stance that opposes unilateralism and bloc conflicts, while advocating for a multipolar international order based on international law.”
Yawen made the following assessment:
“The summit further solidified the long-term strategic stability of China-Russia relations. The two sides agreed to extend the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which bases their relations on the principles of non-alliance, non-confrontation, and not targeting third parties. The joint statement on multipolarity and a new type of international relations explicitly rejects bloc politics and systemic division.
In practical terms, the summit resulted in more than 40 cooperation agreements covering economy, energy, transport, infrastructure, and international governance. These outputs deepen economic interdependence and solidify the material foundation of bilateral cooperation. On a global scale, this meeting underlines the shared support—especially for Global South countries—given to sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and independent paths of development. Furthermore, amidst rising uncertainties, it highlights the importance both sides place on stability, continuity, and resistance to external pressures. Taking place at a historic juncture, this landmark diplomatic event reflects a shared preference for stability over conflict and cooperation over decoupling, while shaping a long-term framework for major power relations in a changing global order.”
China’s Weight in Global Diplomacy
Han Hua also drew attention to China’s growing global influence in diplomacy. Han evaluated the recent increase in diplomatic traffic, stating, “Amid deep geopolitical uncertainties, this reflects not only China’s growing economic weight but also its rising central position in global diplomacy.”
Conveying that beyond its scale, China is increasingly seen as a source of predictability and stability, Han noted:
“China’s long-standing policy of non-interference in internal affairs, the continuity in its foreign policy traditions, and the importance it places on dialogues rather than bloc conflicts contribute to a perception of credibility, especially in the contexts of conflict mediation and crisis management. Combined with its economic resilience and role as the primary engine of global growth, this situation provides an additional layer of confidence for many countries seeking stable external conditions. At the same time, this trend shows that major powers continue to recognize the necessity of sustainable engagement with Beijing despite strategic competition. The emerging picture is not a unilateral centrality, but rather a more distributed diplomatic order where China functions as an indispensable anchor of dialogue and an increasing reference point of stability in global governance debates.”
Constructive-Strategic Stability
Han stated that China offered to define the bilateral relationship with the US as “constructive strategic stability.” Emphasizing that this was also accepted by the US side through Trump’s post-meeting interview, Han said, “This is of particular importance at a time when much of the global discourse tends to interpret Trump primarily through a narrow and transactional lens.”
The Chinese expert stated that in a broader framework, this engagement should be viewed as a process of strategic signaling and agenda-shaping for both sides, rather than a single result-oriented exchange, adding the following comment:
“Sustainable engagement at this level highlights how direct leader-to-leader diplomacy can help reduce misperceptions and lower the risk of crisis escalation, especially on sensitive issues such as commercial frictions, technology controls, and regional security focal points. This also enhances Beijing’s convening power by reinforcing narratives of mutual respect, coexistence, and structured competition instead of bloc conflict, in line with China’s preference for predictability in major power relations.”
The Difference Between the Trump and Putin Meetings
Han Hua also pointed out the difference between the Putin-Xi and Trump-Xi meetings. He stated that the fundamental differences between the meetings lay in the scope of coordination and the core structure of bilateral relations.
The Chinese expert stated that in the China-Russia case, the interaction is characterized by strategic alignment and institutionalized coordination at the highest level, adding:
“This is reflected not only in the breadth of cooperation but also in symbolic outputs such as the publication of a comprehensive joint declaration covering a wide spectrum from political coordination to economic cooperation and shared positions on global governance. The relationship increasingly reflects a kind of ‘strategic synchronization,’ particularly in shaping narratives around a more multipolar international order and the reform of global institutions.”
In contrast, Han drew attention to the fact that no joint declaration was issued during the meeting with Trump, stating:
“This situation in itself reflects the more complex and competitive nature of the relationship. Here, the emphasis is more on stabilizing expectations, managing differences, and preventing escalation. The agenda is more narrowly focused on putting boundaries (guardrails) on competition in the fields of trade, technology, finance, and regional security. Within this framework, the Taiwan issue remains the most fundamental and sensitive topic for China in the bilateral relationship, shaping both strategic trust and risk perception. Consequently, the primary objective of this engagement is not to achieve convergence, but to maintain strategic stability under conditions of long-term competition and deep interdependence. In short, while China-Russia relations are moving towards a coordinated positioning in an evolving international order, China-US relations are centered on managing competition and stabilizing expectations in a competitive strategic environment.”
‘The Declaration Forms a Framework for the New Order’
Evaluating the declaration signed between Russia and China, Han interpreted it on three levels. Summarizing the declaration as normative framing, strategic signaling, and institutional positioning, the Chinese expert’s views are as follows:
* On the normative level; it reflects a shared view that the post-Cold War unipolar era is coming to an end and that international relations should not be organized around a single dominant power. Instead, it promotes a vision of “equal sovereignty” among major powers and a greater voice for the Global South. In this sense, multipolarity is presented not merely as a description of reality, but as a preferred normative order.
* On the strategic level; the declaration signals a high degree of alignment between China and Russia in resisting bloc politics and external pressures. It reinforces the idea that neither side accepts alliance-based containment architectures as legitimate founding principles of the global order. On the contrary, both emphasize strategic autonomy and opposition to zero-sum geopolitical competition.
* On the institutional level; the document is also an attempt to shape the evolution of global governance—particularly within the UN system and other multilateral frameworks—toward greater inclusivity and a redistribution of influence. It aims to legitimize the economic and political weight shifting toward emerging economies.