FILE PHOTO: Rana Mitter

Students from the 2026 Southeast University–University of Pennsylvania summer school program visit Yiwu, Zhejiang Province, touring the Yiwu International Trade Market, the Yiwu railway port, and local companies to feel the economic pulse of the “world’s supermarket.” Photo: VCG

“The meeting was one of Friendship, Strength, and Success, for both China and the U.S.A. ... We have made many accomplishments, and will make more.” US President Donald Trump offered this assessment of the China–US heads-of-state meeting in late September 2026 in a post on the social media platform Truth Social. Scholars in the United States who have long followed China–US relations have also welcomed the meeting. Among them is Rana Mitter, S.T. Lee chair professor of US–Asia Relations at Harvard Kennedy School, who believes that head-of-state diplomacy will play a positive and important role in shaping relations between the two countries.

In an exclusive interview with a CSST special correspondent, Mitter discussed how China and the United States should redefine their bilateral relationship and its potential implications for global governance. He is the author of several books about China, including Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937–1945 and his latest book, China’s Good War: How World War II Is Shaping a New Nationalism. He also teaches a course at Harvard, “China and the World: Challenges, Competition, and Cooperation,” which examines contemporary Chinese policy and decision-making from a historical perspective.

Positive outcomes achieved

CSST: The Chinese and US presidents exchanged visits within six months of each other. They have also confirmed that they will support each other in ensuring the success of the 2026 APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting and the G20 Leaders’ Summit, and expressed their intention to attend each other’s events. What’s your take?

Mitter: Actually, the fact that the two leaders may meet as many as four times in one year is a sign that they take bilateral and multilateral meetings seriously. Of course, the state visits were just US–China. But the next two meetings, at APEC and G20, are a reminder that there is a much more multilateral world out there where many countries other than the United States and China have a voice. Of course, it’s a coincidence that those two multilaterals are in fact held in the United States and China! But that is helpful because it means that the two presidents have every opportunity to deepen their dialogue.

Both sides achieved a positive outcome from the summit. President Trump was keen to make sure that President Xi was received in a way that showed mutual respect, but also emphasized that American power remains a key factor in shaping global society. Both the United States and China realize that there are still high levels of interdependence between the two sides, and it will be hard to maintain a stable global order without some shared assumptions. So although there were not very many specific outcomes this time, the exercise in confidence-building was quite effective.

CSST: Will China and the United States show greater willingness to cooperate on trade, economic issues, and AI governance in the future?

Mitter: This will be a long-term goal that extends into the next US presidency and beyond. It is clear that the United States will continue to press hard to reduce its trade deficit with China, and people will look at the sale of agricultural goods from the United States into China as a key indicator of progress. On AI, so far we are more at the stage of “talks about talks” rather than concrete or specific proposals. However, the private sector in both the United States and China may play a big role in future questions of AI management, as so much of the innovation does not take place within government but rather in innovative corporations both in China and the United States.

CSST: Compared to traditional diplomatic politics, President Trump places greater emphasis on “deals,” stressing the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of foreign policy through concrete, measurable outcomes. In your view, are these deals merely temporary exchanges of benefits, or do they have the potential to evolve into more stable, long-term mechanisms for cooperation?

Mitter: President Trump seems to have an overall goal of stabilizing the relationship between the United States and China and regards business deals as an effective way to do that. At the same time, his preference for tariff-based policies suggests that he is also still very concerned to make sure that the hollowing out of US manufacturing is not allowed to continue. So while he will seek stability, he will also not be likely to abandon his trade-based policy which seeks to place “America First” when it comes to domestic industrial policy. In other words, the United States will continue to see foreign policy as closely linked to the outcomes of domestic policy.

Toward ‘constructive strategic stability’

CSST: Many observers believe that “constructive strategic stability” is becoming an important new framework for shaping China–US relations in the new era. Can we say that China–US relations are shifting from “strategic competition” to “strategic stability”?

Mitter: It is good that both the United States and China seek stability. However, there are a range of different factors that may affect stability in practice, including economic shocks and new climatic conditions caused by climate change. In other words, thinking of stability as being purely about state-to-state interactions is no longer enough. Transnational factors can make a huge difference.

In addition, we need to pay more attention to the changing role of the Middle Powers who are making it clear that they want their voices to be heard in a changing order and are not content simply for major powers to force their actions. So we expect to hear more from those powers—Canada, Brazil, and Indonesia—who want to have a louder voice in the shaping of global policy.

CSST: As a historian, how do you think China and the United States can avoid this supposed “historical destiny”?

Mitter: The term “Thucydides Trap” was invented by my colleague, the influential political scientist Graham Allison. What he points out in his book Destined for War is that conflict between a leading power and a rising power is a real danger, but it is not inevitable. Avoiding the conflict threatened by the trap should be a key goal for all powers.

CSST: How do you expect US foreign policy toward China to evolve over the long term?

Mitter: The major arena of competition over the long term is likely to be based on technology. In key areas such as AI and biotech, the United States and China are key global actors. Technological path dependency and the trade and regulatory regimes that are attached to them are likely to dominate much of the political economy of the 2030s.

Enhancing mutual understanding between the two peoples

CSST: A Pew Research Center survey found that Americans’ views of China have warmed in recent years, and younger Americans rate China more warmly than their older counterparts do. Adults under age 50 give China an average rating of 42 on the feeling thermometer, compared with older Americans’ average of 31. Is this a promising sign for the future of China–US relations?

Mitter: Younger people in the United States may be influenced by technology such as TikTok, and there have also been trends online such as “Chinamaxxing” where habits associated with China such as drinking warm water have become trendy.

However, one of the problems is that since the pandemic, there have been fewer chances for younger Chinese and Americans to interact with each other, for instance through study programs or even ordinary tourism. Young Americans’ knowledge of China is often not very extensive. So both sides could work harder to change this.

CSST: The two leaders and their wives appeared to enjoy a warm rapport. From a diplomatic perspective, how much do these personal relationships matter for bilateral ties?

Mitter: Historians will often stress the importance of personalities in shaping major historical moments. Think about the visit of Richard Nixon to see Mao Zedong in 1972—of course there were greater forces that lay behind that encounter, but the personalities of the two leaders mattered too.

This summit will not change the world immediately. But the fact that the US and China have leaders who respect each other’s strengths may lead to a new type of personal diplomacy that could be effective in shaping the relationship between the two countries.