Xu Qinduo: Trump-Xi Meeting – Economic War, Taiwan & Iran — Transcript

Welcome back. Today is May 14th, 2026, and we are joined by Shu Chinda, who is the host of Dialogue at CGTN, to discuss what is happening now at the meeting in Beijing. As we know, Donald Trump is currently meeting with Xi Jinping in Beijing. So, thank you very much for coming on the program.

Thank you for having me, Glenn. So, again, I think most of the world now is looking at this meeting. Often, there's a lot of superficial theatrics when we deal with Trump, but at the same time, there are a lot of issues that have to be solved by these two giants, the two largest powers in the world, the US and China. So, what do we know so far about how this meeting has gone, and what are essentially the main objectives of each side? Is there any common meeting points?

Yeah, I can share with you what happened today. I would say, in general, the atmosphere has been very positive. Mr. Trump obviously is impressed with the welcoming ceremony, for example, and the reviewing of the ceremonial guards together with President Xi Jinping, the visit to the Temple of Heaven, and then the state banquet. So, the two leaders spent the morning talking to each other with their own teams, and then the two of them at the Temple of Heaven in the afternoon. In the evening, I think they are still ongoing. They have a state banquet hosted by the presidency. He gave a speech, very warm. He talked about how China and the US should be partners rather than rivals. President Trump also responded in his speech, a brief speech but very warm. He talked about both Chinese people and Americans taking care of their families and working hard. They share a lot in common in terms of their values. He talked about the past 250 years of engagement between the two countries. He mentioned the first US ship arriving in China in 1784. At that time, Chinese people called them new people from a new country. Then he talked about Chinese workers helping build the real link between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans across the continental railroad. He talked about the establishment of China University, one of the top universities in China. He also talked about China and US allies during the Second World War. Confucius was also well respected in the US, etc. So, both sides agreed upon a vision called strategic constructive strategic stability that will guide the bilateral relationship for the next three years or even beyond that. So, that's very impressive, I would say.

Well, yeah, those are some good signs. However, ever since Trump's first administration, we know that China was often in the spotlight in his administration, but also more generally within the US, now given that China is seen as the main peer rival. Indeed, I saw Xi Jinping even make a reference to the need to essentially overcome what is often referred to as the Thucydides Trap, that is, they had a hegemon before, and now it's, if not being replaced, at least no longer enjoys a hegemonic position, and often this results in conflicts between the two great powers. So, given that there will be, I guess, at least a need to harmonize relations or manage the competition, how do you see the prospect of overcoming this economic war? Because that's something that really shaped US-China relations over the past decade.

That's a good question, Glenn. You mentioned the Thucydides Trap. President Xi also mentioned this phrase, but what he meant is that we should overcome this idea of the Thucydides Trap. We should overcome this trap and then set a new model, probably for major power-to-power relationships. I think he referred to China and the US. Both basically are peers in a sense in terms of economy, high-tech development, innovation, or military capabilities. Right now, they are at a critical juncture. How they handle each other and their relationship is not only of consequence for the two peoples and the two countries but also for the stability of the entire world. President Xi mentioned that this is something beyond this bilateral relationship. When it comes to the relationship itself, you mentioned trade, for example. That's a very important part of this relationship. It used to be the balance, which is a stabilizer of this relationship because there's so much investment from the US in China and so much export from China to the US. Somehow, it brings the two peoples and the two nations together. At the peak time, I would say every 15 minutes, there's a plane taking off or coming down in either China or the United States. The two countries used to be very closely connected, but of course, we know what happened later on. Right now, it is at another challenging time. Looking ahead, what kind of relationship do we want to have after this fight, the trade war, the tech war, the tariff war? Do we want to continue? Is that in our interests? Is there any possibility of a new model of living together or coexisting peacefully for the benefit of the two countries? That's why at the very beginning, I mentioned Xi Jinping said we should help each other succeed to overcome this mentality we call a zero-sum mentality. I think on his way to China, US Secretary of State Mark Rubio talked about China rising and continuing to grow, but the Chinese rise cannot be achieved at the expense of the US. So, it's a bit unclear how to handle that, what is the expense of the US. Obviously, as you said, there's still this mentality, this questioning, or this unclear state of what we are going to do to achieve that kind of ideal state. Maybe both states help each other succeed. It's quite ideal but probably the right way to go.

Yeah, that's what I want to ask. What specific issues have to be resolved? Because I know initially the objective was to roll back the technological development of China and stop its economic rise. But as we saw, when the US put all these tariffs on China, China was able to push back essentially with threats against the rare earths and others. So essentially, the US had to back down and not go after China. But if this is not just a temporary pause and there's a genuine interest in resolving the economic war with China, what is it that actually has to be fixed? Is it the tariffs? Is it the limitations on exports of chips to China? Is it China's openness to export rare earths? I mean, what is it that each side wants from the other?

And yeah, because I've seen the US, for example, wants the Chinese to buy more US energy and agriculture. This seems to fit a pattern around the world, actually, to reorganize the energy trade. So, what do you think has to be resolved in terms of specifics?

I think right now you mentioned a couple of them. They are talking about building a board for trade and also a board of investment between the two countries. So, this is a kind of institutionalized dialogue, the communications between the two sides to deal with probably individual issues. But at the same time, of course, you can say it is good for them to talk to each other on a regular basis rather than having a dialogue.

state banquet you know hosted by presidency he gave a speech very warm he talked about China US should be partners rather than rivals and President Trump also responded in his uh speech, a brief speech, but uh very warm. He talked

about, you know, both Chinese people and Americans uh uh you know, take care of their families uh you know, working hard. They share a lot of in common in terms of their values. He talked about over the past hundreds of you know 250

years almost the engagement of the people uh between the two countries. He mentioned about the first I think US ship arriving in China in 1784. Uh at that time Chinese people called them uh new people from a new country and then

he talked about Chinese workers helping build the real link between you know Pacific and Atlantic Ocean across it the continental railroad. I talked about the establishment of Chinua University one of the top universities in China. uh also talk about in China US allies

during the second world war uh you know there's also the confucious was also well respected in US etc. So um you know I the both sides agreed upon a vision uh which is called like strategic constructive strategic stability uh that will guide

the bilateral relationship for the you know next three years or the year even uh beyond that. So that's very impressive I would say.

Well yeah no those are some well good signs. Um uh however, ever since Trump's first administration, we we we know that China was often in the well tends to have the spotlight uh in his administration, but also more generally

within the US now given that uh um that China is seen as the mere the main peer rival. And indeed I saw uh Xiinping even make a reference to the need to essentially overcome what is often referred to as toidious trap that is

that uh they've you know who had a one hegeimon before and now it's if not being replaced at least it's no longer enjoys a hegemonic position and often this results in conflicts between the two uh great powers. uh so

given that there will be I guess yeah at least there will be a need to harmonize relations or manage the competition uh how do you see uh the prospect of overcoming this economic war because that's something that really shaped US

China relations over the past decade uh that's a good question uh Glenn uh you know you mentioned about the city's trap uh presenc C also mentioned this uh this phrase but what he meant is like we should overcome this idea of uh uh the

city's trap you know we should overcome this trap and then we should set a new model probably for major power to power relationship I think he refer he referred to China US you know um both basically they are pairs in a sense in

terms of economy in terms of high-tech development innovation or military capabilities. Uh so right now that's they they are at like a critical juncture. Um you know how they handle each other, how they handle their relationship is not only of consequence

for the two peoples the two countries but also for the stability of the entire world. I think you know President C mentioned that uh you know this is something beyond this bilateral relationship. So of course when it comes

to the relationship itself uh you mentioned about trade uh for example that's a very important part of this relationship it used to be the balance we call it uh which is a stabilizer of this relationship because there's so

much investment from the US in China so much export from China to the US somehow it brings the two people the two nations together and uh you know at the peak time I would say every 15 minutes there's the plane taking off or uh

basically you know or coming down in either China or the United States. So the two countries uh used to be you know very closely connected but of course we know what happened later on and uh right now uh

again it is at another you know challenging time like looking ahead what kind of relationship we want to have after this uh the fight the trade war the tech war you know tariff war do we want to continue uh is that in our

interests there are you know maybe uh you Is there any possibility of a new model of living together of coexist peacefully uh for the benefits of the two countries? So that's why at the very beginning I mentioned you know ping

mentioned like oh okay we should help each other succeed uh to overcome this mentality we call like a zero sum mentality. Um I think be on his way to China uh US Secretary of State Mark Robio uh remember he talked about oh

China is rising China is continue to to grow uh but the Chinese um something like that rising cannot be achieved um at the expense of the US. So it's a bit unclear like how to handle that what is the expense of the US. Um but

obviously as you said I think there's still this mentality there's still this questioning uh or this um unclear state of what we are going to do to achieve that kind of ideal state maybe you know both uh states uh help each other

succeed and it's quite ideal but probably the right way to do the right way to go.

Yeah, that's what I want to ask. Um, what what specific issues have to be resolved because uh I know initially the objective was to roll back the technological development of China and well stop its economic rise but uh as we

saw um when the US put all these tariffs on China, China was able to push back essentially with the threats against the rare earths and others. So essentially the US had to back back down and uh not well not not go after China. But if if

this is not just a temporary pause and there's a genuine interest in resolving the economic war with China, what is it that actually has to be fixed? Is it the tariffs? Is it the the limitations on um on exports of

chips to China? Is it China's openness to export rare earths? I mean, what is it that each side wants from the other?

And yeah, because I've seen uh the US, for example, wants the Chinese to buy more US energy and agriculture. This seems to fit a pattern around the world actually to reorganize the energy trade. So, what what do you think has to be resolved in

terms of specifics? Mhm. Uh I think right now uh you you mentioned a couple of them uh and you know for they are talking about this uh uh you know building uh border for trade and also a board of investment between

the two countries. So this is a kind of like a institutionalize the dialogues the communications between the two sides to deal with probably individual uh issues. But at the same time of course you can say it is good for them to talk

to each other on a regular terms rather than you know having a dialogue uh you know that's kind of being isolated for an isolated case uh so that's helpful but at the same time I think for the Chinese from the Chinese point of view

uh that is like you know we have uh going through we have gone through this trade war and the US suffers and the US is not really winning the Chinese side of course uh suffers uh because you know

we used to export a lot to the US but now we have to do ex export to other places of the world uh but the the China is not losing uh its export Chinese export continues to grow and that means

the US effort through tariff to stop uh you know the Chinese export is not working or has failed and also uh you know they are trying to be pragmatic I think they are talking about you Having this board of trade meaning that we can

do more trade as long as they are not sensitive uh you know if it's not high-tech for example advanced chips so you know like a Chinese purchase of U oil Chinese purchase of US agriculture products soybeans beef or bowing

airplanes the Americans would be more than happy to sell uh them to the Chinese side. So I think for the Chinese side they are also kind of warming to site in that area. Yes, we can do uh more where we can trade. We can talk

more where we think it's sensitive technology is sensitive area is probably related to our national security. At the same time the idea of um you know constructive strategic stability uh you know uh the the the Chinese idea is like

it should focus on cooperation. The theme should be cooperation and competition should be limited and uh then uh you know we we we we should also uh comm communicate with each other in different areas you know military areas

trade tech etc. is not limited to uh only to trade for example. Uh so I think that might work out. If that work out then that means like gradually they would they would build this kind of confidence and also see the US would

have a reliance on the Chinese market because they sell a lot to the Chinese market. Similarly the Chinese side would rely on the US uh you know uh import export of agriculture products or airplanes. So my idea is like trade

itself is a mutually beneficial trade itself is not not anything wrong. If you trade nobody suffers from doing trade it's like between us gl you know I buy something from you. Yes I suffer from deficit but I bought something right and

there's no suffer at all. So imbalance itself is kind of not the real issue. uh it's about the long-term challenge of the economic structure all the US position being uh the supplier of uh the major reserve currency of US dollar. So

that's why you can print US dollars of course usually uh you are having a deficit in terms of trade but gradually hopefully I mean more and more people will come to this understanding and then we can continue to do trade at the same

time uh gradually uh you know focusing on expand expanding the trade into different areas between the two countries and then we can build on that momentum to increase our understanding and then we become less sensitive in terms of you know uh what they call

like a quote unquote China threat or or threat to national security that's you know many of that to a high degree a lot of that comes from this you know ideological idea uh or this kind of lack of lack of trust I would say

yeah well it's uh the spectacular rise of China has put the world in very unique situation that is to have a sudden China come almost out of nowhere in 40 years and become the leading economy. It's uh well it does put a

shock to the system and I guess that can um yeah stir up some u uh unhealthy stereotypes and uh yeah demonization vilification of of China. Uh but in in international trade though we often see that great powers they not only looking

for positive some gain where both sides gain. H they're also often concerned about the the balance of dependence that is uh great powers would like others to be dependent on them but they want to reduce dependence on others and it's

this um asymmetrical interdependence where they often see they get uh yeah both economic and power and political influence but if we focus on specifics of energy it looks like the US the United States has a very specific energy

plan that it's at least it seems there's been some objectives to reduce the export of key energy exporters. So Venezuela, Russia, Iran and often they seem to try to replace this with US supplies. So if you look at the case in

Europe uh the after the destruction of Nordstream uh likely the Americans uh the we see that uh the US now apparently is pushing for the US to take over the the energy infrastructure that is they should manage the gas exports the

transit from Russia to Europe but also in trade. They want to buy cheap uh energy from Russia and they want to sell their own expensive energy to Europe.

So, so it looks like the US is trying to set up a new it may make itself more central in the energy trade. How do you see this with China though? Is this a vulnerability if China makes itself too

dependent on US energy or or is has China already diversified sufficiently to avoid uh you know any vulnerability in terms of excessive dependence? Mhm.

Well, I think yes, there is concern uh from on the Chinese side about overrelying on the US for oil export for example uh you know LMP uh liqufied natural gas for example from the US. If you uh buy too much from the US and

gradually you form this kind of reliance on the US market and then as you said you know point out you know big powers they have this sense of sec insecurity especially if there's a lack of uh trust especially in the situation if you you

know watch the US media read the US media it's war to coverage negative coverage about China this whole uh public sentiment uh you know is strongly against China and of course you have this worry that whether that's sustainable reliance on

the US and that's why I think China uh overall has diversified away from the US to a large extent in terms of export and they have successfully uh been successful in doing so increasing the volume of export to this asan countries

Southeast Asia African countries countries, Latin American countries, Europeans very successfully. And secondly, I would say uh Chinese diversification in terms of energy.

China I think is being very cautious in avoiding uh reliance on the single source. Uh if you look at their source of their imports of uh oil and gas, it's it's um you know uh the reliance on a

single source usually is not over 20%. uh they have oil uh you know uh um import oil from Russia, gas from Russia, uh from Iran, from Saudi Arabia, from Brazil, from Ghana. So it's multiple uh sources I would say. At the same time,

China is rapidly developing this renewable energy. We know China is in the leading position in terms of EV, solar panels and uh wind turbines etc.

China is also investing heavily in nuclear power uh power plants. Uh the projects I think is under construction.

Uh the total number of that is uh is almost the the the to the combined number of the rest of the world and also China is rich in coal and so China has the technology to transform coal into gas uh

rather material technology. uh so in the crisis in the worst scenario China can rely on coal to provide uh electricity for example yes there's a climate concern but you know we are talking about a survival probably uh so that's

the worst scenario so in that sense I would say China has been uh fully aware of um this energy security issue it's not only about you know whether you have enough supply because China is you know used to be called a factory of the world

it consumes a lot of power uh at the same time it's about uh security whether you have enough access to the resources of energy around the world. Uh so I I I think you know for for the Chinese point

of view um yes the US control of Venezuela for example their energy resources uh probably the US um some people would say that's a US attempt to control Iran uh to control their uh oil and gas of course it's not a successful

attempt and their uh you know warming up to to Russia for example has also uh their own constru celebration. Uh so so far I think you know China indeed what we are seeing is is like a revolutionary uh transformation is about EVs including

the trucks uh they are having this electric trucks which in terms of which is uh cost effective uh compared with diesel based uh trucks. So that's um you know the strong incentive there is uh for the consumers I mean to go uh

electric right now. So hopefully as time goes on I mean China does not see China will not see a threat from the US control a growing control of energies around the world.

Well uh obviously if you well if we shift towards um security though we we know that uh a key issue is of course uh Taiwan that is Taiwan is considered by the US to be important part of this uh

dual island chain to contain um China and of course the since the US and China restored relations in the 70s it was founded on uh all the one China policy in which the US recognized that Taiwan would be that it is a part of China. Um,

however, we've seen over the decades now that the US has been, you know, pursuing this incrementalism, chipping a little bit away at China's sovereignty. And I often remind people that uh, President Carter in his days defined one China

policy as uh, limiting US ties to Taiwan as being organized around cultural ties and economic ties. So no political or military but as we've seen something I think has been intensifying over the years is of course moving into political

and military ties as well and also not so subtly backing secessionist movements. So uh how how central do you think the Taiwan issue has been in these talks? And uh I guess the same question, do you think there's a a possibility for

a common meeting point, something at least reduced the tensions or or do you think each side is, you know, locked in its own positions?

Uh in his uh uh discussion with President President Trump, you know, Xinping mentioned the Taiwan question as expected. He said this is the most important issue between China and the US.

uh he talked about you know if mishandled uh the uh entire China US relationship could be uh put in jeopardy. So in my impression this is probably the strongest rhetoric um used by the Chinese top leader in exchange with his counterpart from the

US. Uh I think this is the warning. uh the Chinese side is basically increasing the volume and the severity to help the Americans understand that you know this is we call used to say this is reddest of the red line of the Chinese side on

the Chinese side uh he mentioned about this separatist activity is the danger to peace and stability in the region so Americans should be aware of that their arm sale will embold uh those uh secessionists uh especially those in power and that will create uh

this uh u you know security risk or danger to peace and stability in the region. The US uh you know in in in the uh in the past years uh in particular I in the past like eight or nine years uh

you know the one China principle has been hollowed out in a sense by the American administration. uh you mentioned about you know no more uh ties uh beyond economic and trade and cultural relationship but we are seeing is there there were even a small group

of Americans based American soldiers based in Taiwan they are uh proposing this largest sale uh largest package of weapon sale to Taiwan uh you know they're increasing arm sale to Taiwan if you look at one of the three

communicators which serves as a foundation of China US relationship. Uh the one signed in 1982. It says basically the US will reduce arms to Taiwan until it becomes zero.

Instead they are not keeping their promise. They increasing arms to Taiwan. How can you say sending more weapons to a certain region uh is a gesture of peace? Is a a gesture of a contribution to peace? No. If Washington uh really

cares about peace and stability in this region, uh they would make clear to the separatists in Taiwan that uh they oppose this uh Taiwan independence and they can go further and express such as you know we support the Chinese efforts

of a peaceful reunification uh of Taiwan. That would be even better. I think by doing that they will be able to ring in the separatist activities in Taiwan which is a source of threat to stability in this region. So that will

also help the bilateral relationship to a great deal because you know basically you are taking out this uh uh this irritant uh constant irritant between uh the bilateral relationship in the bilateral relationship. So they can focus on um what they can cooperate with

each other. Uh they can focus on their common interests beyond this bilateral relationship such as AI governance or crisis uh in the street of humus or in Ukraine. uh so uh that that is the general idea but uh you know I can you

know probably I want to add more to that you know if you look at this change of uh let's say military or defense capability between the mainland and Taiwan obviously uh the the mainland side the way ahead of Taiwan you know

however uh whatever amount of arms uh purchase by the Taiwan authorities there will not be a match of the Chinese mainland. So that's that's basically pointless uh for the purchase of uh arms from the US. Uh of course for those

separatists they want to ex that's a way of being loyal to Washington. Uh so the military industrial complex in in in Washington can benefit uh can profit from this kind of a situation and uh uh also if you look at you know some uh

military experts have you know have this kind of board game and the conclusion is even with the US participation intervention in the worst scenario the US will not win the war against China.

Uh so I think that's the uh reality increasing uh increasingly true reality and also if you look at the US uh if they are not able to defeat Iran what makes them believe they can defeat China in the place in the region where China

enjoys home advantage. Uh so I think um if they are realistic they should give up this idea of uh uh supporting uh the separatists in Taiwan by arming them to tease somehow that will slow down uh the Chinese growth somehow it will sabotage

the Chinese modernization drive. No, that will only uh bring about a disaster. uh uh you know nobody likes to see uh in particular countries in this region.

Yeah. Often well sometimes wonder if the US in its relationship with China is you know if the conflict over Taiwan is emerging as the US is a status quo power or revisionist because I think both could be true. uh that is if the US is a

status quo power you can argue that China and the US are trying to deter two different things that is uh the US is trying to deter China from from uh taking back Taiwan by force. So this is why they send weapons while China wants

to deter the US from backing secessionism. And as you as you suggested uh you you can't one could argue that a status quo conflict might emerge because if the US hands weapons to Taiwanese authorities to deter uh taking it back by military force it can

embolden them to push towards a sessionism which then would actually trigger the the the use of force on the side of the mainland. So so that would be the status quo scenario. But if the US is a revisionist then uh you know

sending all these weapons has a explicit purpose that is to to actually push for secession that that is the goal uh simply because uh time is not on America's side as you said every every day that passes China grows stronger the

relative power not just visav um the tai Taiwan but also with the United States.

In other words, if you want to weaken China, break apart Taiwan uh from from the mainland, then it's better to do today than wait 10 years. So, so that they essentially have this incentive to escalate now, I think, which is why I'm

curious where where do you think the US is going? Uh especially, you know, as I listen to these warm words by uh President Trump in Beijing, I can't help but to think about well wonder if it's genuine diplomacy or not. Because what

we saw with Iran was they were saying the same things like, "Oh, we're getting along well with the Iranians. We're closed a deal." And they said this twice while launching a surprise attack. And even now that they're negotiating, they

they initially agreed on this 10point plan of the Iranians and now they just abandon it alto together. So often one is not sure how genuine it is. And um one can also extend the same to Russia.

That is they had this spirit of Alaska. They had some agreements. Nothing has happened. It's uh the Russians more or less reached a conclusion that they're not negotiating in good faith. They're still sending money, sending weapons.

CIA is still there picking targets. They're killing Russians every day and uh there's there's nothing moving forward. So, so I was wondering how do you see this I guess the intentions of the United States? Are they are they

revisionist hostile power or is this a status quo power which is you know simply locked in an unfavorable uh mutual deterrent?

Uh well there's u you know uh I I think from like uh some of the conservative institutes in in Washington like Hardisan Institute you know there are scholars uh calling for the Iran war as um it's all about China. Uh so it's

simply you know Iran is one of the goalpost to the final uh to the final realization of defeating China by Washington. That could be true. I think for the Chinese side uh there was not much discussion about that. Uh but I

think you know uh you know for decision makers probably you need to prepare for the worst right. Uh what if that's true?

That's Washington's true face that is to defeat China to slow down China. Well that's that's already public statement by the previous uh secretary of commerce. We know that and by the administration to slow down the Chinese innovation you know in in in public

remarks. talked about Europeans need to work with the US against the Chinese innovation. But you know uh so but I think China in a uh is is in a position um that will if forced uh to retaliate uh to resort to count measures uh that

can also uh do harm to Washington if they don't play fair uh just like what happened to the 100 you know 45% tariffs on the Chinese side China resort to uh rare earth against the Americans.

Uh I know inside Washington there's a debate like uh whether Washington will be capable uh will be able to produce uh manufacture their own rare earth like uh within one year or two year uh so they can get rid of the reliance on the

Chinese uh uh rare earth so they can be more uh you know self-reliant so they can somehow impose probably more restrictions or more tariffs on on the Chinese side. I think the Chinese side is fully aware that and I think they are

you know they know better about the uh processing of rare earth uh from exploration to the processing uh to the manufactured product uh the whole process it takes probably more than one year or even more than two years and

also I would say China has uh uh this position kind of you can call that a position of strength China's manufacturing capability ility for example is probably the largest in the world. It is even u larger much larger

than the US. It amounts to the combined manufacturing uh output of that of the US, Japan and and Germany. Uh if you look at the history uh in the waring situation, you don't fight a manufacturing giant. They can produce uh weaponry, ammunition

endlessly. And uh in that situation uh if you challenge such a country usually you are in a weaker position and you will be on the losing end. So I think for the Chinese side they are really focusing on

the defense. They are not uh trying to offend the Americans, attack the Americans because for the Chinese there's no idea of um replacing the US to be the prime power uh or to be the global hijgemony uh to achieve global

dominance. No, this is not the Chinese strategic goal. If you look at the Chinese strategic goal is very clear in it's fiveyear plan, it's long-term plan.

It's about the re revitalization of the Chinese nation. Basically, they want to build a nation which is better than yesterday or better you know in tomorrow than than today. That's the Chinese goal. Uh so they are focusing on

defense. If you have a strong defense and you have the resources, you have the power uh to defeat the attacker uh defeat the party which initiate uh the war and probably you will be in a safer position. Uh I think generally that's a

philosophy uh I would um uh I I would use to describe the Chinese idea in terms of this geopolitical situation with the US.

Yeah. Well, you mentioned um Iran and uh again I've heard the same from uh many Americans that uh a key target in this blockade on Iranian ports is China as it is well overwhelmingly so uh the main export destination for Iranian oil and

Scott Bessent also made a comment to well towards this end arguing that China shouldn't have you know buy the Iranian oil but um This must have also been a key focus of discussions that is between Xinping and Donald Trump that uh you

know this massive war now going on in the Middle East and uh one of the one of the I guess key focuses on on trying to resolve the Iran war is the the straight of Hermoose. Uh of course it didn't go

as it was expected for the Americans. I think when the meeting initially was set up with Xinping, the idea was that Donald Trump would show up in Beijing and he would have just defeated Iran and he would have uh you know come from a

position of strength and uh you know be able to well not dictate terms but at least have some benefit in negotiations.

But instead we see the US is more or less trapped. there's no pathway to victory and also it can't leave because the straight of a moose uh you know the u the Iranians can uh this will decoupled the US from the region if they

hold on to it. So how how central has this issue though been in the discussions between um between the two leaders the their discussion certainly covers uh the topic of the Iranian crisis let's say um I think you know before the trip

uh takes place you know there's media coverage in Washington claiming that you know Trump should apply pressure on the Chinese side so they can uh pressure the Iranians uh to give up their demand to give up their efforts to close uh the

street of Hamos. uh you know personally I would say that's a wrong approach uh you know some people would say uh you should come to China to ask for help uh if you are sincere uh in addressing this

crisis uh because China has nothing to do with this crisis first place uh it's a war launched by Washington and by the Israelis uh without UN authorization uh without the proper explanation without legitimacy. It's an illegal war. It's a

war uh it's an unprovoked war against Iran. Uh so in that sense I would say the Chinese side uh probably uh you know would ask the Americans or urge the Americans to finish their business as soon as possible because the crisis the

energy shortage is causing uh big troubles for for countries in particular in Asia uh and also uh threatens the global economic growth. Uh so that's the US mass the mess created by the US they should solve that problem as soon as

possible. Uh instead of receiving pressure from Washington Beijing should uh put uh apply more pressure on Washington. With that said I would say China and the US they do share some common interest in this situation. uh basically the opening of the street of

humus uh because it's not a it's not a matter simply between uh Iran and Washington obviously uh for example Gulf nations their exports of oil and gas and other products they rely on this waterway uh heavily uh China um you know

purchase uh imports like I think 50 40 50% of its energy from this region also relies heavily uh on this international waterway. So I think the Iranians said of course um understand this. Uh so Washington probably will have to

restrain their demands uh you know and and also respect uh some of you know the fact that it's them that launched the war and they are failing to achieve their goal uh any goal at all. Uh so they have to accept this this reality

and you know the Chinese side should help them probably have to have a better understanding of the situation and be ready to restrain their demands be ready to make compromise with the Iranians and so we can have a uh proper deal that

will be implemented faithfully and that will provides long-term uh solution long-term stability for this region a long-term stable relationship probably between US and Iran. But so far we haven't seen uh the the the US side um you know being earnest or not to mention

being faithful in resolving that problem. Uh some US media said that you know Trump himself said I don't need the help from presidency. Uh but they did talk about this topic. So far we have no uh don't have enough details about like

you know what how they manage this topic. Uh but uh I I guess you know we are aware of where they are in terms of their position in terms of the differences in how to approach this topic.

Yeah. Well, I saw a common statement that both um China and the United States agreed, for example, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And this seems somewhat Yeah. uncontroversial because the Iranians also say they're not going to get nuclear weapons.

Exactly. Where where it could be tension so is that again the the common stance on the straight moose that is that Iranians should not have essentially this toll booth. Uh I was wondering how that fits in with uh uh if

that puts um you know China in a clash with the Iranians because from the Iranian perspective they they they can't go back to the old status quo where they live under perpetual crippling sanctions and perpetual threats from the US and

Israel. So you know from the Iranian perspective given that there's no I guess diplomatic path there there's no deal the Americans will follow from their view uh which essentially removes this threat they they they see it as controlling the street of rem is kind of

the ticket that is they get the reparations from uh from the attack also they can organize the the toll if you will or fee based on you know who who is threatening Iran if if they put sanctions on Iran it's higher fee If

they threatening Iran by, for example, hosting US bases, there can be a fee. If they trade their oil in US dollars, there can be a fee. So, they have all these um ways they can essentially, I guess, shore up their own security and

create incentives for putting an end to all these sanctions and uh and the military threats. I was wondering how how do you see any tensions there coming between China and Iran due to the stance?

Uh no I don't see you know tensions uh upcoming between China and Iran. I think you know for China for example there are at least three uh oil tankers uh already navigating through this street for Homos uh without without much uh disruption I

would say uh given this stable consistent and strong relationship between Beijing and tan obviously uh you know for example 90% of the Iranian export of oil uh goes to China uh so there's no point probably of asking looking for toll uh for any oil tankers

if the destination is is is China. Uh so they can also if they are sophisticated enough they can say oh the Chinese oil tankers are exempt from paying a fee and that will reduce any source of tensions between China and Tan or potential

tensions anyway. Uh so the Chinese side you know yes the Chinese side would love to see uh reopening of the street of a mo or return to the previous status quo but I think people are also realistic and know people understand why uh Iran

is doing this because they have been under uh crippling sanctions for decades and they need development they need a breathing room and this is uh you know what they can do to protect themselves to defend themselves I think the Chinese

side fully understand that. So if we end up in some form of control by the Iranian side, I wouldn't be surprised and the Chinese side wouldn't oppose to that kind of situation too. uh because you know if the US refused to uh make a

compromise, refuse to um lift the sanctions for example uh refuse to allow basically Iran to conduct normal business uh with other countries. Uh I mean probably that's the right response approach from the Iranians against Washington and Washington has to

understand that uh you know you cannot somehow impose your will on other countries uh in particular countries like Iran and China they have a long history they are civilization and to somehow accept your unilateral sanctions your unilateral moves um I don't think

that will go far uh if the US uh continues uh to follow that kind of practice uh so it's really about the acceptance for the rest of the world to some form of Iranian control even some form of uh of a of collecting tolls uh

when crossing this street of Homos uh I I you know what we are seeing is that you know many of oil tankers they don't see a problem it's like paying probably more insurance fees uh going through this street of homos uh now I think it's

really about the US they have to find out a face saving approach to solve this this this dilemma this problem. Uh so they have they are imposing their own blockade against the Iranian blockade.

Uh now the stalemate will continue. Uh it's about how long uh the US will tolerate in particular the US consumers will tolerate uh the inflationary pressure which is uh rising. If you look at the latest uh figures uh when people

go to the pump station uh you know uh they they will not be happy with that.

Well, just my last question I guess is well what are your thoughts around um how well the overall outcome again we don't know it yet but do we do you assume there will be um it will be a a great grand bargain in

terms of China and US um essentially resetting relations or do you think there's going to be minor tweaks to attempting to resolve for example trade disputes or I mean how how significant do you think this is uh in terms of um

um yeah is this kind of international diplomatic meetings? Well, I I think so far um we would say it's it's it's um it's a significant encounter uh between the two sides, not only between the two leaders. If you

look at at the pictures or the the video clips of the two sides, for example, their uh top executives uh mingling with each other uh talking to each other, I think that will increase understanding of each other. Uh creates probably

cooperation or opportunities uh for them to have more engagement. uh this kind of engagement um has been absent for like 9 years or even longer.

So we do need uh probably this kind of a close engagement uh face-to-face engagement uh you know that that will help broaden the mindset uh you know to have to be more open-minded to have a better understanding of each other or

each other's concerns to build trust uh you know based on individuals uh individual top executives individual officials you know for some of the US officials they are here for the first time Marco Rubio right? Pete Hex, you know, Steven Miller. I think this is

the first time for them to be in China to see a different culture uh different people's different system uh you know equally working um you know a country uh equally innovative uh industrious um you know uh increasing on par with the US uh

comprehensively uh so people um I think we do need this kind of engagement and if you look at the 26 uh this is the first uh such a large scale uh engagement with each other. Uh Trump has issued his invitation to President

Xiinping to visit the US in September, late September. And then they have two other uh opportunities uh for them to meet each other on the sidelines of Apac summit in Shenzhen and the G20 summit in the US. So you know if you take these

kind of intense frequent engagement with each other in mind into consideration uh I would call 2026 probably would be uh like a milestone uh year for China US relationship after so many years of um clueless uh confrontation or conflicts

and now probably after trying all the wrong approach uh they have found This right approach uh that is you know to be to have a constructive strategic stability with a focus on cooperation uh with limited competition for example. Uh

they will do something that will uh basically uh you know help you or benefit both sides instead of this zero sum mentality. you know uh you know as time goes on maybe uh that's a new beginning uh for this type of major

power relationship if that's the case uh that would be a bless uh for the two conditions also would be a bless probably for the for the entire world yeah no I I agree there sometimes diplomacy in itself is quite an

achievement and uh especially from where I'm sitting in Europe where this diplom iplomacy has been to a large extent vilified and even criminalized uh uh as I'm thinking of you know European leaders boycotting diplomacy with the Russians for years now but uh so I'm I

think that in itself can be seen as a big plus to have the leader of China and the United States actually meeting there in Beijing and uh you know it's a it's a it's a it's a required step to at least

um manage the competition and ideally push peace forward So um yeah overall good signs I guess from that perspective alone. So uh anyways uh I want to thank you so much for taking the time. I know I'm you know been on your program many

times in China. So I appreciate you coming online. Uh it's good to have this um you know rather fragrant of ideas to share you know observation and analysis of what's going on in particular between these two um largest economies.

Well thanks again. Thank you, Glenn.