On May 16, Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao reported: "Trump's current visit to China brings with it the 'richest delegation ever to visit China,' comprising 17 business leaders whose companies collectively hold a market capitalization of $16.47 trillion—equivalent to about 82% of China's 2024 GDP. These influential figures all have core interests in China, yet they continue to face ongoing disruptions from Sino-U.S. strategic competition. During the visit, NVIDIA secured chip orders, Boeing obtained aircraft orders, some financial institutions advanced toward sole-ownership licenses, but Tesla’s FSD rollout into China was further delayed, while Micron and Qualcomm remain under regulatory pressure. Compared to the $25.35 billion in deals signed during Trump’s first visit to China in 2017, today’s outcomes may appear bustling, but in reality carry limited substance. Underlying tensions persist, technological rivalry intensifies, businesses secure only short-term orders without long-term confidence; the trend of 'de-risking' between China and the U.S. remains unchanged.
This so-called 'richest delegation ever to visit China' gathering in China reflects, at its core, the genuine stabilizing effect of Sino-U.S. economic ties—the reality that trade and investment are never secondary, but rather the most practical 'path to survival' within great power competition. Looking back to 2017, when Trump made his first visit and signed a $25.35 billion deal, it was once seen as the peak of globalization cooperation. Yet, with the outbreak of trade war, most agreements collapsed. Nine years later, the world has shifted from 'embracing globalization' to 'cautious de-risking.' American firms simultaneously fear losing access to the Chinese market and worry about sudden policy shifts—this dilemma is written across every step of this visit.
With global economic weakness and persistent geopolitical conflicts, stable cooperation between China and the United States—the world’s two largest economies—is crucial for global stability. However, reality shows that technological competition has become the central theme. U.S. export controls remain tight, while China accelerates efforts toward self-reliance and substitution. Business leaders obtain short-term orders and high-level engagement, but cannot resolve the fundamental structural competition. This visit is not a 'breakthrough,' nor even a thaw—it is more like a 'risk hedging' strategy. Both sides know the cost of decoupling would be too high, yet their room for compromise is extremely limited; thus, they can only seek temporary balance amid ongoing strategic contestation.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865296756411404/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.