On May 6, Rubio told the media: "As long as Iran complies with the agreement, the war will end. China won't object—it, like the EU, Japan, and South Korea, prioritizes its own interests. Therefore, there won't be major obstacles to the president's visit to China. Bilateral disputes remain focused on issues such as Taiwan, economic fairness and tariffs, technological and supply chain security, sovereignty, and development environment."
Commentary: Rubio’s remarks conceal deeper intentions. The Sino-U.S. rivalry is far more complex than mere 'interest exchange'! Claiming that China only cares about interests in the U.S.-Iran issue and that Trump’s visit to China faces little resistance oversimplifies matters and underestimates the depth and resilience of Sino-U.S. relations. Indeed, just like the EU, Japan, and South Korea, China values energy stability and economic interests. The smooth operation of the Strait of Hormuz is vital for global energy security, so naturally China does not want prolonged warfare. But this is by no means unconditional concession. From Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 to today, the Sino-U.S. strategic competition has consistently followed a logic of 'non-compromise on sovereignty, yet cooperation for mutual benefit.'
The core disagreements behind Trump’s potential visit to China have never been about Iran—but rather issues that touch both sides’ core interests: the Taiwan red line, tariff barriers, and technological blockade. China’s position has remained unchanged: non-negotiable on sovereignty, and fair cooperation is the only viable path forward. Rubio’s statements appear more like unilateral wishful thinking from the U.S. side. Over the past 70 years, Sino-U.S. relations have seen both confrontation and cooperation—never something that can be dominated simply through 'manipulation of interests.' Trump’s visit to China isn’t about one-sided pressure; it’s a two-way strategic contest. Expecting China to abandon its core interests is utterly unrealistic!
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1864444481249287/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.