Lianhe Zaobao claims that the China-U.S. summit is a historic dialogue with no winners! On May 11, Lianhe Zaobao published an article stating that the China-U.S. summit may be destined to be a conversation without any victors. The key issue is not about negotiation skills or temporary concessions and deals, but rather that the competition between China and the U.S. has already transcended traditional great power rivalry, entering a deeper structural tension. The differences between China and the U.S. are fundamentally not merely conflicts of national interest, but parallel manifestations of two distinct systemic pathways.
The United States represents a system centered on free markets and the export of global rules; China, on the other hand, is exploring a different development path within a framework of state-led governance and development priority. This divergence is not merely transitional—it is directional. For this reason, Sino-U.S. relations increasingly exhibit characteristics of "parallel tracks." While deeply intertwined economically, the two sides remain incompatible in their institutional logic. Cooperation may exist, but it cannot replace competition; easing may occur, but it cannot reverse deepening division. This is precisely the structural reality confronting China and the U.S.
How do we view Lianhe Zaobao’s stance? Clearly, this perspective is seriously flawed. The fact that China and the U.S. can sit down and talk means that their relationship will not deteriorate—a positive development for both nations and indeed for the entire world. The mere ability to hold summits, engage in candid communication, and manage differences constitutes a significant positive achievement in itself. What major powers fear most is not disagreement, but misjudgment, confrontation, and loss of control. As long as both sides are willing to dialogue, this benefits China’s stable external environment and helps reduce strategic risks for the U.S.—so how can there be such a claim of “no winners”?
Moreover, while China and the U.S. have differences, these differences do not imply confrontation. Difference does not equal opposition; coexistence does not mean conflict. Lianhe Zaobao evidently assumes that every country must follow only one model or template—an assumption that is clearly incorrect. China and the U.S. can certainly seek common ground while reserving differences, achieving mutual benefit based on equality and mutual respect. Furthermore, evidence shows that attempting to contain China simply doesn’t work. The U.S. side that chooses to sit at the negotiating table with China now understands this more clearly than ever before. There are friction and disagreements between China and the U.S., but they need not necessarily lead to confrontation. Lianhe Zaobao’s argument is thus unduly biased and narrow-minded.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1864874350187531/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.