Reality of China-US economic ties foundation for strategic stability: China Daily editorial

With the expiration of the United States administration's temporary Section 122 tariffs, many expected a gradual easing of trade tensions. Instead, Washington is constructing a more durable tariff architecture through overlapping Section 301 investigations, Section 232 "national security" measures and the renewed use of Section 338 against selected trading partners.

What appears on the surface to be a collection of technical legal processes is, in reality, a sophisticated framework designed to preserve negotiating leverage long after temporary emergency measures disappear.

Yet even where additional tariffs are imposed, their economic impact on China is likely to be limited rather than transformative. The world's two largest economies remain deeply integrated through supply chains, investment and consumer markets. Tariffs can raise costs, but they cannot easily change the mutually beneficial nature of Sino-US economic relations.

The release of the Chinese-developed artificial intelligence model Kimi K3 has prompted some in Washington to falsely portray Chinese open-source AI models as a "national security" concern.

But the market is telling a different story. Chinese open source models have become deeply embedded within the US' own innovation ecosystem. Nearly 200 Silicon Valley start-ups have reportedly urged the US administration not to prohibit access to Chinese models, warning that its restrictions would damage the US' competitiveness more than China's.

Indeed, whether in shipbuilding, rare earth processing or advanced manufacturing, strategic competition increasingly collides with economic reality. The US side knows this.

Just three days after a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said "China and the US are in communication regarding interactions between the two heads of state within the year", the ministry announced after a meeting between Foreign Minister Wang Yi and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Manila on Wednesday, that the two sides have agreed to prepare for the next phase of high-level exchanges to advance substantive progress on a constructive relationship of strategic stability.

Economic and trade teams from China and the US are maintaining close communication on the specific arrangements for the proposed trade and investment councils — including their structure, functions and operational modalities — and are exploring the advancement of a reciprocal tariff reduction framework covering $30 billion worth of goods on each side, an official of China's Ministry of Commerce told a news conference in Beijing on Thursday.

China is currently soliciting inputs from a broad range of stakeholders — including domestic enterprises, business associations, local governments and associations representing US-invested companies — regarding the proposed tariff reductions. Meanwhile, the US side is also conducting its own public consultation process on both the trade council and the reciprocal tariff reduction arrangements. The two sides will remain in close contact to finalize and implement tariff reduction measures for specific products as soon as possible, thereby further expanding bilateral trade, the Chinese commerce official added.

This development should be viewed as a positive signal that both sides are continuing to implement the outcomes of the previous summit in Beijing in May, during which the two leaders agreed on a new vision of building a constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.

But stability should be anchored in practical cooperation that continuously strengthens the resilience of bilateral ties. It should also be benign, allowing competition to encourage innovation rather than descend into zero-sum confrontation. The stability should provide businesses and governments with the policy continuity necessary to avoid perpetual cycles of escalation and retaliation. Above all, the stability needs to be enduring, preserving peace through adherence to the three Sino-US joint communiques, mutual respect for each other's core interests and continued commitment to dialogue at different levels.

Under the guidance of head-of-state diplomacy, political and diplomatic channels, along with existing economic and trade mechanisms, should be used not merely to manage crises but to steadily shorten the list of disputes while expanding the agenda for cooperation.

Diplomacy has never been about eliminating differences. Its purpose is to prevent differences from becoming defining features of relations.

Tactical bargaining chips may partially influence the atmosphere before the mooted summit. But they cannot substitute for strategic vision, flexibility, pragmatism and wisdom. Cooperation remains the only viable source of stability for the world's most consequential bilateral relations.