3.1 – Globalisation and the State
3.2 – Global Governance (Political and Economic)
3.4 – Power and Developments since 2000
3.6 – Comparative Theories
Donald Trump’s state visit to Beijing in May 2026 highlights the growing importance, and growing tension, within the relationship between the United States and China. A state visit is the highest level of diplomatic engagement between countries and usually involves formal talks, ceremonies and symbolic displays intended to strengthen relations between governments. The timing of the summit is especially significant. Relations between Washington and Beijing have deteriorated in recent years because of disputes over trade, technology, Taiwan and military influence. At the same time, instability in the Middle East and uncertainty within the global economy have increased the need for communication between the two powers. Together, the USA and China account for over 40% of global GDP and are central to global manufacturing, trade and finance. Their relationship therefore shapes everything from energy prices to supply chains and investment flows.
One of the clearest themes emerging from the summit is that, despite globalisation, nation-states remain the dominant actors in world politics. Both governments are attempting to protect national interests, strengthen economic security and expand geopolitical influence. This challenges the hyperglobalist idea that globalisation has weakened the state.
During the talks, Xi Jinping warned against what he called the “Thucydides Trap”, a concept associated with realist theories of international relations. The historian Thucydides argued that war between Athens and Sparta became likely because a rising power threatened an established one. In modern politics, the phrase describes the danger of conflict when an emerging power challenges a dominant superpower.
Realists see this as a structural problem within international politics. Because there is no higher authority above states, countries prioritise survival and security. As a result, rising and established powers often become trapped in cycles of suspicion, military competition and rivalry. Some realists therefore believe conflict between the USA and China may be difficult to avoid, particularly over Taiwan and control of the Indo-Pacific region. Liberals take a different view. Liberal theories argue that economic interdependence, diplomacy and international institutions can encourage cooperation even between rivals. Xi’s use of the “Thucydides Trap” was therefore significant because China presents it as a warning that should be avoided, rather than as an unavoidable prediction.
In this regard, Taiwan remains the most sensitive issue in US–China relations. China considers the island part of its territory and has increased military activity around it in recent years. The USA continues to support Taiwan militarily and economically, including approving an $11bn arms package in late 2025. This reflects a realist understanding of international politics, where states prioritise security, territorial control and strategic advantage. Xi explicitly warned that misunderstandings over Taiwan could lead to intensified rivalry or even conflict.
Trade and technology were also central to the summit. Relations between Washington and Beijing have been strained by tariffs, export controls and accusations of unfair economic practices. Trump has repeatedly argued that China benefits unfairly from trade with the USA, while China has responded by restricting exports of rare earth minerals essential for semiconductors, electric vehicles and defence industries. China currently processes around 90% of the world’s rare earth supply, giving it significant leverage within global markets.
The summit also highlighted the limits of Thomas Friedman’s “Dell Theory”, which argued that countries integrated into global supply chains would avoid conflict because war would damage economic prosperity. The USA and China remain deeply interconnected economically, with bilateral trade still exceeding $500bn annually. However, economic interdependence has not prevented rivalry. Instead, supply chains themselves have become geopolitical weapons. The USA has restricted China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology because of concerns over artificial intelligence and military development. China has accelerated investment in AI, robotics and electric vehicles in response, attempting to reduce reliance on Western technology and strengthen economic self-sufficiency.
The role of multinational corporations was another significant aspect of the summit. Trump brought major technology and business leaders with him to Beijing, including Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Tim Cook of Apple, Jensen Huang of Nvidia and Larry Fink of BlackRock. Their presence demonstrated how corporations have become increasingly important actors in global politics and economics. These companies possess enormous economic influence, control major technologies and shape global supply chains. However, the summit also showed the limits of corporate independence. Both governments increasingly expect companies to support wider national strategic goals. Corporations therefore act as influential global actors but remain constrained by state power and national security priorities.
The Iran dimension added another layer of geopolitical complexity. China imports large quantities of oil from the Middle East and has close economic links with Tehran. The USA hopes Beijing can use its influence to prevent escalation and keep the Strait of Hormuz open, through which around one fifth of global oil supplies pass. Trump claimed after the summit that China had agreed to withhold military equipment from Iran, although Beijing has not publicly confirmed this.
The summit also demonstrated the importance of both hard and soft power. Military issues such as Taiwan, semiconductor restrictions and naval security reflect the role of hard power. However, the state visit itself was also an exercise in soft power. China carefully staged banquets, ceremonies and cultural visits to project an image of stability, prestige and global leadership.
Ultimately, the summit illustrates that contemporary global politics is shaped by both cooperation and competition. Economic globalisation continues to connect the world’s two largest powers, but strategic rivalry increasingly dominates their relationship. The result is a world that is economically interconnected, yet politically divided, with the US–China relationship likely to define international politics for decades to come.