The principle of Thucydides Trap, originally based on the conflicts between Greek Sparta and its rising rival Athens, was that conflict becomes the default when an emerging power begins to challenge a dominant rival. In interviews with Professor Allison at Davos and elsewhere, he consistently emphasised a single point: while structural contradictions are inevitable, human wisdom must prevail over historical destiny.

With President Trump’s current visit to China and the establishment of a new positioning for China-US relations - ‘Constructive Strategic Stability’  -the ‘Questions of History, the World, and the People’ previously posed by President Xi have finally found a clear, realist footnote. This positioning is no longer an abstract, grand vision; it is a ‘strategic contract’ forged from the realities of power dynamics and a shared consensus on survival.

How relations have evolved

The economic relationship between China and the US has long been regarded as the ‘ballast’ and ‘propeller’ of the bilateral bond. However, this ballast is undergoing a profound structural metamorphosis. In earlier decades, the trade relationship was often characterised by the phrase ‘800 million shirts for one Boeing aircraft’. This reflected the early stages of China as the ‘world’s factory’, relying on labour-intensive exports of garments and toys to exchange for American high-tech aviation.

I recall covering the early stages of the trade war in 2017 when ‘intermediate goods’ was the buzzword for understanding bilateral trade. At that time, an iPhone assembled in China featured design from California and key components from Japan and South Korea; China contributed only low-cost assembly labour. The ‘trade deficit’ debated so fiercely then often ignored the reality of global value chains, where the lion’s share of profit flowed back to American corporations.

Nine years later, as we re-examine the economic landscape between Beijing and Washington, the structure has fundamentally shifted. China has evolved from the era of ‘8亿 (800 million) trousers’ to a burgeoning epoch of robotics, artificial intelligence , and electric vehicles. The resulting competition is unavoidable, yet it has brought a new clarity: challenges such as AI safety, cross-border pandemics, and climate change (even if the current US administration remains sceptical) are ‘existential challenges’ that transcend national borders. These threats compel the two nations, amidst intense strategic competition, to carve out a ‘limited yet precise’ path for cooperation.

Even in the eyes of Washington’s staunchest hawks, the reality of this shift is inescapable. In recent days, the sight of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio giving a ‘thumbs up’ while gazing at the starlit ceiling of the Great Hall of the People , or the Chinese-style attire and ‘tiger-head pouch’ worn by Elon Musk’s young son, serve as micro-footnotes to this macro transformation.

A long history of interconnection

As a journalist who spent seven years stationed in the United States, I know intimately that the resilience of this relationship has never existed solely in diplomatic communiqués. At the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA) in San Francisco, I once stood for a long time staring at the rudimentary tools left by the Chinese labourers who built the First Transcontinental Railroad. They recorded blood, sweat, and a monumental contribution. From the Flying Tigers who fought side-by-side against fascism in WWII to the ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy’ that thawed the icy silence, these bonds have played a role at every historical turning point.

Today, these ties are reviving in unexpected ways in the digital age. From the ‘Pickleball’ craze sweeping America to the ‘Chinaxxing’ tag trending on TikTok—where American youths share their authentic experiences of travelling in China—to US netizens singing and dancing along to the melodies of a Chinese ‘Auntie’, this bottom-up emotional exchange is deconstructing the cold narratives of politicians.

A former CNN colleague once shared a story with me about interviewing a ‘bangbang’ (porter) on the streets of Chongqing. The man, drenched in sweat, told him his greatest wish was to work hard to buy a car and send his daughter to the best school. My colleague remarked: “Isn’t that the purest form of the American Dream? The ‘Chinese Dream’ and the ‘American Dream’ are essentially the same.” The shared values of family responsibility, the pursuit of efficiency, and the belief in prosperity through hard work are deeply synchronised in the genes of both peoples. If Tsinghua University and the Peking Union Medical College are monuments to early cooperation, today’s scientists working side-by-side in labs and netizens engaging spontaneously on social media are writing the next chapters of this human connection.

The Four Stabilities

As President Trump’s motorcade swept past Beijing’s Central Axis towards the Temple of Heaven, the weight of history met the realism of modern diplomacy. The beauty of Chinese architecture is encapsulated in the concept of ‘Zhonghe’ (Centrality and Harmony). Within the red walls and blue tiles of the Temple of Heaven lies a dynamic balance—not a pursuit of absolute uniformity, but a search for coordination amidst opposites.

The newly established ‘Four Stabilities’— stability based on cooperation, healthy stability through moderated competition, routine stability through controllable differences, and enduring stability with the prospect of peace —represent a departure from earlier romanticism in favour of this ‘Zhonghe’ wisdom. This is a higher form of pragmatism. It acknowledges ‘cooperation without excluding competition,’ as competition drives efficiency; it insists on ‘peace without evading differences,’ as a mature relationship requires no feigned harmony. For too long, the West has misunderstood the Chinese concept of ‘Win-Win’ as China wanting to ‘win twice.’ The true Dao of ‘Zhonghe’ is that the world is not a zero-sum game; the vast Pacific Ocean is wide enough for two great powers to compete in their respective orbits and shake hands where they intersect.

A shared future

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, facing a China with five millennia of civilisational composure, both sides are learning how to manage expectations in an imperfect world. Compared to previous frameworks, ‘Constructive Strategic Stability’ is more honest: it accepts competition but rejects chaos; it acknowledges differences but pursues a lasting peace .

As President Trump noted at the state banquet, the American founding fathers held a profound respect for the wisdom of Confucius. Transcending the Thucydides Trap does not require the erasure of differences, but rather, like the structural integrity of the Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests, achieving steadfastness through the balanced intersection of diverse forces. The Pacific is indeed wide enough for two great nations. Seeking cooperation within competition and anchoring peace amidst differences may well be the most stable strategic dividend our generation can offer the world.

Du Yubin is a journalist and producer for CGTN. He was stationed in Washington, D.C. and London for six years each, focusing on China-US and China-EU relations. He has over 15 years of experience in international communication and new media. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

“Donald Trump has ushered in a new world order where the military might prevail over rule of law and respect for an independent country’s sovereignty,” he said, arguing that the seizure of a foreign leader by force placed the US in the same category as the powers it routinely condemns.

Julian Borger, a senior international correspondent at The Guardian, described the strikes and abduction as a devastating blow to global norms. 

“The overnight strikes on Venezuela, the abduction of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, and Donald Trump’s declaration that the US would ‘run’ the country and sell its oil, have driven another truck through international law and global norms,” he wrote .

For Mogato, the implications extend far beyond Venezuela, and complicates Washington’s stance in criticising Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine or Beijing’s potential use of force against Taiwan. 

“Washington has lost its moral ascendancy after launching military operations in Caracas and grabbed its leader, Nicolas Maduro,” he said.

What’s the real purpose?

Hours after Maduro’s removal, the US president said his administration was ready to fix Venezuela’s oil industry and sell its output. 

Borger said Trump had made clear he was “more covetous of Venezuela’s oil than motivated by a desire to bring Maduro before a court, or deliver democracy.”

He cited US analyst David Rothkopf, who labelled the shift the “Putinization of US foreign policy ”, noting that Moscow has long argued that great powers are entitled to dominate their neighbourhoods by force.

Despite just days after the operation, Mogato said the consequences were already visible. 

“The world has become more dangerous and chaotic in 2026,” he said, describing a landscape in which “stronger states imposed their will on smaller and weaker states.”

Borger warned that anxiety would not be confined to Latin America , pointing to Trump’s recent threats against Iran, Greenland and Cuba. Events in Venezuela, he said, would “cause immediate anxiety” among governments that now fear they could be next.

Notably, such interventions have tended to target governments whose leaders the US considers hostile or unreliable.

Yet as the world’s dominant superpower — both economically and militarily — the US has not confined its political interventions to neighbouring states. Its influence has extended far beyond the Americas, reaching countries separated by vast oceans.

Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines

In the Philippines, a Southeast Asian nation more than 8,000 miles from the US, Washington also played a consequential role during a period of authoritarian rule — and later, a limited but pivotal role in its collapse.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan were personal friends of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Imelda Marcos, then president and first lady, whose names are inseparable from what Filipinos describe as a “conjugal dictatorship” that ruled the country from 1965 until its downfall in 1986.

The parents of incumbent Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Ferdinand Sr. and Imelda Marcos are believed to have plundered an estimated $10 billion from state coffers — a figure some now say may have grown to as much as $30 billion. As of 2020, only about $3 billion had been recovered.

Years of human rights abuses, corruption and media censorship gradually weakened the regime’s grip on power, particularly after the 1984 assassination of prominent opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr., a killing widely linked to the Marcoses.

In 1986, a largely peaceful uprising — following years of unrest — toppled the Marcos regime. The family was flown into exile in Hawaii in an operation coordinated by the US under Reagan.

Ultimately, it was Filipinos themselves who overthrew the dictatorship. 

The same cannot be said of Venezuela, where the 13-year rule of Maduro ended on Saturday following a US-led extraction. Several leaders in Southeast Asia, including Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, argued that Venezuelans should have been allowed to determine their own political future.

Almost 

Archival records show, however, that Washington came close to directly intervening to hasten Marcos’s removal. A January 1986 report by the New York Times , published a month before the EDSA People Power Revolution, noted that a consensus had already formed within the Reagan administration that Marcos’s exit was necessary to protect US interests.

“But the Administration has decided not to push Mr. Marcos from power by covert means, although that was considered by some officials, or by public attacks on him, although some officials have also come close to this,” the report said. 

Reagan’s personal attachment to Marcos was believed to have influenced that restraint. According to one aide, the US president had long viewed Marcos as a “hero on a bubble-gum card he had collected as a kid.”

In January 1984, the US State Department recommended exerting economic pressure on Marcos to force reforms. Reagan agreed to limited pressure, but warned that abandoning Marcos entirely would risk confronting “a Communist power in the Pacific”.

“We’ve agreed that he should be told I’m recommending he step down & we’ll take the lead in negotiating his safety & offering him sanctuary in the U.S.,” Reagan wrote in his diary , made available online by the Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in California. 

Post-revolt

The EDSA uprising ushered in the presidency of Corazon Aquino, the widow of the slain opposition leader, who served as president until 1992. During her term, the Philippines adopted a new charter — the 1987 Constitution — which remains in force today.

Reagan even attempted to persuade Aquino to allow Marcos to remain in the Philippines.

“He says he wants to live out his life in the Philippines. Well we’ll try to negotiate that,” Reagan said at the time. When those efforts failed, he pledged protection for Marcos in exile: “We’re going to provide S[ecret] S[ervice] protection for a limited time. So—no civil war and we’ve proceeded to recognize the new Philippine govt.”

The Marcos family was allowed to return to the Philippines in 1991, a controversial decision by Aquino that enabled the once-deposed clan to rebuild its political fortunes — a process that culminated in 2022, when, 36 years after their ouster, a Marcos once again assumed the presidency.

For the US, Reagan was said to have been “pained” by the downfall of his longtime pals. His confidence in them eventually eroded as evidence of their corruption mounted. In October 1988, a federal grand jury in New York indicted Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos on charges of embezzling more than $100 million to purchase three Manhattan properties.

“We’ll be involved. We’re sending some of our biggest and greatest companies over to the two countries, and we’re going to take out some of the rare earth and take out some of the assets and pay, and everybody’s going to make a lot of money,” he said.

The ceremony was held at the newly-renamed Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace , with a sign installed the day before. DRC President Felix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame signed on behalf of their countries.

The agreement builds on a deal originally signed by the foreign ministers of each country in June. Both government s have previously accused each other of failing to uphold the terms of the agreement. Tensions between the DRC and Rwanda remain, with ongoing fighting between government forces and militants that Rwanda backs, Kinshasa claims, an allegation Kigali denies.

In addition to addressing the peace process, the agreement includes an economic component to increase trade between the two African nations and the United States .