SHANGHAI/BEIJING: If the Sino-United States relationship were indeed like a ship navigating the high seas amid “winds and waves”, as likened to by Chinese President Xi Jinping, the summit between him and US counterpart Donald Trump has managed to steady it - for now, say analysts.
The 100-minute meeting on Thursday (Oct 30) in the South Korean port city of Busan yielded no breakthroughs, but a handful of reciprocal measures and conciliatory language signals a joint interest in de-escalating the world’s most consequential bilateral rivalry - at least in the near term, observers note.
Wu Se-chih, an assistant professor at Taipei University of Marine Technology, said the tone and optics appeared carefully managed.
“We saw Xi Jinping praising Trump’s ability to handle international conflicts, while Trump in turn called Xi a ‘great leader of a great nation’,” he said.
“You can tell both leaders were trying to create a friendly, constructive atmosphere - setting the tone for negotiations and for this meeting itself. That was definitely one of the highlights.”
Andy Mok, a senior research fellow at the Beijing-based think tank Center for China and Globalization (CCG), called it a “fairly positive” meeting, in part due to what he perceives to be a change in the US position towards China.
“I think (the US has) really changed their attitude and their expectations … (and) must now view China as a peer, and in some ways, even in a superior position.”
And given that outcomes of the summit were largely in line with expectations, observers say both sides would likely walk away relatively happy, and that a period of stability is in store - at least for the next year, if not until both leaders visit each other in the coming months.
CALMER WATERS, FOR NOW
The Busan talks followed earlier consultations between US and Chinese trade officials in Kuala Lumpur, where several key outcomes were negotiated in advance.
Su Yue, principal economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), described the outcomes overall as “neutral but constructive,” and in line with the signals that had shaped market expectations ahead of the summit.
According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, the US agreed to suspend for one year its Section 301 investigation into Beijing’s maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors - a probe into China's “apparent failure” to comply with the"Phase One" deal signed in 2020 during Trump’s first presidency to end a bruising trade war.
China, in turn, will suspend its corresponding countermeasures.
The US also committed to lifting an additional 10 per cent “fentanyl tariffs” on Chinese goods, the commerce ministry said, adding that China would adjust its own trade measures in response.
“The talks have mapped out some paths and prospects for the future, since follow-up discussions between the two working teams will still be needed,” said Sun Chenghao, a fellow at Tsinghua University’s Centre for International Security and Strategy.
Citing the example of the 10 per cent tariff reduction, Sun said it is “meaningful” because it “finally touches on the essence of tariffs”.
“In the previous five rounds of talks, there had been no direct tariff cuts, but this time there was … it also leaves room for future negotiations on both sides,” he added.
Export control relief also featured in the package.
Washington agreed to suspend for one year a rule extending export restrictions to any foreign company half-owned or more by a US-sanctioned firm, a measure that had swept up many Chinese firms.
Beijing, for its part, said it would pause its related export control measures announced on Oct 9, which covered rare earth materials, equipment and technologies. Instead, it will now “study and refine” future implementation steps.
“The one-year suspension is outside of market expectations,” said Su. “But I think it gives both sides pressure to work on delivering what they have promised.”
As Trump flew back to Washington, he said on social media that Xi had authorised purchases of “massive amounts” of soybeans and other American agricultural products.
“But we know during Trump's first term, China didn't really live up to its promise,” added Su.
Back in 2020, President Trump signed what he called a “historical trade deal” committing China to purchase US$200 billion in additional US exports before the end of 2021.
That target was never met. In the end, China bought only 58 per cent of the pledged amount - not even enough to return to pre-trade war import levels, according to research from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
ANY SURPRISES - AND WHAT WASN’T DISCUSSED
At the Busan talks, Washington and Beijing also reaffirmed earlier agreements from trade talks in Madrid, including US commitments on investment and a Chinese pledge to “properly address” TikTok-related issues.
But perhaps more revealing was what didn’t make it into the formal discussions.
Topics such as Taiwan, human rights and the South China Sea were notably absent - a reflection, analysts said, of a concerted effort by both sides not to derail the fragile stabilisation of ties.
Lim Tai Wei, an East Asian affairs observer and professor at Soka University, said those issues were deliberately kept off the table.
“The focus was on lifting or suspending restrictions. Other things can be done through other channels, and the most important thing is not to let them derail the main priorities,” he said, adding that both governments are working toward a high-profile visit by Trump to China next year.
Aboard Air Force One on his flight back to Washington, Trump told reporters he will visit China in April next year, adding that Xi will make a reciprocal visit to the US “some time after that”.
CCG’s Mok also said there was little surprise in what was omitted.
“A lot of the more historic, non-economic, non-national security issues really have not been prioritised by the Trump administration,” he said, citing Xinjiang as an example.
The region has remained a long-standing flashpoint in US-China relations. Washington has accused Beijing of using forced labour there, banning imports and stepping up scrutiny of goods. China has repeatedly denied the accusations.
“I think the Trump administration has deliberately de-prioritised these kinds of issues to focus more on trade, investment, and traditional national security issues,” Mok said.
While Trump had signalled before the summit that advanced chips might be on the agenda, particularly Nvidia’s state-of-the-art Blackwell series, no such discussion panned out.
The Chinese readout made no mention of the topic. Meanwhile, the US president told reporters aboard Air Force One that semiconductors were mentioned and that China would be “talking to Nvidia and others about taking chips”, but clarified that “we’re not talking about the Blackwell”.
That absence stood out to analysts like Mok.
“What I would have liked to have seen was maybe something specific from President Trump about Huawei chips … he did say beforehand that he would be talking about Blackwell chips, (but) there wasn't anything said about that.”
For some observers, the clearest signal of agenda control was the exclusion of Taiwan.
“There was no reference to the Taiwan Strait,” said Wu from Taipei University of Marine Technology. “That omission itself is meaningful.”
Wu pointed to how Trump set the tone in the days leading up to the summit - notably through a visit to Japan, where he met Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and oversaw a raft of agreements.
“In the lead-up (to this meeting), his remarks and actions seemed to be aimed at giving himself leverage … Trump went as far as to call Japan ‘America’s greatest ally’,” Wu said.
He added that Trump had also already “defined the terrain of discussion,” including with pre-summit statements such as “Taiwan is Taiwan" - making it clear that "he did not want the island to become a bargaining chip”.
However, Sun from Tsinghua University cautioned against over-interpreting the exclusion of such topics.
“President Trump, to his credit, is a pragmatic leader who values atmosphere and instinct,” he said.
“Maybe he originally planned to raise certain topics, but once the conversation flowed, he might have decided it was better to focus on areas where progress could be shown - things he could bring home to the American public, like fentanyl or trade.”
“And with limited time, some issues naturally got left out … it doesn’t mean Taiwan or other topics are unimportant; they just weren’t priorities for this particular meeting.”
WHO WALKED AWAY HAPPIER?
Analysts said both leaders left Busan with enough to claim a measure of success - but neither with a decisive win.
“Both sides took steps back without either feeling they had lost,” said Sun, noting that much of what was announced essentially reset conditions to what they were before disputes flared.
The consistency and predictability of the summit mattered most to Beijing, said Lim from Soka University.
“For the Chinese leadership and domestic audience, the fact that nothing unexpected or (untoward) happened was the real positive.”
The summit offered Xi an opportunity to project authority and stability, both domestically and internationally, said Wu from Taipei University of Marine Technology.
Wu said Xi’s exchange with Trump - praising his “peacemaking efforts” in Gaza and Southeast Asia - showed tactical awareness, appealing to Trump’s desire to be seen as a “world peace” president.
“It was a subtle way of speaking to Trump’s instincts, even his aspirations for recognition,” Wu said.
On Washington’s part, Wu said Trump appeared “more in control of the agenda”, setting the tone and securing deliverables he could point to at home - such as progress on fentanyl, trade and the optics of engagement.
“Trump got the images he wanted - confident, commanding, and leading the conversation,” Wu said
Analysts said the pauses in trade and technology tensions further give the Trump administration breathing room before the 2026 mid-term election cycle heats up.
The optics of a “deal” and the promise of follow-up mechanisms serve both Trump’s domestic narrative and foreign policy agenda, Wu added.
The Trump-Xi talks lasted about one hour and 40 minutes - shorter than some had anticipated, but analysts said the length itself revealed little. Much of the groundwork, they noted, had been done well in advance.
Mok noted that many of the detailed outcomes, from tariffs to rare earth exports, were either finalised in earlier working-level consultations or will be refined later.
“The devil’s in the details,” he said, adding that the meeting was more about tone than technical negotiation.
Similarly, EIU’s Su said most of what could be agreed on had been pre-arranged by both sides.
“It wouldn’t take three hours to say yes face-to-face,” she said.
Given the complexity of the relationship, she added, it makes sense for in-depth discussions to continue at the ministerial level.
“STABILISING THROUGH TIME”
But longstanding rifts remain beneath the positive headlines.
Wu from Taipei University of Marine Technology warned that once discussions move into what he called the “deep-water issues” - Taiwan, security, and technology - the underlying rivalry will resurface.
“The absence of conflict doesn’t mean convergence,” he said. “Neither side has shifted its strategic intent.”
Still, the Busan summit has bought both sides time - and space - to manage competition more predictably, said analysts.
The one-year suspension of tariffs and export controls reflects a strategy of “stabilising through time”, said Sun from Tsinghua University.
“Many of the measures were extended by a year, which shows both sides are trying to anchor the relationship not just for this year, but into the next,” he said.
“They’re using these timeframes to avoid escalation and to give diplomacy room to work.”
Lim from Soka University noted that the trade concessions - especially the potential rollback of the so-called fentanyl tariffs - could provide Beijing with a modest economic boost at a critical juncture.
“For China’s export industries, this comes as relief … the timing matters, because it supports the leadership’s efforts to steady growth while pivoting toward more domestic consumption,” he said.
He added that the Busan talks are an example of both sides putting in effort to keep the relationship on track while also managing expectations.
“It’s about continuity - keeping engagement alive,” Lim said.
Sun from Tsinghua University noted that beyond the immediate concessions, both sides appeared to be setting the stage for longer-term stability.
“There’s still space for cooperation on other issues,” he said.
Both sides have signalled mutual support for next year’s G20 Summit - to be hosted by the US - and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings in China.
If all goes as planned, Trump’s visit to China could take place in April next year, followed by Xi’s reciprocal visit to the US later in the year, creating what Sun described as “a full year of strategic expectation”.
For now, the Busan meeting represents what Sun Chenghao described as a “temporary equilibrium” - a managed calm built on modest reciprocity and deliberate restraint.
“It’s a pause, not a peace,” he said.
