When United States President Donald Trump arrives in Beijing on May 13 for the summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, it will mark his second visit to China as president, following his first trip in 2017. The symbolism is significant.

I have spent most of my adult life in China, and served as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai during the Barack Obama, Trump, and Joe Biden administrations.

I have watched the US-China relationship from close range — through periods of genuine cooperation and periods of serious strain.

I have seen what works and what doesn't. And I have tried to capture those lessons in my recent book about China.

The most important lesson is also the simplest: when the US and China cooperate, both countries benefit, and the global economy prospers. When they don't, everyone loses.

The summit comes at a difficult moment that is becoming even more complicated. A trade war that began years ago has damaged both sides more than either is ready to admit.

Tariffs have disrupted supply chains, raised costs for consumers and businesses, and generated uncertainty that keeps investors on the sidelines. China has adapted — its exports have diversified, its domestic market has absorbed some of the pressure — but the costs are real. US farmers, retailers, and technology companies have felt them too.

The conflict in Iran has added a new layer of complexity. The war has reshaped the diplomatic landscape in ways that cannot be ignored.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20 percent of the world's oil and gas supplies passed, has been effectively closed.

China and the US have different approaches to the crisis. That is an uncomfortable position for a relationship that needs stability.

Beijing has made its intentions clear: Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beijing last week and called for a comprehensive ceasefire.

Beijing does not want chaos in the Middle East. It does not want a closed Strait of Hormuz. It does not want the disruption to global trade that this conflict produces. On these points, Chinese and US interests are more aligned than the headlines suggest.

This is important, because the two countries have worked constructively together in the past, including on Iran.

In 2015, the US, China, Russia and European partners negotiated an Iran nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. After the deal was signed, the then US president Barack Obama's Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz made a stop in Shanghai, where he met with a group from the American Chamber of Commerce.

Moniz was one of the key negotiators, along with the then US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and then-Secretary of State John Kerry, and told us that China had played an important and constructive role throughout more than two years of difficult negotiations.

This example demonstrates that the US and China can work together to resolve difficult problems of mutual concern even in an environment defined by competition and mistrust.

On the conflict in the Middle East, as Iran's largest trading partner, Beijing's voice carries weight in Tehran.

When China's foreign minister makes it clear that a resumption of hostilities is unacceptable, it conveys a distinct and constructive perspective.

Beijing has demonstrated a willingness to use this influence positively. The summit represents an opportunity to build on this role.

What are the realistic expectations from the talks?

A tactical trade agreement is the most likely outcome: agricultural purchases, energy commitments, adjustments to tariffs in specific categories, perhaps progress on rare earth supply chains. These are useful and genuinely important.

Businesses on both sides need predictability. Markets need stability. The Busan agreement of October 2025 provided a framework; the Beijing summit can build on it.

Progress on structural questions is important. Neither side has yet articulated a plan for how the two economies are supposed to coexist over the long term — the role of US companies in the Chinese market, the governance of technology competition, the rules by which two very different economic systems can coexist without constant friction.

We need a mutual understanding of what the relationship is for, and where it is supposed to go.

During the earlier days of reform and opening up, the path forward seemed clear: integration, mutual prosperity, and growing interdependence. The context of the relationship has evolved fundamentally.

The absence of a shared map is, in my view, the biggest obstacle to a stable relationship — more than any specific trade dispute or technology restriction.

The vacuum is filled with suspicion, and suspicion produces exactly the kind of zero-sum thinking that makes every problem harder to solve.

I have spent four decades watching this relationship evolve — from the optimism in the past to the competition of today.

The relationship is more resilient than its worst moments suggest, and more fragile than its best moments imply.

The two countries are bound together by trade, by history, and by the shared reality that neither can afford the consequences of genuine rupture.

The summit can help do something valuable: demonstrate that both sides prefer management to confrontation, stability to chaos, and dialogue over angry isolation.

In a relationship so consequential, that is not a small achievement. It is the foundation on which everything else must be built.

The author is the former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and an executive-in-residence at the Center for Asia Pacific Studies in the University of San Francisco.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.