As an experienced businessman, Trump may not use words as thoughtfully as a typical politician, which sometimes is his strength rather than weakness. Words can be used as a tool in negotiations in different ways. The real question will be: How steadfast is his word when making deals?

Most of Trump’s rhetoric and new thinking about foreign relations have not materialized, and he basically has returned to the old track of conventional US diplomatic thinking. “Obsolete” NATO is once again the “unbreakable alliance”, and his attitude toward China is also now in line with previous US policy.

While many issues are on the table, China hopes to work with America to assure the DPRK’s legitimate security while persuading Pyongyang to come down from the nuclear ladder. The upcoming summit meeting holds promise for a workable new type of great-power partnership.

Developments in the realms of outer space and energy/environment now present us the opportunity for three of the world’s great powers – China, Russia and the United States – to increase significantly international cooperation in the long run for two of the four global public commons: space and energy/environment. However, such improvements will not happen unless leaders in Washington, Beijing, and Moscow rethink historical notions of competition and conflict among them.

The new Trump administration is well aware of the significance of China-US relations for the US, and the Chinese side is also eager to see a rapid and smooth transition of bilateral ties. Both sides, therefore, share a desire to have their leaders meet as soon as possible, and Secretary Tillerson’s visit this week has created a sound atmosphere for the meeting.

The Trump administration’s China policy is still in the works, but its goal would not be to sabotage China-US relations, but to extract maximum benefit from the relationship. Reasonable, calculated and restrained counter-moves may promote the other side to adjust its policies.

Washington’s hawkish posturing is not likely to induce Beijing to incur the risks of greatly increasing its pressure on the North Korean regime. The first step would be to meet Beijing’s longstanding call for Washington to engage Pyongyang in serious, bilateral negotiations.

Recent nationalistic trends suggest not that globalization is dead but that it has entered a new phase. It is overly simplistic to define the momentum for change as “anti-globalization”. China now needs to work harder than ever in order to optimize and even lead globalization.

Trump’s softening stance toward China shows the U.S. is considering a new framework to guide the bilateral relationship, which the previous administration failed to do. However, “results-oriented” is too vague to guide such complex ties, and the leaders’ meeting could define the relationship in a more clear-cut concept.

The U.S. needs China a great deal more than it does Russia in order to minimize the security threats from the unstable and threatening North Korean regime and to maintain regional stability in Asia.