China and the U.S. will hold their first summit meeting this week. Though the concrete schedule has not been released, there is no doubt that the North Korean nuclear issue will be a hot topic between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump.

At a press conference on March 30, Chinese spokesperson Lu Kang announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping would visit U.S. President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida from April 6-7.

Could Trump like Richard Nixon “echo like thunder” by unilaterally announcing a high tariff regime to balance U.S. trade deficit and break the WTO system? While some of Trump’s advisors would wave their heads affirmatively, the institutional and commercial leverage of the U.S today is much inferior from Nixon’s America that bended Europeans to follow her unilateral demands.

The stakes for the first Xi-Trump summit are high—but so also is the opportunity to stabilize relations and set a positive tone for future interactions. President Xi and the Chinese side will come to the summit extremely well prepared on a wide range of complex issues confronting the two governments. The question is: how well prepared will the new American president be?

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.

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.

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.