Chinese and U.S. delegations have reached basic consensuses on arrangements to address respective trade concerns after two days of talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

How did the latest economic and trade talks differ from previous ones? How significant is the timing, ahead of the upcoming APEC meeting? What will happen next? CGTN talked to Sun Taiyi, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States, for his insights.

CGTN: How do you evaluate the outcomes of the latest China-U.S. economic and trade talks in Malaysia? What are the notable advances compared to previous rounds of talks? 

Sun Taiyi: The Malaysia round of consultations marked a significant and timely reset in U.S.-China economic dialogue. Compared to earlier meetings, this round achieved two breakthroughs. First, it reversed the dangerous trajectory toward escalation that had been unfolding in recent weeks, including unilateral U.S. Commerce Department moves and China's strong countermeasures. Second, it created a credible foundation for stabilizing expectations ahead of future talks.

We should not underestimate how close both sides were to entering a new downward spiral, with mounting tit-for-tat measures following the U.S. Commerce Department's surprise move to increase fees on Chinese vessels. China's firm but calibrated response reminded both parties of the real costs such cycles can impose – not just on bilateral trade but on global markets. In this sense, both Washington and Beijing brought credible leverage to the table.

Ultimately, the consultations affirmed what has become increasingly clear: cooperation is not a feel-good slogan, but a necessity. The costs of not cooperating are now far more visible and measurable than ever before. Neither side has abandoned its strategic tools, but both recognize that dialogue and coordination offer better returns than open-ended confrontation.

CGTN: The latest China-U.S. economic and trade talks took place just before the upcoming APEC meeting, which the leaders of both countries will attend. How do you view the timing of these consultations? 

Sun: The timing of these talks right before APEC is anything but accidental. It reflects a deliberate alignment by both capitals to reduce uncertainty and create political space for constructive future talks. What we've seen is that when both bureaucratic systems sense that their leaders are committed to stabilization, lower-level negotiations tend to move more efficiently and pragmatically.

The "leaders' strategic guidance" model is not a new invention, but it is quickly becoming the main ballast of U.S.-China relations. It allows both governments to signal political intent at the highest level, which in turn disciplines agency behavior and sets boundaries for acceptable risk-taking.

In the current case, the strategic choreography worked: each side brought tough messages, but they also signaled readiness to move toward compromise. This model doesn't eliminate friction – but it channels it. It offers a structured way to resolve missteps like the recent tariff misfire by the U.S. Commerce Department, which had threatened to derail progress. In the months ahead, expect this model to remain the central pillar holding up a fragile but functional bilateral framework.

CGTN: China international trade representative Li Chenggang not only said China and the U.S. reached "basic consensuses" on properly addressing economic and trade issues of respective concerns, but also said that the U.S. side expressed its position in a tough manner and the Chinese side remained resolute in safeguarding its interests during the talks. How do you view the impact of "basic consensuses" on future talks? And how do both countries' stances in the talks influence the course and process of future talks?

Sun: Li's remarks capture a core truth about current China-U.S. dynamics: strength and consensus are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is precisely because both sides demonstrated resolve – China in defending its interests, and the U.S. in articulating its concerns – that the preliminary agreements reached carry real weight.

This round of talks clarified one important fact for both sides: that credible signals of pain matter. The mutual recognition of each other's capabilities to inflict economic cost – should consensus break down – gave urgency to reaching practical understandings. Neither side gave up their strategic cards, but both showed restraint and foresight by keeping those cards in reserve.

Looking ahead, this pattern may repeat: firm negotiating postures, yes – but with a growing appreciation for the consequences of failure. One key task will be to audit and revisit prior commitments made in earlier rounds. Many of the recent tensions emerged not from new provocations, but from violations or neglect of earlier understandings. That's a fixable problem – and one that future rounds must prioritize.