Chinese President Xi Jinping will pay a state visit to the United States from September 23 to 25 at the invitation of US President Donald Trump, with the two sides expected to discuss major issues concerning bilateral ties as well as broader global challenges.

The visit comes as China-US relations continue to feature the "constructive strategic stability" – a positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay, a sound stability with moderate competition, a constant stability with manageable differences, and an enduring stability with promises of peace.

What does this new positioning mean for the future of bilateral ties? What obstacles need to be overcome, and how can Beijing and Washington strengthen communication and manage differences to prevent competition from spiraling out of control?

CGTN posed these questions to Hu Bo, director of the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative and a research fellow at the School of International Studies, Peking University; Wang Honggang, director of the Institute of American Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations; and Zhang Tengjun, associate research fellow at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 

CGTN: How do you understand the concept of "building a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability"? What obstacles do the two sides need to overcome in practice?

Hu Bo: The concept represents a repositioning of China-US relations after a period of prolonged strategic competition. The process of stabilization actually began during the late period of the Joe Biden administration, as both sides, particularly the United States, recognized that they could not afford the costs of allowing competition to spiral out of control.

Therefore, stability is to some extent a result of necessity, and it is likely to be a long-term feature of the relationship that will not change substantially with a change of administration in the United States.

In practical terms, the two sides first need to ensure that military-to-military communication mechanisms remain open and effective, preventing excessive actions or escalation risks at the operational level. Avoiding conflict between the two militaries is the most important common ground for stability.

Both sides should also reduce ideological approaches in their policies toward each other and avoid excessive politicization of bilateral relations.

Wang Honggang: The emergence of this new concept has objective foundations. At least three factors are involved.

First is the growing convergence in the relative strength of China and the United States. While it is generally believed that greater parity can intensify conflict, China's growing strength has also enhanced its ability to respond to pressure, prompting the United States to negotiate on issues such as trade. This has contributed to stability.

Second is the depth of shared interests between the two countries. After nearly a decade of adjustment, both sides have recognized that even amid structural competition, neither can afford to ignore their common interests, which remain substantial.

Third is a more long-term view of strategic competition in the United States. China has consistently viewed the relationship from a long-term and global perspective. The United States is also increasingly recognizing that competition with China is a long-term process and that its outcome cannot be determined in the short term.

In this sense, closer relative strength contributes to "stability," a long-term perspective adds a "strategic" dimension, and shared interests provide the basis for a "constructive" relationship.

The biggest obstacle is cognitive. The new concept should not be viewed as a short-term or tactical arrangement. Both sides need strategic patience. Constructive strategic stability should be regarded as a long-term direction for the relationship rather than something that can be achieved overnight.

Zhang Tengjun: The concept represents a recalibration of how China and the United States manage their relationship. "Strategic stability" sets the bottom line: the two countries need to prevent conflict and confrontation and avoid allowing bilateral competition to evolve into bloc confrontation. "Constructive" points to an approach in which competition does not have to be a zero-sum game and practical cooperation can help offset differences.

There are three major obstacles.

First, the United States continues to view China as a major strategic competitor, reflecting persistent differences in strategic perceptions.

Second, issues including the Taiwan question remain a source of serious tension. From the Chinese perspective, actions by the United States in these areas have challenged China's core interests and run counter to commitments made by successive US administrations under the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques.

Third, domestic political factors, including electoral politics, can periodically influence the handling of China-related issues in the United States.

CGTN: What are the most effective mechanisms for managing differences between China and the United States today, and how can the two sides prevent localized friction from affecting the broader relationship?

Hu Bo: Since the San Francisco meeting, military-to-military relations have continued to stabilize. Since the Busan meeting, economic and trade dialogue and communication mechanisms have also produced notable results.

At present, it is particularly important to prevent actions by third parties from affecting China-US relations.

Wang Honggang: From the Chinese perspective, the most effective approach is to institutionalize and normalize communication at different levels and through different channels under the guidance of head-of-state diplomacy. This includes official diplomatic channels as well as unofficial and track-two exchanges.

The goal is to gradually develop necessary strategic understandings, rules governing behavior and effective crisis-management mechanisms.

Head-of-state diplomacy remains the most important element because it provides overall strategic direction for the relationship. The two leaders have attached importance to China-US relations and identified constructive strategic stability as a broad direction for their efforts. Although the two sides may have different understandings of the concept, their positions are gradually moving closer in some respects.

Preventing local friction from affecting the broader relationship ultimately depends on whether working-level officials on both sides can implement the understandings reached by the two leaders.

Zhang Tengjun: There are three layers to the current mechanism.

At the top level is head-of-state diplomacy, which provides strategic guidance and direction for the relationship.

At the middle level are regular and institutionalized channels for strategic communication and dialogue on diplomacy, security, economic and trade affairs and other areas. These channels allow the two sides to discuss sensitive differences and keep competition within manageable limits.

At the operational level are crisis-management arrangements, including military-to-military communication mechanisms and emerging arrangements such as government-to-government dialogue on artificial intelligence.

To prevent local disputes from hijacking the broader relationship, the two sides need to maintain mutual respect, observe each other's bottom lines and avoid actions that escalate tensions. Differences should be placed in their proper position within the overall relationship, while mutually beneficial cooperation and people-to-people exchanges can strengthen the foundation and resilience of bilateral ties.