Busan Meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in 2025: A Political and Legal Analysis between Pragmatism and Geopolitical Irresponsibility
Viktor BED
Research Institute of Strategic and Political-Legal Studies
Carpathian University named after Augustin Voloshyn
Uzhhorod,
October 30, 2025
Abstract
The article presents a political and legal analysis of the meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, held on October 30, 2025, in Busan, Republic of Korea, during the APEC Summit. The author examines the content and outcomes of the talks, their implications for global security, and highlights the lack of strategic vision on the part of the world’s leading powers. The study argues that, despite temporary economic agreements, the meeting failed to strengthen the architecture of international security and became an example of geopolitical pragmatism devoid of genuine political responsibility.
Keywords: Busan meeting, Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, United States, China, APEC 2025, political and legal analysis, international security, geopolitics, Ukraine war, Taiwan, North Korea, global challenges, moral and legal responsibility of states.
Introduction
The end of October 2025 was marked by a series of large-scale international crises: the ongoing war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the escalating situation in the Taiwan Strait, the growing nuclear threats from Moscow and North Korea, the continued military confrontation between Israel and Palestine, and the intensification of cyberattacks on the critical infrastructure of the United States and the European Union.
In these circumstances, the meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and the President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, held on October 30, 2025, in the city of Busan (Republic of Korea), raised expectations for a potential global turning point — a kind of “new Yalta,” or at least the beginning of a responsible dialogue between the two most influential powers in the world under their current political leaders [1].
However, the results of this meeting proved the opposite: key strategic challenges remained outside substantive discussion, and the event itself took the form of a narrowly economic bilateral agreement which, despite its external resonance, has no real potential to influence the architecture of international security in any meaningful way.
Factual Content of the Talks
According to official reports [2], the negotiations between U.S. President Donald Trump and the President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping lasted about two hours and were not part of the formal program of the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Summit.
The meeting was held in a closed format, without the participation of official APEC delegations, which indicates its bilateral and tactical nature — primarily aimed at easing trade and economic tensions between the two superpowers.
The key issues discussed included:
- Trade restrictions and tariff policy. The United States refrained from introducing new 100-percent tariffs on Chinese imports, while China, in turn, agreed not to impose similar measures against American goods.
- Export of rare-earth metals. Beijing agreed to partially ease quotas and restrictions on the export of strategic elements (neodymium, lithium, tantalum, gallium), which are critically important for the production of microchips, batteries, high-tech weaponry, and artificial intelligence systems.
- Combating fentanyl. The parties agreed to establish joint inspection teams and partially restore cooperation between China and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which had effectively been suspended since 2020.
- Technological restrictions. The sides discussed partial relaxation of sanctions on a number of Chinese companies in the telecommunications and semiconductor sectors — in particular, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) — within the framework of the critical technology control regime.
At the same time, the American side stated that it had also discussed the war in Ukraine with the Chinese leader, with reference to “joint efforts” toward its resolution. However, no public roadmap, concrete commitments, or mechanisms were announced.
These negotiations essentially signify a “temporary truce” in the trade war between the United States of America (USA) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), expected to last at least until 2026 [3]. For Washington, this serves as a way to stabilize the economy ahead of the U.S. midterm congressional elections in November 2026 — elections that traditionally determine the level of support for the current administration — and to contain inflation caused by tariff escalation and disruptions in global supply chains. For Beijing, it offers an opportunity to ease external pressure, maintain yuan stability, and avoid further technological isolation.
Nevertheless, despite the outward diplomatic politeness, the two sides remain on opposing positions in strategic matters — regional security in the Asia-Pacific, control over dual-use technologies, and approaches to the ongoing Russian–Ukrainian war.
Despite the optimistic rhetoric of the leaders — Donald Trump described the achieved agreements as “great news for the world economy,” while Xi Jinping called them “a positive signal of stability” [4] — the content of the talks was purely tactical.
It was not about a strategic breakthrough in the system of international relations but rather about a mutual short-term economic pause, beneficial to both states in the immediate perspective.
In essence, the sides reached a compromise only in trade-related matters, leaving aside the key geopolitical challenges — from the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine and nuclear threats from Moscow and Pyongyang to the ongoing political and military confrontation in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine.
Nor did the parties address the issues of environmental security, which currently stand at the forefront of attention for the scientific community, environmental organizations, and the United Nations system.
Ignored Issues of Global Security
None of the key international topics became the subject of substantive discussion during the meeting.
The War in Ukraine. According to Donald Trump himself, the possibility of joint efforts to end the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine was discussed during his meeting with Xi Jinping. However, no official commitments, roadmaps, or specific mechanisms of assistance were announced. China formally maintains a “neutral” stance while remaining one of the largest buyers of Russian oil, thus sustaining Moscow’s war economy.
Taiwan and the South China Sea. No public statements were made regarding de-escalation, the establishment of crisis management mechanisms, or the renewed status of the island of Taiwan. On the eve of the meeting, China conducted large-scale military exercises near Taiwan, indicating persistent tension in the region.
Nuclear Threats — Russia and North Korea (DPRK). The Russian Federation continues to expand its nuclear potential and employ hybrid means of influence — yet this issue received no meaningful attention in the public agenda of the meeting. North Korea (DPRK) carried out a new ballistic missile launch on October 22, 2025, approximately a week before the meeting between the U.S. and Chinese leaders. Nevertheless, the problem of the North Korean nuclear threat remained outside the substantive discussions.
Climate Policy and Energy Security. Although the topics of global warming, emission reduction, and energy transition traditionally form part of APEC summit agendas, they were absent from the final statements. This omission is particularly striking given the scale of today’s climate challenges.
Overall, the leaders of the United States and China ignored systemic international challenges that define the security environment of the twenty-first century: the full-scale Russian war against Ukraine, proxy conflicts and the ongoing hybrid Third World War, cyberattacks, information manipulation, the erosion of international law, and the neglect of human rights.
Political and Legal Context: Between Pragmatism and Irresponsibility
In the sphere of international law, the meeting did not produce any new mechanisms of cooperation.
Neither a joint declaration on non-interference in regional conflicts nor a roadmap for stability was signed.
According to the commentary from Reuters and The Guardian, both sides deliberately avoided formal commitments in order to preserve room for political maneuvering [2][4].
This reflects a continuing trend toward the degradation of international treaty culture: major powers increasingly limit themselves to political declarations without legally binding instruments.
Such an approach contradicts the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which require the faithful performance of international obligations (pacta sunt servanda — “agreements must be kept”).
As a result, the Busan meeting demonstrated a widening gap between geopolitical reality and the legal institutions designed to safeguard global stability.
Instead of creating a “mechanism of collective responsibility,” the superpowers remained within the narrow boundaries of commercial pragmatism.
Global Dimension: Economy without Ethics
The short-term effect of the negotiations manifested itself in the growth of stock market indices —
Nasdaq +1.8%, Shanghai Composite +2.1% [7].
However, this wave of economic optimism does not compensate for the political emptiness that followed.
The refusal to make strategic decisions amid the ongoing multipolar confrontation creates an effect of “global anarchy,” in which economic profit prevails over ethical and legal norms.
From a legal standpoint, such a situation undermines the principle of international responsibility of states — as defined in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) — since the absence of joint decisions effectively encourages aggressors and violators of international law.
This is particularly relevant in the case of the Russian Federation, which exploits China’s so-called neutrality to circumvent sanctions and gain access to resources — including energy and technological assets [8].
Conclusions
The meeting in Busan had a narrowly economic character and created no mechanisms for resolving global conflicts.
The absence of a joint position between the United States and the People’s Republic of China regarding the war in Ukraine, Taiwan, and nuclear threats demonstrates a crisis of international leadership.
From a legal standpoint, the outcome can be summarized as follows: major powers increasingly evade treaty-based forms of responsibility, leading to the erosion of international law.
Economic stabilization following the meeting is merely temporary; without political and legal guarantees, any “trade truce” has no lasting value.
Ukraine and the global community must draw clear lessons: without a collective architecture of security founded on law and the responsibility of states, the world system is once again drifting toward an era of power-based chaos and the expansion of warfare across the globe.
Thus, the Busan Meeting of 2025 became a vivid example of the geopolitical irresponsibility of the current political leaders of the world’s great powers — primarily the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China — in legal forms that should have embodied a civilized dialogue.
It demonstrated that in the twenty-first century, global peace cannot be achieved through economic compromises or short-term agreements alone.
The modern world urgently needs a new moral and legal culture of international relations, centered not on the narrow interests of individual politicians, political groups, or—still less—authoritarian and anti-democratic regimes or specific states, but on the political will, responsibility, and ability of great powers to act jointly in the interests of humanity, peace, and international justice.
List of References
- Trump to meet with Xi in Busan amid rising global tensions. – October 23, 2025.
URL: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/23/trump-to-meet-with-xi-thursday-00620586 (accessed: October 30, 2025). - Trump, Xi agree temporary trade truce at APEC summit in Busan. – October 30, 2025. URL: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/looming-trump-xi-meeting-revives-hope-us-china-trade-truce-2025-10-29 (accessed: October 30, 2025).
- US, China halt tariff escalation through 2026 following Busan talks. – October 30, 2025.
URL: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/30/us-china-busan-meeting-tariffs.html
(accessed: October 30, 2025). - The Guardian. Trump and Xi strike economic pause but avoid global conflicts at Busan meeting. – October 30, 2025. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/oct/30/donald-trump-xi-jinping-meeting-live-updates (accessed: October 30, 2025).
- Ministers Press for Stronger Innovation and Connectivity to Safeguard Growth. Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 30, 2025. URL: https://www.apec.org/press/listings/news-releases
(accessed: October 30, 2025). - Associated Press (AP News). Trump–Xi meeting in Busan: Key takeaways from the summit. – October 30, 2025. URL: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/30/trump-xi-meeting-in-busan-key-takeaways-from-the-summit (accessed: October 30, 2025).
- Trump says meeting with Xi yielded fentanyl tariff cut to 10% and rare-earth export pause. – October 30, 2025. URL: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-30/trump-says-amazing-meeting-with-xi-yielded-fentanyl-tariff-cut
(accessed: October 30, 2025). - China refiner Yulong boosts Russian oil imports after sanctions, sources say. – October 28, 2025. URL: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-refiner-yulong-boosts-russian-oil-imports-after-sanctions-sources-say-2025-10-28 (accessed: October 30, 2025).
