THE 13th Beijing Xiangshan Forum (BXF) convened at a moment when the rules-based international order anchored in the UN Charter is undergoing structural stress and the global security architecture is transitioning from a unipolar configuration towards a more pluralistic and multi-layered system. The Forum’s central theme, “Build Consensus on Stability, Advance Security Governance Together,” focused on this transitional logic and positioned the BXF as an ideal platform for collective security governance rather than a mere diplomatic ritual, offering practical solutions and remedies.
In an era of fragmented multilateralism, Beijing’s peacekeeping engagement functions as a stabilizing mechanism that partially compensates for the retreat of traditional hegemonic stabilizers. This role was a principal attractor at the 13th BXF, where participants recognized China’s capacity to serve as a security entrepreneur bridging the Global North and the Global South. The Forum operationalized the concept of inclusive security governance by amplifying the agency of Global South state actors historically marginalized in global security architectures. The Forum’s four plenary sessions, eight parallel sessions and nine closed-door academic seminars reflected a multi-layered governance design.
Yin Zhongliang, Senior Adviser to the China Institute for International Strategic Studies and former Chinese military representative to the UN, characterized the BXF as frank, practical and anchored in equality, openness, inclusiveness and mutual learning. This corresponds to deliberative security governance based on deepening of mutual understanding, building overlapping consensus and institutionalizing difference management rather than difference suppression.
Defence Minister Dong Jun’s keynote articulated a cooperative security doctrine grounded in historical awareness, dialogue and consultation. His six priorities—building consensus on a new security outlook, maintaining stability through multilateralism, preventing risks through historical awareness, resolving problems through dialogue, strengthening security through common development and deepening cooperation through concrete actions—offer a holistic and futuristic roadmap for regional and global security, transcending outdated zero-sum thinking in favour of a positive-sum paradigm better suited to contemporary interdependence.
The participation of senior US officials including the Pentagon’s Principal Director for China signaled a higher level of engagement than the previous year and reflected resumed military-to-military dialogue consistent with the consensus reached by the two heads of state. Concrete milestones include: the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) working group meeting in Hawaii (May 2026), the first-ever meeting between the commander of the PLA Eastern Theater Command and the chief of US Pacific Command (August early September 2026). These developments represent institutionalized crisis communication and strategic reassurance mechanisms, reducing inadvertent escalation risk and enhancing transparency in security dynamics.
Surely, the US’ participation was “at a higher level than last year” which clearly demonstrated that “China-US military relations have improved. It is a healthy sign that the consensus reached by the Chinese and US heads of state, military-to-military dialogue between the two countries at various levels has continued to resume which is commendable.
The continued resumption of China-US security dialogue sends positive signals. Definitely, China and the US need security dialogue and strategic stability which should discard mindset of handling relations with China with force to maintain so called overwhelming advantages. So, it is better for both countries to engage in constructive dialogue, facilitate peaceful conflict resolution, maintain complete restrain and achieve stability through better understanding of China’s red lines.
It seems that China’s growing national strength is itself an important anchor for China-US strategic stability due to which the writer submits that for achieving and maintains strategic stability both countries should accurately assess the other’s resolve and capabilities in safeguarding its core interests and to fully recognize the enormous costs that direct military conflict could entail. Hence, using military deterrence to force China to make concessions on its core interests would not be practically feasible.
Realistically, the participation of relatively senior US officials in the 13th BXF should not be taken any drastic change in the US military doctrine toward China. It fears that hawks in the US government will continue to push for a stronger military presence in the Asia-Pacific and create new frictions over issues related to Taiwan, the South China Sea, technology restrictions and military alliances. The writer appreciates that China’s complete industrial system, a vast market, sustained capacity for technological innovation and a firm determination to safeguard its core interests would easily diminish so-called China’s threat campaign.
In summary, China-US security dialogue has become a guarantor of regional peace, stability and inclusive dialogue a first strategic step toward reconciliation and the reduction of military misadventure risk in the Asia-Pacific. The 13th BXF’s theme, “Build Consensus on Stability, Advance Security Governance Together,” thus carries strategic justification and operational relevance. Both countries and their militaries must establish a more mature, stable and predictable framework for managing their relationship, institutionalizing constructive dialogue as the primary modality for difference management.
The writer submits that politicians and policy makers of both sides should jointly work for the success of the prospective visit and meeting of Xi Jinping and Donald Trump this year which would be change the geopolitical landscape and gearing towards geo-economics. Thus, respect of mutual sovereignties, territorial integrities and stay away from the Red Lines should be the mantra of both sides. Hence, moving from crisis management to crisis prevention, from deterrence symmetry to strategic stability and from zero-sum competition to cooperative security governance is the way forward for China-US military cooperation and of course a constructive dialogue.
—The writer is President, the Centre for Knowledge and Public Policy, Regional Expert: China, CPEC, BRI & World Affairs.
