April 9, 2026

Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping were scheduled to have a summit in China, from March 31-April 2. President Trump requested a five to six week postponement due to his regime change quagmire in Iran. Their summit is now scheduled for May 13-15. However, this date depends on President Trump’s ability to extricate himself from his unilateral war and threats to extinguish Iranian civilization. Though there are many important subjects for these two leaders, representing the two largest economies in the world to discuss, the most critical issues literally borders on war or peace for the future of civilization. The world finds itself in its most dangerous crisis since World War II. However, with the global authority of the ruling Western political-financial elites weakening, new opportunities exist to create a superior paradigm where military conflict is replaced with vigorous commitments for economic development.

The challenge that presents itself, is that the two presidents espouse totally different world views, with two different thought processes. President Trump’s mental state is still infested by  the mindset of the rules-based order, that is: the most powerful hegemon should rule over all other nations. Recently, President Trump has adopted regime-change as his new foreign posture, previously rejecting this dangerous policy of the neo-conservative war party. Although President Trump claims to have a friendly and respectful relationship with President Xi, all branches of the United States government officially regard China as its primary enemy. This erroneous position is supported by the both the Republican and Democrat parties and the entire U.S. Congress.

Contrary to thousands of pages of Western propaganda maligning China, one can discern from President Xi’s global initiatives a superior approach to foreign policy than that of his American counterpart. Over the course of his leadership, President Xi has campaigned for the adoption of  “win-win” cooperation in opposition to the diseased“zero-sum” ideology of the U.S. Instead of searching for countries to overthrow or control in a “war of each against all as the natural state of civilization,” President Xi has presented a more elevated conception for the world, stressing the need to work for a more just and equitable global governance system and advance toward a community with a shared future for humanity.

Franklin Roosevelt Had A Vision

The U.S. today has no vision for civilization, except to dominate the world through sustaining superior military strength. However, that has not always been worldview of the United States. The foreign policy of President Franklin Roosevelt, the longest serving U.S. president, was guided by his intention to create a better world following the end of World War II. His Grand Design for the post war period featured an end to colonialism, in particular British Imperialism, support for sovereignty of all nations, and industrialization of the less developed nations. He knew that only through promoting economic development, expanded world trade, and the elimination of poverty could long term global peace be accomplished.

The creation of the Bretton Woods system, which President Roosevelt began preparing for prior to the entry of the U.S. into World War II, was integral to the intention of his Grand Design: to generate global economic growth. To this end he established the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), today known as the World Bank. As a student of Alexander Hamilton’s American System of economics, President Roosevelt understood that the need for a new credit issuing facility to supply development credits was essential to raise the standard of living of the world’s population. That was the purpose of the IBRD. U.S. Treasury representative, Harry Dexter White, a chief architects of Bretton Woods, wrote in a January 1942 draft, that a central purpose of “The Bank” was the provision of long term capital for desirable productive projects that served directly or indirectly to permanently raise the standard of living of the borrowing country.

One could accurately report that President Roosevelt’s Brenton Woods was in fact an extension of his Good Neighbor policy for the countries of Latin America. President Roosevelt advocated for an Inter-American Development Bank (IAB) for currency stabilization and long term loans to assist specific Latin American state sponsored development projects.

President Roosevelt’s intent for Bretton Woods to function as a credit bank, was criticized for its commitment for long-term international lending. In defense of these development credits, U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Mogenthau knew; If we help you to become prosperous, you will be able to buy more goods from us! Is this not the best means to advance the self-interest of each nation? Is this not “win-win” economic cooperation. Is this not exactly what China is practicing today through its Belt and Road Initiative?

Author Eric Helleiner (1) considers Sun Yat-sen, one of the early pioneers of state-led development. Sun’s book, the International Development of China, outlines his plan industrialize China, to increase the standard of living of the Chinese people through the provision of foreign capital, technology, and expertise. Professor Cho-Ming Lee, a member of China’s delegation to Bretton Woods, the largest delegation next to that the U.S., put it this way: only by industrializing the country will the living standards of the people be appreciatively raised and the economic strength of the nation rapidly developed.

Representatives of China maintained a collaborative dialogue with U.S. Treasury officials, White and Morgenthau, and had input in the final articles of the Bretton Woods conference. In a communique to the head of the Chinese delegation, Hsiang-His Kung, in September 1943, Morgenthau wrote that U.S. technical experts shave indicated considerable interest in the views…expressed in these proposals, particularly with regard to the desirability of giving special consideration to the needs of China and countries in a similar position.

On American expert on Asian affairs, wrote just after the conference:

The promotion of foreign investment and international trade, development of productive resources and the raising of standard of living, as enunciated in Article I of the Articles of Agreement of the International Bank, admirably fit in with the goal of the third of [China’s] Three People’s Principles, the Principle of the People’s Livelihood. It will be a particular source of pride to foreign admirers of doctor Dr. Sun Yat-sen, as well as to all Chinese, that a concrete scheme born out of the world’s exigencies of the ‘beginning of the end’ of World War II should follow the lines laid down by the Father of the Chinese Republic…and the respective needs of China and of the industrial and of the industrial countries of the West.

Helleiner reports that U.S. military advisors traveled to the headquarters of the Communist Party of China in Yenan, during the month of July 1944, the final month of the Bretton Woods Conference. The first official contact between the U.S. and the Communist Party of China occurred after the conference. In November 1944, when a U.S. Treasury official surreptitiously met with top Chinese Communist official, Chou En-lai. Chou noted that with regard to China’s post war position, her greatest economic need would be for foreign capital. Exactly what President Roosevelt intended to provide with his new Bretton Woods. The untimely death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, was a tragedy for the world because it prevented those intentions from being realized.

It should be obvious to any intelligent and unbiased observer that the U.S. and China have much in common. America became  a mighty industrialized economy by applying Hamilton’s economic principles, which it has tragically abandoned over the last half century. Dring that same time period, China has achieved the fastest rate of economic growth of any nation in history, by applying the principles of state-led industrialization. Would not collaboration between these economic powers serve the self-interest of each, and that of all nations in the world?

Conclusions

• There is no historical foundation for antagonism between China and the U.S.
• Strengthening institutions for the purpose of lending long term productive credits is paramount to achieving industrialization and economic growth, which ensures peace.
• There is an inherently shared sovereign self-interest of every nation to raise the standard of living of all nations in an expanding developing world.
• Statesman, and President, Franklin Roosevelt understood in creating the IRDB-The Bank-as a primary feature of the Bretton Woods system, that it was in the self-interest of the America, not to be a super-power hegemon, but instead a facilitator for economic growth for the less developed nations.
• There is a common purpose for China and the U.S., as economic powers, to lead in engendering prosperity throughout the globe, particularly promoting economic growth in the Global South.
• President Roosevelt demonstrated that under qualified leadership, U.S. collaboration with China is more than feasible.

1. Forgotten Foundations of Brenton Woods: International Development and the Making of the Postwar Order

Read below my earlier post on this topic.

Franklin Roosevelt Intended to Industrialize the ‘Global South’: The Case of Ethiopia

Will China’s Global Governance Initiative Replace The West’s Failed “Rules Based Order?”

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 35 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, consultant on Africa, and an analyst of global strategic relations. Mr. Freeman strongly believes that economic development is an essential human right. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com, also publishes on: lawrencefreeman.substack.com, “Freeman’s Africa and the World, and on X @lkfreemansafrica