When Donald Trump visits Beijing this week, the focus of think tankers and pundits will largely be on what the policy outcomes will be, and there is a tendency to lean towards the negative. Will China deepen the trade war? Will Trump bristle at Xi’s stance on the war against Iran?

But for the trajectory of the relationship between China and the United States, the summit could play a constructive role, facilitating a peaceful recognition of the shift in power dynamics between the two countries and globally. Perceptions in both countries of one another, and of the role each seeks to play in the world, will be shaped by the art of the summitry and what the meeting between the two leaders conveys.

Historically, high-profile summits have proven to be important turning points in U.S. foreign policy by mediating enduring tensions in bilateral relations. The 1959 US-Soviet summit humanized the Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev in the eyes of some Americans. The 1972 Nixon visit to China allowed pro-rapprochement sentiment to emerge and circulate in American public discourse, contributing to ongoing discussions and debates on diplomatic normalization for years following the summit. The 1985-87 US-Soviet summits between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev were crucial for transforming bilateral distrust into trust.

In the post-Cold War years, attempts to talk to adversaries at the highest level may have seemed futile, such as the US-North Korea summits of 2018-19, but all of these talks provided a momentary  pause for revisiting some of the intractable policy and strategic assumptions the U.S. has held about its adversaries and competitors. Needless to say, summits also provide pivotal moments for leaders to gauge each other’s intentions and willingness to engage in dialogue, offering opportunities to reappraise long-standing, outdated policies and policy assumptions. The de-escalatory effects of summits may not be long-lasting, but the bilateral summitry mechanism offers a diplomatic engagement channel for transformative moments, if utilized well and in good faith.

Trump’s summit with Xi is not without risks. There is the potential for China to press what it sees as its advantage on trade, which could prompt a backlash; Trump might go back to using aggressive protectionist policies. Likewise, behavior from Xi that Trump perceives as hectoring him over Iran could lead the American president to become more intransigent.

But Trump has demonstrated his political fluidity in the past, and if the imagery of the summit appears respectful and appeals to Trump’s sense of grandeur, there is a real chance that Trump might be willing to collaborate with Xi on pressing issues including trade, Iran, and even Taiwan. Such an outcome could prove to be momentous, not because the agreements are likely to constitute a paradigm shift, but because the very nature of the interactions between the two leaders will demonstrate a new international order where China is recognized as a global power whose role cannot be proscribed by the United States.

The reality is that a major shift in power has already occurred, and there is little the United States can do at this point to return to a unipolar system. But recognition among American policymakers and the broader public of this reality has been slow to emerge. The Trump-Xi summit thus offers the chance to visually consecrate the transition to unbalanced multipolarity, which in turn would mediate future U.S. policy towards China. If Trump, with his brand of brashness and American exceptionalism, can demonstrate respect and collaboration with his Chinese counterpart, it will send a powerful message to the public that the United States must exist atop the world stage alongside China.

Ultimately, the Trump-Xi summit could turn out to mark the revitalization of a G2: a turn away from a multilateral system in favor of one that features the two powers increasingly asserting their interests in their regions and less global cooperation, along with some recognition of the validity of each other’s claims. As Ryan Hass, Patricia M. Kim, and Mireya Solís wrote, such an outcome could “marginalize smaller states, reduce their agency to influence regional outcomes, entrench spheres of influence, and weaken multilateral norms.” But the emergence of a relationship between China and the United States where each acknowledges the power and interests of the other would also mean a lowering of tensions between the two countries, reducing the prospects of a catastrophic great-power war. The benefits of a collaborative summit that portrays China and the United States as equals should not be overlooked.