Isn’t a strong world reserve currency a contradiction in terms?

In order to circulate abroad in any quantity, a currency must become widely available there. How is that possible without a large entrenched deficit on foreign trade? Is not therefore the common use of a currency in world trade a sign in itself that the issuing country’s best days are over?

It was reported today, that the Chinese government has objections against the permanent use of the US dollar for world trade and would like to see it gradually replaced by China’s own currency. But isn’t this idea based on a misconception?

Their currency may now be perceived as strong, but wouldn’t it be necessary to destroy that strength before its widespread use in world trade becomes possible?

Am I missing something?
@ simplicitus: All very good points — thanks!

Regardless of all its own problems, a gold standard certainly has its advantages!

In a sense, importing gold for newly issued currency constitutes deficit spending, too, but it is certainly no sign of economic weakness.

If it were done that way (and you are obviously right that it would take a long time), a yuan could eventually be essentially a pawn broker’s ticket for a certain amount of gold.

There is always the risk that the broker will eventually repudiate the ticket (just like the Nixon administration), but that has to be a smaller risk than a currency not backed with anything.

Conversely, being able to issue such a currency and accumulate gold has to be preferable to unsecured lending by buying foreign government bonds, thereby encouraging unsustainable budget deficits in addition to weak foreign trade.