The recent visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington, framed by some as a necessary détente, concluded with the usual platitudes of "frank discussions" and "areas of cooperation." While the optics of engagement are often deemed essential in managing the world’s most consequential bilateral relationship, those of us who follow national security and geopolitical realities closely must look beyond the handshake photo-ops to assess what, if anything, was truly accomplished for American interests. The commentary from seasoned diplomats like former Ambassador Nicholas Burns is valuable, reminding us that diplomacy, even with adversaries, is a tool, not an anodyne.
Ambassador Burns, a distinguished figure with a long history of service, rightly points to the enduring need for communication channels, especially with a power as formidable and often opaque as the People's Republic of China. This institutionalist approach, valuing diplomatic infrastructure, is sound. In an era where miscalculation can have catastrophic consequences, direct lines of communication, particularly at the highest levels, are a pragmatic necessity. Preventing accidental escalation, especially in flashpoints like the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, demands these channels remain open, however fraught the conversations may be.
Yet, we must temper this diplomatic optimism with a sober assessment of Beijing’s persistent actions. While Washington engaged in discussions about climate change or cultural exchanges, the Chinese Communist Party continues its systematic military modernization, explicitly aimed at challenging American dominance in the Indo-Pacific. Reports from the Pentagon consistently highlight China’s rapid development of hypersonic missiles, a blue-water navy, and advanced cyber warfare capabilities. These are not the actions of a nation merely seeking "peaceful coexistence" but of a rising power determined to reshape the global order to its authoritarian advantage.
The real questions that remain unanswered after such summits pertain to verifiable commitments, not merely rhetorical assurances. Did Beijing commit to genuine de-escalation of its aggressive posture towards Taiwan, a democratic ally and a critical node in the global economy? Were there tangible steps agreed upon to halt the pervasive industrial espionage and intellectual property theft that continues to bleed American innovation? What concrete mechanisms were established to address Beijing’s complicity in facilitating the flow of precursor chemicals for fentanyl into the United States, devastating American communities? The record suggests vague promises, if any.
For those of us observing the strategic competition, the concern isn't that diplomacy occurs, but that it might inadvertently convey a false sense of security or legitimacy to an authoritarian regime. Engaging with Xi Jinping, however necessary, should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of his government’s egregious human rights record, its suppression of dissent in Hong Kong, or its aggressive posturing towards neighbors. American diplomacy must always walk a fine line, seeking stability without sacrificing principles or inadvertently emboldening adversaries.
A truly successful summit, from a national security perspective, would yield measurable, irreversible commitments from Beijing that demonstrably reduce threats to American security and global stability. Without such outcomes, these high-level meetings risk becoming performative events that serve to consolidate Xi’s domestic power while yielding little substantive benefit for the United States. We should expect our diplomats to engage robustly, but also to return with more than just an agreement to talk again.
The hard truth is that America’s security posture must continue to be guided by the reality of China’s military build-up and geopolitical ambitions, irrespective of the cordiality of any particular summit. This means continued investment in our own defense capabilities, strengthening alliances, and robust intelligence gathering. Diplomacy is a tool of statecraft, but it is not a substitute for strategic deterrence. The Pentagon and the intelligence community understand this well; our political leaders must ensure that diplomatic overtures do not blind us to the enduring challenge.