OPINION:
Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, at the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and described the exchange as “constructive.” He hinted at a possible meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
China described the exchange as “constructive and pragmatic.”
On May 31, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore: “Any attempt by China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world.” Despite these words of caution, China continued to deploy fighter jets, naval vessels and drones around Taiwan in air-sea joint training exercises meant to intimidate the island nation.
China’s recent actions in the Yellow Sea, including incursions into South Korean territorial waters and airspace, are also concerning. China claims all the South China Sea as its own despite a 2016 ruling by a United Nations tribunal that China’s claims to the South China Sea based on its “nine-dash line” map were not legally valid.
Another considerable concern is that China will use its military to invade or blockade Taiwan by 2027, when China supposedly would have the military might to attempt unification by force. That would be a grave mistake.
The U.S.-China relationship is tense. Some predict an eventual war despite the $582.4 billion in total trade the U.S. did with China in 2024, the $126.9 billion in U.S. foreign direct investment in China in 2023 and the more than 277,000 Chinese students in the U.S. China’s actions in the South China, East China and Yellow Seas and its attempted military intimidation of Taiwan contribute to this tense relationship.
The U.S. was there for China
The U.S. was there for China when Deng Xiaoping reached out to the U.S. in 1979 after normalized relations. China established a strategic relationship with the U.S. that contributed to the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the end of the Cold War in 1991 and joint U.S.-China cooperation on counterterrorism, counter-nuclear proliferation, counternarcotics and joint efforts to stop international organized crime.
In 2000, the 300,000 Chinese students in the U.S. and the significant U.S. investment in China contributed to providing China with Most Favored Nation status, a move that exponentially expanded bilateral trade. The U.S. got China into the World Trade Organization the following year.
Indeed, China’s membership in the WTO favorably affected its economic development; it was a catalyst for its economic growth and modernization.
China can do more to change its tense relationship with the U.S.
Wouldn’t it be nice if Mr. Xi reached out to Mr. Trump and asked to meet to discuss some of the positive things we could be doing together, such as solving food scarcity, pandemics, health care access, nuclear proliferation, narcotics trafficking and international organized crime? The willingness of these two superpowers to work jointly on global problems, like we did in the 1980s and 1990s, would be welcomed by all countries, except for the Russian Federation and Iran.
The recent meeting of Mr. Rubio and Mr. Wang (and hopefully the eventual meeting of Mr. Xi and Mr. Trump) could be the beginning of a relationship that addresses the tension in the bilateral relationship and the common ground that the nations could achieve if we worked together on myriad socioeconomic and geopolitical challenges.
Moving forward on this front would require bold and sustained leadership, reminiscent of that of the 1980s and 1990s.
• The author is a former director of East Asia operations in the CIA, former director of the National Counterproliferation Center and former special envoy for the six-party talks with North Korea. All statements of fact, opinion or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.
