Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1890525037

The Biden-Xi phone call was a missed opportunity

The leaders spent a lot more time on pointing fingers than discussing substantive issues like Taiwan and climate change.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

We have now seen five meetings between Xi Jinping and Joe Biden, this latest supposedly being the prelude to an actual face-to-face meeting between the two leaders on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in November. Although it is certainly important for the two leaders to communicate frequently, from at least a public vantage point, their past talks have done little to ameliorate (much less resolve) the fundamental problems in the relationship, from Taiwan to trade, climate change, cyber espionage, and global norms. And it seems that this most recent meeting was no exception. 

Beneath the smiles and reassuring gestures that tend to occur during these presidential meetings, the two governments continue to flail away at one another, while occasionally expressing a desire to cooperate and coexist peacefully. In this dialogue of the deaf, each side points the finger at the other in explaining the ongoing impasse in the relationship, with the U.S. claiming that Beijing will not talk substance until Washington meets certain unacceptable demands, and Beijing complaining that the U.S. won’t stop smearing, attacking, and undermining China on virtually every issue. Both sides refuse to acknowledge the back-and-forth nature of their deepening rivalry and hence their shared blame in producing the resulting, increasingly dangerous situation in which each assumes that only aggressive, zero-sum diplomacy and military deterrence will preserve their interests. Restraint and mutual accommodation are nowhere to be seen. And, of course, neither side recognizes the high degree to which domestic politics influences their ability to engage meaningfully, with the upcoming Chinese Communist Party Congress and the U.S. midterm elections placing a premium on each side not showing weakness or flexibility.  

The intense dangers of this environment can be seen most clearly at present in the worsening imbroglio over Taiwan, intensified by the possibility of an upcoming trip to the island by Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is not just any congressperson. As third in line for the presidency and a long-term, aggressive supporter of Taiwan against China, her visit would constitute a unique provocation and an indication of the further erosion of the U.S. One China policy, which prohibits senior US leaders from visiting Taiwan. The Chinese government has now on several occasions employed an especially ominous warning against the Pelosi visit, stating that if it were to occur, the “PLA (i.e., Chinese military) will not sit idly by.” Beijing has only uttered this phrase once before, over twenty years ago, in a previous crisis over Taiwan that risked conflict. In his meeting with Biden today, Xi Jinping apparently did not repeat this phrase.  But he did assert that “those who play with fire will only get burnt.” Both remarks suggest that any Chinese reaction to the visit will not be limited to diplomatic protests or economic pressure.

Those who ignore such warnings or assert that Pelosi must go forward with the trip in order to show that Washington cannot be intimidated by Beijing overlook the obvious point that Biden’s failure to avert such a standoff by strongly opposing Pelosi’s trip in the first place has produced this all-too-predictable Chinese response.  Although Biden does not have the power to order Pelosi not to visit Taiwan, he could have done much more than simply remark in an off-handed way that the U.S. military thinks “it’s not a good idea right now…” It is unclear what Biden said in response to Xi’s remark regarding Taiwan in this morning’s meeting between the two leaders.   But hopefully he recognized the clear implications of Beijing’s messaging and will act more forthrightly to oppose Pelosi’s trip and avert the impending crisis.

More broadly, at some point (perhaps as a result of the chastening effects of a Taiwan crisis), the two leaders will move to end the mutual blame game in which the two governments are engaged and recognize that reaching meaningful understandings on volatile issues and common threats such as Taiwan and climate change supersedes any effort to “win” a poorly defined and largely unwinnable competition between them. Such a much-needed shift in perspective could make future Xi-Biden meetings into truly meaningful events.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

(Shutterstock/ charnsitr
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.