Follow us on social

Signal-2022-10-12-160321_001

Surprise high level talks could calm US-China tensions over Taiwan

But experts say Washington and Beijing still need to make concrete steps to improve bilateral ties.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific

Following a tense few months of superpower shadowboxing, a flurry of talks have broken out between the United States and China. 

On Monday, U.S. Ambassador to Beijing Nicholas Burns met with Foreign Minister Qin Gang for the first time since an apparent Chinese spy balloon knocked U.S.-China ties off course earlier this year.

But the main attraction came on Wednesday and Thursday, when National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan sat down with Wang Yi — China’s top diplomat — for over eight hours of talks that the White House described as “candid, substantive, and constructive.” 

The pair discussed a series of thorny issues, including bilateral ties, the war in Ukraine, and rising tensions over Taiwan. In readouts from the talks, each side emphasized the importance of keeping open channels of communication and the need to stabilize relations between the two great powers.

Experts say the meetings are a welcome step, but concrete steps are still needed to reassure observers that ties are improving. “What is needed on both sides is a recognition of the fact that they both contribute to the downward slide in relations and thus both need to be willing to take actions to arrest that slide,” said Michael Swaine of the Quincy Institute.

“Countries around the world, including close U.S. allies, are looking for meaningful progress toward stabilizing the relationship and averting a crisis or worse over Taiwan,” Swaine added. “So has this meeting begun a process toward that end? And if so, when will we see tangible signs of such progress?”

Following the balloon incident, Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled a major planned visit to China that has yet to be rescheduled. Tensions rose in the ensuing months, with each side trading barbs over Taiwan.

Beijing was particularly incensed at Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s high-profile meeting with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, in addition to a spate of recent U.S. arms sales to Taiwan that China viewed as a sign that President Joe Biden was not truly committed to deescalation.

As ties continued to worsen, a top Pentagon official said late last month that China was no longer “picking up the phone when we’re calling them.”

“From Beijing’s perspective, Biden is gaslighting [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping], and a resumption of high-level talks would only serve to further encourage and legitimize this behavior,” reporter Ethan Paul argued in RS last week.

It’s unclear what led Beijing to change course so quickly. One possible explanation came yesterday, when Reuters revealed that, after the balloon incident, the U.S. decided to delay a number of “planned actions against China” in order to separate the flare in tensions from other aspects of the bilateral relationship. 

Regardless of why it’s happening now, reengagement could create significant upside for both parties, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine, according to Anatol Lieven and Jake Werner of the Quincy Institute.

The Biden administration “can build on this meager but noteworthy shift in tone, recognizing that U.S. and Chinese interests are more often aligned than opposed, and explore what might be accomplished when the two most powerful countries in the world step away from confrontation,” Lieven and Werner wrote in RS today.

Hidden in the spate of recent talks was a meeting between Ambassador Burns and Beijing’s commerce minister, Wang Wentao. Burns described the conversation as an “open and detailed discussion on the bilateral trade relationship,” which has faced significant pressure as many in Washington push for a “decoupling” of the U.S. and Chinese economies.

As economist Adam Tooze recently noted, a less capricious approach to bilateral trade would go a long way toward calming relations between the two powers and avoiding a new cold war. 

“[I]t is hard to see how [Washington’s current approach], in which the United States arrogates to itself the right to define which trajectory of Chinese economic growth is and is not acceptable, can possibly be a basis for peace,” Tooze argued. “If the United States is still interested in global economic and political order, and it surely should be, it must be open to negotiate peaceful change. Otherwise, it is simply asking for a fight.”


National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan (via Reuters)
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

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.