Follow us on social

Jake Sullivan Wang Yi

Managing low expectations: Jake Sullivan's big trip to China

Don't expect a lot of tangible outcomes from the national security advisor's first official visit to Beijing

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Jake Sullivan is in China on his first official visit since his appointment as national security adviser and is expected to meet with Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, to help clarify “misperceptions” and avoid “competition” from “veering into conflict,” according to the administration.

Within this framework, the Sullivan-Wang meeting is expected to cover a range of issues, from thorny areas of difference, such as Taiwan and trade, to bilateral cooperation initiatives building upon agreements made at last November’s Biden-Xi San Francisco summit, according to a State Department briefing on Friday.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in its own briefing that Beijing will lay out “serious demands on issues related to the Taiwan question, the right to development, and China's strategic security” during the meeting, which is expected to take place through Thursday.

Beijing’s stress on the Taiwan issue does not come as a surprise, given its strong reactions to Taiwan’s newly elected president Lai Ching-te’s controversial inauguration speech, as well as Washington’s $8 billion military aid package to Taiwan.

Following Lai’s election, the Chinese government threatened to seek the death penalty for “diehard” Taiwan independence “separatists” in China. Whether that threat actually materializes remains far from clear, but it certainly reflects heightened concerns about the issue in the Chinese government.

While Taiwan is expected to be discussed at the summit, the conversations likely won’t go beyond reaffirming existing positions on the matter.

Michael Swaine, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute, observes that the likeliness of these dialogues leading to substantive change is often hindered by both sides’ inability to be forthcoming on their motivations or goals for future cooperation, especially on sensitive security issues.

For example, “the issue of Taiwan and the continued lack of sufficient clarity on the intentions of both the U.S. and China clearly demonstrate a large risk that has yet to be managed by either side effectively to avoid future conflict,” says Swaine.

According to Swaine, “both sides are still heavily investing in military capabilities to presumably deter the other, without providing durable and credible assurances of each side’s continued fealty to the original understanding that provided peace across the Taiwan Strait for decades: for Beijing, peaceful unification as a first priority, and for Washington, the One China policy.”

Swaine added: "Without meaningful progress in reinforcing such mutual reassurances, the two sides will likely continue to struggle to conduct a truly strategic dialogue for defining what a stable, constructive pattern of peaceful coexistence, competition, and cooperation should look like over the long term."

Friday’s background press briefing hinted that rather than aiming for narrowing differences on big issues such as Taiwan, Washington might intend to focus on more specific, smaller-scale subjects covered at the Biden-Xi San Francisco summit — e.g., improved risk management and safety for artificial intelligence, improving military-to-military communications, and counternarcotics cooperation.

While strengthening communications appears to be part of the agenda, there is no indication that it will produce any progress towards institutionalized, persistent bilateral strategic dialogues, nor is it apparent that doing so would be the goal of the meeting for either side. Both sides have expressed a desire for improved communications, and this meeting is a further manifestation of those intentions.

Nonetheless, the timing of the meeting just before the election is worth noting. The Biden administration is essentially looking at one of its few remaining opportunities to solidify its self-proclaimed policy successes in East Asia — at the center of which is an “intense yet managed” competition with China.

In doing so, the Biden administration might be seeking to both protect the Democratic Party’s electoral position, and set a basis for a China policy which the next administration, whether under Harris or Trump, can build on.

“The Biden administration inherited a set of antagonistic but poorly systematized policies on China from the Trump administration,” says Quincy Institute acting East Asia director Jake Werner. “It kept almost all of those in place and made them stronger. But administration officials want to restrict China without starting a war, so they also restarted talks. One goal here is to guard against a new spiral toward conflict should Trump return to the presidency.”

Both Washington and Beijing have an incentive to seek closer communications during the upcoming U.S. election to reduce the fallout and misperceptions from heightened anti-China rhetoric aimed at the U.S. domestic audience. Such misperceptions in 2020 led to Chinese concerns that the U.S. was preparing to attack China during the 2020 election, which obviously didn’t happen.

Meetings like this one can be valuable for gaining clarity on policy and reasserting the desire of both sides not to provoke conflict. However, there is a risk of complacency if talks continue to avoid the underlying drivers of tension. “The pressures are building up,” Werner says. “The U.S. and China should be discussing the zero-sum forces pushing them toward conflict now. Because when a crisis comes, it will be too late.”

Consistent high-level meetings like these need to create more opportunities to confront the issues dragging the two nations toward conflict. Time is running out before the end of the Biden administration, however, leading experts to think that the chances for moving any of these dialogues forward in any meaningful way are fairly low.

.


Wang Yi, the director of the Communist Party's Central Foreign Affairs Commission Office gestures near White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan before talks at Yanqi Lake in Beijing, China, August 27, 2024. Ng Han Guan/Pool via REUTERS

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.