Trump Goes to Beijing: Not the plot of a New Comedy Movie, Experts Say

BEIJING — President Donald Trump concluded a two-day summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping on May 15 after discussing the Iran war, Taiwan, trade, agriculture, aircraft, artificial intelligence and the economic relationship between the world’s two largest powers, ultimately achieving the treasured diplomatic outcome known as everybody agreeing to continue discussing it.

Trump’s first presidential trip to China since 2017 arrived at a particularly awkward moment. His administration was struggling with inflation and higher energy prices connected to the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, while Washington’s tariff fight with Beijing had exposed American dependence on Chinese rare-earth supplies critical to automobiles, aerospace equipment and weapons manufacturing. Trump entered Beijing seeking economic victories and possible Chinese assistance ending the Iran conflict. citeturn356703search17turn356703search18

Nothing says economic independence from China quite like discovering China controls materials your independent economy needs.

Xi gave Trump the complete state-visit treatment: ceremonial welcomes, honor guards, formal dinners and highly choreographed appearances designed to demonstrate that two extraordinarily powerful men were getting along extremely well while their governments disagreed about nearly everything important.

Reuters characterized the trip afterward as “pageantry over policy.” Trump announced prospective Chinese purchases involving American agricultural products, beef and Boeing aircraft, but Beijing offered few corresponding specifics. The presidents did not extend a trade truce scheduled to expire later in the year, issue a joint statement or publish a mutually agreed fact sheet describing concrete summit outcomes. citeturn295666view1

Diplomacy had successfully advanced to the brochure stage.

The agricultural negotiations had considerable stakes for American farmers.

China was once the largest foreign customer for several important U.S. agricultural sectors, but the renewed trade war severely disrupted that relationship. Ahead of the summit, Washington sought increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and other farm products, while American beef producers hoped Beijing would restore export registrations that had expired for hundreds of U.S. processing facilities. citeturn356703search4turn356703search24

Trump subsequently promoted an agreement for China to purchase American farm products.

Markets responded with a professional version of “Okay, how much?”

Soybean futures fell to their lowest point in more than two weeks after the summit failed to produce detailed commitments, while a reported plan for China to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft similarly left investors wanting specifics. citeturn295666view1

There is an old rule in business:

If somebody tells you they have secured a gigantic deal but cannot explain the terms, everybody should remain extremely impressed until the paperwork arrives.

Iran produced even less.

Trump’s aides had hoped Xi might use China’s substantial economic relationship with Tehran—particularly Beijing’s purchases of Iranian oil—to encourage a settlement of the war. The conflict had become what Reuters called the biggest crisis of Trump’s presidency, driving energy costs upward and complicating Republican politics ahead of the November midterms. citeturn295666view1

Trump left Beijing without any obvious commitment from Xi to force Tehran toward an agreement.

At one meeting, Trump said the two governments felt similarly about wanting the war ended and Iran prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Xi responded by saying nothing publicly.

Around the same time, China’s Foreign Ministry issued the considerably less flattering assessment that the conflict “should never have happened” and had no reason to continue. citeturn295666view1

International diplomacy rarely produces a cleaner straight-man routine.

Washington:

“We agree!”

Beijing:

silence

Foreign Ministry:

“This entire thing was a fucking mistake.”

Then there was Taiwan.

Before the summit, Xi had made clear that the democratically governed island—which Beijing claims as Chinese territory—would occupy a central place in discussions. During the meetings, Xi warned Trump that mishandling Taiwan could push U.S.-Chinese relations into a “dangerous place.” citeturn356703search6turn295666view1

Afterward, reporters naturally asked Trump what had been discussed.

Trump, a man historically capable of producing several paragraphs in response to a question about almost anything, initially said nothing.

Later aboard Air Force One, Trump said Xi had asked whether the United States would defend Taiwan in a conflict.

Trump said he told him:

“I don’t talk about that.” citeturn295666view1

And, remarkably, that may have been one of the more strategically disciplined answers of his presidency.

The United States has traditionally maintained strategic ambiguity over precisely that question, seeking simultaneously to discourage Beijing from attacking Taiwan and discourage Taipei from assuming unconditional American military intervention.

For once, Trump encountered ambiguity and did not immediately attempt to sell it a condominium.

That restraint extended through much of the visit.

Reuters reported that Trump remained unusually close to prepared remarks, delivering a scripted toast at the state dinner and avoiding the improvisational insults, anecdotes and tangents that frequently accompany his public appearances. A White House official said Trump wanted the summit to improve relations, while Chinese officials supplied corresponding gestures of friendship alongside Xi’s warnings. citeturn295666view1

In purely diplomatic terms, this matters.

The United States and China possess nuclear weapons, enormous militaries, intertwined economies and competing strategic interests. A meeting in which neither side creates a new crisis is not meaningless simply because it produces few dramatic agreements.

Stability itself has value when the two people stabilizing things can destroy civilization.

Investors appeared to understand that distinction. Reuters reported after the summit that markets largely treated the continuation of relative U.S.-Chinese stability as positive even while concerns remained about the Iran war, trade and slowing Chinese growth. citeturn356703search10

But the summit also exposed the distance between Trump’s political mythology and the more irritating mechanics of governing.

The dealmaker went to Beijing needing a deal.

The strongman encountered another strongman.

The tariff warrior encountered the country holding the rare earths.

The president who promised to end wars asked an authoritarian government for possible assistance unwinding the one his administration had helped start.

And after all the gold trim, soldiers, handshakes and Beijing beef, both governments mostly agreed that their relationship should continue functioning.

That is probably good.

It is also much less cinematic than admitting that diplomacy usually consists of people one dislikes sitting around a table making imperfect compromises because the alternative is eventually missiles.

Xi himself summarized the relationship by saying in his best Trump impression, even doing the thing where he talks with his hands:

“We must make it work and never mess it up.”

Not a bad doctrine between nuclear powers.

America might even consider trying it with some of the other countries.

UPDATE

We haven’t.