Transcription
As you observe the two days of meetings that we've had this summer, how do you see the US-China relationship having evolved over the last year, from when there was a freeze off over trade to then sort of detente, and now this summit?
Well, first of all, I think it's very important that President Trump went to Beijing. That might seem like an ordinary thing to do, but this is a very difficult, complicated relationship. And there's no substitute for the two leaders working together because Xi Jinping in China makes all the big decisions. They're going to meet again in September, perhaps 2 or 3 times this year. I think that was probably the most important thing that came out of this summit.
It is a little bit surprising that they didn't announce a tariff, a continued tariff, and supply chain truce. In fact, Ambassador Greer indicated that those issues remain to be worked out. I don't expect we'll see a return to the extraordinary trade wars and supply chain wars of 2025. But what? They haven't worked out all the deals there. And again, as your correspondent said, as Emery said, surprising on Nvidia as well. Huawei. Just, um, excuse me. Um, DeepSeek. The Chinese AI firm just announced a new model, and they use Huawei chips. And so I think the Chinese are in a situation where they don't want to rely on American chips. They don't think they're reliable. And that may account for the reason why there is no announcement on Nvidia.
Yeah, absolutely. Can we at least say that we're not fully decoupling now, though, a prospect which would have been welcome maybe a year ago before this truce was signed? I think that's a very important, um, a very important development. Scott Besson, uh, Secretary Besson said ten days ago that the two sides had agreed not to decouple the two. Uh, the big relationship. It was $750 billion in trade, in goods and services as recently as 2024. So it's very important for the American economy, the Chinese economy, I would say the global economy, that these two economies stay integrated the way they have developed organically over the last 40 years. But there's also no question that both sides are de-risking. And that makes sense. It makes sense that the United States should not be allowing the export of sensitive, dual-use technologies into the Chinese economy. That'll just help their companies compete with ours. It'll help. Um, the People's Liberation Army. And so, um, if that's what's going forward, and Ambassador Greer did say that there will be a Board of Trade and a Board of Investment that will work out some of these, um, difficult economic and trade issues, that could possibly also be something positive going forward.
Yeah, we're hearing a lot from the U.S. side. It would be nice to have confirmation from the Chinese side, right? But in your estimation, how long can this trade truce last? And will China make good on its promises to not save all the critical minerals and critical rare earths for itself, and to continue with its double-digit purchase of agricultural products?
Well, that was the big surprise for me from this summit. I had expected that they would at least announce a continuation of the agreement from last November in South Korea, when Presidents Xi and Trump met, that they would have a supply chain truce, that neither country would take off the market. Critical materials such as Chinese rare earths and its tariff truce. Not that tariffs would not, would not be diminished, but that there would be some predictability for the global market. Ambassador Greer, in the interview with Bloomberg, uh, you know, gave the impression that those issues need to be worked out. So let's hope that they, the true king, can succeed there.
Can I ask you about foreign policy? Ambassador Burns, did you feel like China's position on Taiwan was a little more, maybe aggressive or to the front than you would have anticipated? Or was it maybe a tactics and not have to talk about Iran, perhaps?
Well, the Chinese always raised Taiwan. I thought President Xi was particularly shrill, actually, in what he said. You know, what he said was, if the United States crosses China's red lines in Taiwan, there could be a conflict between the United States and China. That statement was meant to intimidate the United States and President Trump. And so what I'm looking for right now is, will the United States go forward with the major arms packages to Taiwan that the administration had set up, but had put aside in anticipation of this meeting? No American president for a half century has allowed the Chinese government in Beijing to decide for us or to influence us over whether we fulfill our legal commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide defense with military technology to Taipei. So I think that's a big question going forward, and I hope very much that the Trump administration will go forward with the arms package to show the government of China that it can't coerce us from doing what's in the American national interest.
Assuming that that's the case and the US president isn't deterred by anything the Chinese premier has said, will that antagonize China, or will China just be expecting that status quo?
Oh, it will certainly antagonize them. But this has been the back and forth we've had really for half a century on Taiwan. Ever since President Nixon's visit back in 1972. And so we don't want to be in a position where suddenly we effectively are blocked from doing what we have to do because of angering the Chinese government. That is part of the reason why this is the most combustible, the most difficult relationship issue. Taiwan.
In this relationship, Ambassador Burns, strategic stability is that our new catchphrase going forward, and is that a positive phrase for you?
It's a new Chinese catchphrase. No question. They unveiled it yesterday and again today. The Chinese like to frame big power relationships with catchy titles. I'd be a little bit, um, wary of this because once you agree in from a Chinese side, in a strategic stability construct between the two countries, and then if we do anything that upsets them, they can accuse us of violating this so-called strategic stability pact. In essence, this is going to remain a very competitive relationship militarily, especially technologically, because we both want to be the first market movers in AI, quantum biotech. And so I think you didn't hear the Trump administration repeat that phrase, which I thought was wise.
Ambassador, as it pertains to Iran. We obviously have Vladimir Putin visiting China in a few days, close relations there between the Premier and Putin. And obviously, Iran continues to simmer. The US would have asked China for maybe not health, but some kind of action in terms of the Strait of Hormuz. How do you see that progressing? Does China weigh in to clear the strait, or to impose some kind of a request on the Iranians?
Well, I thought it was right for President Trump to raise this issue so forthrightly. You know, China ought to be helping the United States and the rest of the world, the Arab world, in getting the strait open with Iran, not as the toll keeper. That's an international waterway. Um, and it was good to hear that the Chinese, the Chinese position, repeated that it wants the strait to be open, that it does not want Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. But these are old Chinese positions that they're not new. And I think the question remains from this particular summit, will China now weigh in and use its influence, which is considerable, with the Iranian government, to push them towards a cease-fire agreement that will include the strait opens and no ship has to pay a toll to get through?
I think it's going to be difficult for the Chinese to do that because they have contrary views here or aims here. On the one hand, they want the strait to open, on the other hand. They don't want to make life easy for the United States. This is a competitive relationship. They don't want to be seen to caving in to the United States, because they do have a strategic relationship with Iran. So what I'm watching for is to what extent is China actually do anything to help here? I hope they will, but I'm a little bit skeptical.
Yeah. And will we know what it is exactly they end up doing in the end anyway? When you watch the pomp and circumstance of the arrival and the ceremony and so on, did it occur to you that perhaps China has cracked President Trump and his personality in some way? Or will President Trump have seen that for, for perhaps what it was, an effort to, you know, curry favor, is some soft diplomacy and so on?
Well, they certainly rolled out the red carpet. But you know, they do that for all visiting leaders, including American leaders in the past, the Chinese have a very finely hued, um, attitude towards protocol. And they're very formal. And you saw that they can produce elaborate ceremonies to welcome foreign guests. I thought it was appropriate, frankly. And, um, when President Xi comes to the United States, I'm sure that President Trump will reciprocate. You know, you need to be polite and you want to honor someone else's culture in going. So I didn't think it was over the top, and I certainly thought it was appropriate to the occasion. These are the two strongest leaders in the world, the two major global economies. And so, um, I think it's important that this channel is open between the two presidents. President Biden had a good, constructive relationship with President Xi, and President Trump does now as well. That's good for the United States, because you've got to be able to work directly with President Xi Jinping and China's top-down system.