When the red carpets were rolled up in Beijing on Friday, what Donald Trump carried home from his two-day audience with Xi Jinping was less a diplomatic harvest than a bouquet — handsome enough to display, but already cut. The American president pronounced the summit a triumph, toasted “my friend” across the banquet table, and paraded a list of half-formed commercial wins: Boeing aircraft, soybeans, beef, an opening for US capital. By Saturday, Beijing was already deflating the largest of those claims, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi noting only that the working teams were still talking. What was on offer in the Chinese capital was, in the end, not so much an agreement as an atmosphere. That, in itself, is no small thing. With the Strait of Hormuz still half-strangled by the unresolved Iran war the United States set in motion, with energy markets jittery and supply chains brittle, the world’s two most consequential capitals chose pageant over provocation. Both leaders had every reason to want it so. Xi is preparing to seek a fourth term while stewarding an economy on which an estimated 10-20mn Chinese jobs hinge on trade with America. Trump, his attention pulled in too many directions at once, needed Beijing not to add to the disorder. Stability of a kind was duly produced. Whether it is durable — or merely tactical — is the question worth asking. The cameras captured a study in mismatched temperaments. Xi played host as a man who knew his guest’s weaknesses: the Temple of Heaven, the Great Hall of the People, the rose gardens of Zhongnanhai, and, as a parting flourish, a promise to send seeds for the White House lawn. He conceded almost nothing. Trump, for his part, performed his admiration in public — tall, very tall, the most beautiful roses anyone had ever seen — and came away with little beyond the goodwill itself. Susan Shirk, the veteran China hand, observed with diplomatic restraint that the flattery was not working. In truth it was working — for Xi. Beneath all this lies a story of leverage, and how decisively it has shifted since Trump last flew into Beijing in 2017. China has spent the intervening years tightening its grip on the unglamorous machinery of modern power: rare-earth extraction and processing, magnet manufacture, active pharmaceutical ingredients, the workaday plumbing of the green-tech supply chain. When Washington escalated tariffs last year, Beijing answered with export controls on critical minerals, and it was the American side that blinked. That single episode rewired the diplomatic muscle memory of both governments. As one analyst put it bluntly this week, China now handles the United States by deterrence rather than concession, willing and able to meet escalation with escalation of its own. The Beijing summit was the culmination of that shift, not a deviation from it. Nowhere was the new arithmetic more exposed than on Taiwan. Xi opened the talks by warning that any mishandling of the island could plunge the entire relationship into crisis; Trump, by his own admission, made no comment in the room, said nothing publicly until Air Force One had cleared Chinese airspace, and then — astonishingly — recast a $14bn defensive arms package long awaited in Taipei as a “negotiating chip” whose fate “depends on China”. It is difficult to overstate how unsettling that single phrase will read in Taipei, in Tokyo, in Canberra, in Manila. Within hours of leaving Beijing, an American president had publicly converted a commitment to a democratic partner into bargaining material for soybean orders. Whether or not the package is ultimately approved, the signal has been sent, and allies have heard it. So has Beijing. Xi’s other gambit was conceptual, and shrewder than it first appears. By invoking the Thucydides Trap — the warning, drawn from the chronicler of the Peloponnesian War, that a rising power and an established one slide too readily into catastrophe — he draped the meeting in the language of statesmanship while quietly assigning the United States the role of the anxious incumbent. He then proposed a new formulation, “constructive strategic stability”, which Chinese state media duly reported as jointly agreed. The phrase is studied vagueness. It works as a set of guardrails Beijing can later accuse Washington of breaching whenever it suits — rules of a game written on a chalkboard the other side does not own. And yet a case can be made — most thoughtfully by those urging a “cold peace” — that this is precisely the moment for stalemate rather than showdown. Decoupling the world’s two largest economies remains a fantasy. Japan, with 15 years of effort, has only pared its rare-earth dependency on China from above 90% to around 60%. More than a third of American active pharmaceutical ingredients come exclusively from Chinese suppliers. The interdependence is mutual, structural, and impervious to the rhetoric of decoupling. If the Beijing meetings did no more than keep the channels open, slow the deterioration, and give moderates on both sides a little room to breathe, that is not nothing. But it is also not what was advertised. The president went to Beijing speaking of fantastic deals; he came back with promises whose specifics his hosts immediately declined to confirm. He went hoping, by his own account, for Chinese pressure on Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz; he came back with sympathy and no commitment. He went carrying the leverage of America’s chip alliance; he came back having mused aloud that Taiwan had stolen the industry it built. Here, then, is the food for thought. The Beijing summit will be remembered less for what was agreed than for what it revealed: a Chinese leadership confident enough to receive flattery without returning it, and an American presidency increasingly willing to mistake atmosphere for achievement. The roses, one suspects, will bloom. The harder question is whether anything else planted this week will. • The writer is Deputy Managing Editor, Gulf Times.
