The leaders of the United States and China met on the sidelines of the APEC summit in San Francisco to ease the mood in bilateral ties. This encounter echoed a long history of dialogue between the two nations, with Xi Jinping’s past visits to the United States underscoring the long and complex relationship that stretches across generations. The moment carried symbolic weight, signaling a willingness to keep channels open even as disagreements persist.
From the outside, the exchange appeared cordial, with measured, constructive remarks in public and four hours of substantive talks that followed. Yet, even as President Biden praised continued communication, he also reminded observers that he still viewed Xi Jinping as a strong, unwavering leader, and emphasized the importance of ongoing dialogue. The scene suggested a practical, rather than dramatic, recalibration of a fraught partnership.
Observers may read the summit as a crowd-pleasing narrative about two global powers sharing influence and setting new norms for international engagement. In truth, the relationship remains unsettled. China has yet to be seen as a full-fledged peer on the world stage, and the United States has no immediate incentive to surrender its dominant position. The dynamics imply more continuity than upheaval, with strategic competition continuing to shape decisions on both sides.
The tangible outcomes of the talks appear modest. The parties signaled a commitment to resumed negotiations rather than a sweeping bargain. The central question remains: what, exactly, did they agree on?
One notable area discussed was China’s pledge to tighten controls on chemicals used in the production of fentanyl. This synthetic opioid has driven a fatal wave of overdoses in the United States, where prevention and enforcement efforts have struggled to keep pace with the illicit supply chain. Historically, precursor chemicals have flowed from China into Mexico, aiding drug cartels in the manufacture of counterfeit and potent drugs. While some chemicals have legitimate pharmaceutical uses, their role in illicit manufacturing has caused devastating consequences. The leaders’ agreement signals a move toward stronger scrutiny of such substances at the source, aiming to reduce the flow that reaches the United States.
Another topic was the renewal of military-to-military engagement, which had slowed earlier in the year amid broader tensions. The discussions on Taiwan remained cautious, focusing on exchange rather than dramatic shifts. The United States maintains a formal adherence to the One China policy, yet its actions often reflect a preference for preserving the existing status quo.
At the meeting, Xi Jinping conveyed a strategic objective that appears likely to shape future diplomacy: the aspiration for a peaceful path toward eventual reunification should that course become necessary. He urged Washington to reconsider arms sales to Taiwan, signaling Beijing’s readiness to pursue long-term objectives through gradual, non-confrontational means. The assessment is that Beijing is prepared to wait for favorable conditions rather than rush a confrontation, a calculation shaped by the complex, evolving balance of power in the region.
Broader regional issues were not ignored. The talks touched on the Middle East, with Biden seeking Chinese influence to deter further escalation between Iran and its neighbors. The discussion on technology competition underscored persistent frictions around advanced semiconductor industries and the export controls that both sides monitor closely. While there was recognition of these sensitivities, no major concessions materialized, leaving the path forward uncertain.
Regarding Ukraine and China’s stance on Russia, neither side publicly disclosed specifics from the private conversations. If any alignment emerged, it would become clearer only as commitments are implemented over time.
Looking ahead, the summit could yield selective benefits for both nations. American companies operating in China might experience a softening of pressure, potentially easing certain market access hurdles. In parallel, Washington might pause or recalibrate some sanctions on Chinese technology firms while continuing to pursue strategic goals in the tech sector. Yet the overarching climate of competition remains intact, with ongoing debates about the appropriate level of restraint and the pace of collaboration. In military terms, the Pacific region is likely to see continued rivalry, and China’s steadily expanding nuclear arsenal will factor into security calculations on both sides. Beijing shows no immediate willingness to enter a comprehensive arms-control negotiation with the United States without achieving a balanced balance of power, and talks in that arena have yet to begin in earnest.
Mutual stability hinges on normalizing relations with restraint and predictability. Against a backdrop of slowing growth in China and steady, if modest, expansion in the United States, strategic priorities will guide policy choices for both capitals. Even as China targets a 5% growth figure in optimistic projections, current realities point to more modest gains. The United States is expected to post growth around two percent. The gap in economic scale remains substantial, with China facing structural challenges, an aging population, and shifting investment patterns that add friction to a rapid catch-up narrative.
Despite pockets of resilience, China has not yet crafted a civilizational alternative to the Western-led order. Its capacity to project soft power and influence observable beyond trade and debt hinges on deeper cultural resonance and global leadership in ideas and technologies. The country continues to rely heavily on coping with external dynamics while expanding its footprint through lending and development programs. In comparison, American influence through media, education, and global networks remains more deeply embedded.
Ultimately, the path forward for China appears to be one of cautious adaptation rather than bold leadership in shaping a new world order. There is little appetite for dramatic experimentation with a universal model beyond what aligned partners expect. The dialogue with the United States underscores the broader tension between competing visions of global leadership, with each side calculating risks and opportunities over the long haul. The overarching narrative is one of persistent, watchful competition rather than a swift realignment toward a new equilibrium.
These observations reflect a cautious assessment of a complex, evolving relationship. The evolving tone of dialogue and the measured steps taken in San Francisco suggest that both nations prefer steady engagement to abrupt shifts, even as disagreements endure and strategic considerations continue to shape policy on both sides.