By Matt Underwood Trump’s insistence on one-on-one talks with Xi Jinping is creating a major impasse in trade negotiations, effectively halting other diplomatic efforts to resolve the escalating trade war between the US and China. This strategy, seemingly driven by a desire for a highly publicized “win,” is proving counterproductive and deeply problematic.
The core issue lies in the stark contrast between Trump’s approach and the established norms of international diplomacy. High-level negotiations rarely begin with a summit between heads of state. Instead, extensive groundwork is laid through lower-level discussions and intermediary channels, ironing out details and creating a framework for a possible agreement. Trump’s demand for an immediate and highly visible personal meeting short-circuits this essential process.
This approach stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate disregard, of Chinese diplomatic practices. Xi Jinping is highly unlikely to engage in a direct negotiation with Trump given the latter’s unpredictable behavior and history of breaking agreements. The risk of being publicly humiliated or perceived as weak on the international stage is simply too high for Xi, especially given historical sensitivities within China. He would likely prefer to delegate negotiations to lower-ranking officials to manage the risk of a poor outcome and thereby protect China’s image.
Furthermore, Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy and his pattern of breaking agreements severely undermine any trust. The USMCA debacle, where Trump renegotiated a deal he himself had previously championed, serves as a glaring example of his unreliability. This lack of trustworthiness makes it difficult for China (and other nations) to take any agreement reached with him seriously, creating further obstacles to negotiations.
The consequences of Trump’s strategy are far-reaching. The stalemate has allowed the trade war to intensify, harming both US and Chinese economies. The lack of progress in negotiations creates uncertainty and undermines global economic stability. The US, heavily reliant on China as a trading partner, stands to lose significantly more in a protracted trade war than China, especially in the absence of effective domestic manufacturing capabilities for everyday goods.
China, on the other hand, possesses significantly greater economic resilience. Their economy has demonstrated remarkable growth and diversification, including substantial investment in green energy, allowing them to withstand economic pressure more effectively. Their vast international trading relationships also provide a buffer against a potential trade disruption with the US. Xi’s careful approach during this period demonstrates an astute understanding of long-term strategic interests, contrasting sharply with Trump’s impulsive decision-making.
This situation presents a strategic advantage to China. The current strategy appears calculated to exploit the internal weaknesses within the US government, specifically the unpredictability and lack of diplomatic skill exhibited by its leadership. The resulting uncertainty and economic strain within the US could potentially weaken its global standing and influence.
The demand for a one-on-one meeting appears less about genuine negotiation and more about a personal need for validation and a display of strength for domestic consumption. It’s a tactic designed for optics, not substance. This approach, coupled with Trump’s erratic behavior and disregard for established diplomatic protocols, severely undermines his credibility and effectiveness in international relations.
Ultimately, Trump’s refusal to engage in the typical diplomatic process is a high-stakes gamble. It plays into China’s hands, potentially delaying or even preventing a resolution to the trade war while simultaneously damaging the US’s international reputation and economic interests. This unilateral and unpredictable approach highlights a deeper problem: the limitations of leadership driven by personal ego and an absence of genuine diplomatic expertise. The resulting uncertainty and stalled negotiations underscore a critical failure of US foreign policy.