Just when it seemed a rare accord had been struck between two global heavyweights at the APEC summit in South Korea, a piercing remark shattered the fragile optimism.
A day after Trump touted a major breakthrough with Beijing on tariffs, soybean deals, and fentanyl control measures, Xi delivered a biting critique in his closing speech, casting doubt on their agreement, as reported by the Daily Mail. This sudden shift from handshake to harsh words leaves many wondering if the partnership was merely a fleeting facade for the summit’s cameras.
While Trump framed the talks as a win for American priorities, Xi’s public address to business leaders offered a starkly opposing view, hinting at Beijing’s reluctance to align with Washington’s economic goals. His calculated remarks suggest that any goodwill from their meeting might have been more performance than genuine intent.
During their bilateral discussion, Xi projected a cooperative tone, stating, “China and the US should be partners and friends,” linking this to historical wisdom and current global needs. Yet, this sentiment faded fast as his later comments revealed a far less amicable stance toward American policies.
In his closing summit speech, Xi cautioned against “protectionism” and “unilateral bullying,” a clear dig at Trump’s trade approach that resonated as a challenge to regional allies. Such language positions China as a free-market defender, countering the U.S. push to distance from Chinese supply chains.
This abrupt pivot from diplomacy to criticism highlights a troubling inconsistency in Xi’s approach, suggesting Beijing prioritizes dominance over true collaboration with the United States. For those banking on stable economic ties, this public jab is a cold reminder that summit smiles often hide deeper rifts.
Brent Sadler, a veteran military diplomat with deep Asia expertise, labeled Xi’s remarks as “catty,” seeing them as nearly a veiled warning to other nations in the region. He interprets this as China reinforcing its influence, urging APEC economies to think twice before backing America’s trade strategies.
Sadler’s take suggests Xi’s words were less about partnership and more about drawing lines in a persistent economic rivalry with the U.S. His analysis paints the summit aftermath as a calculated move by Beijing to maintain regional leverage over fleeting agreements.
For American policymakers, Sadler’s insights signal caution that China’s public tone often strays from private promises. This gap raises doubts on whether deals on tariffs and fentanyl will endure under such evident posturing from Beijing.
Past U.S.-China deals, often celebrated at first, have frequently unraveled soon after, leaving negotiators skeptical of Beijing’s commitment to follow through.
Sadler noted, “Promises from Beijing have often been made, but not followed through on,” tempering hope for the current agreement’s staying power.
Analysts share this wariness, stressing that without strict enforcement, commitments from South Korea risk becoming hollow words. Their doubts underline a broader concern that China’s resolve may weaken when faced with practical implementation demands.
With the next Trump-Xi meeting slated for April, the coming months will test if these talks can grow beyond mere summit rhetoric. Former Biden officials question Beijing’s adherence, especially if Trump shifts policy abruptly via social media like X.
The absence of a formal agreement text fuels further uncertainty, suggesting either side could reinterpret terms if circumstances change.
For U.S. interests, this gap demands constant pressure to ensure China honors its pledges, lest Xi’s critique foreshadow another undone deal.
