What a Win Looks Like for President Trump at Xi Summit | China in Focus

Welcome to China in Focus, I'm Tiffany Meyer, our top story. With the big summit just hours away, what's changed since President Trump last set foot in China nearly a decade ago? A lot of the headlines right now going into the summit are painting China very strong and the U.S. on the back foot. Is that true? I don't think that's the case. The world is watching as President Trump becomes the first president since himself to set foot in China since 2017. At stake, Taiwan, business and human rights. What cards does each side have to play and what's the goal of this summit? Joining us now to unpack all of this are two excellent guests, retired Brigadier General David Stilwell, former Assistant Secretary of State and former U.S. Defense Attaché in Beijing, and retired Marine Colonel Grant Newsham. He's the author of When China Attacks and a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. David Stilwell, Grant Newsham, thank you both so much for joining us. Great to have you both back on the show. Huge focus, of course, on this Trump-Xi summit. President Trump will be the first U.S. president to visit Beijing since himself back in 2017. Now, first big picture, Grant, starting with you, what do you think this trip hopes to achieve? What are the goals here? Well, I think it's really just hoping to maintain a sort of status quo, sort of a cold war that's going on between the Americans and the Chinese. I think neither side has a huge advantage over the other, and I don't expect either side to make many concessions. I don't think there's any huge changes or accomplishments, achievements that will come out of this. And David, big picture, what are the goals of this trip? I think they've already been accomplished, actually, by turning down the initial dates with what the Chinese would always do with a bu fang bian. It's not convenient at this time. It's the perfect negotiating strategy to say, you're not that important. We have bigger fish to fry. And that's how you put the PRC on its back foot. Had we walked into it on schedule with other major things going on, that would have told the Chinese side everything. So simply delaying from March to May, I think, had the desired effect. And Grant, speaking of that delay, it did come because of the ongoing conflict in Iran. Now, because that is unresolved, how do you see that playing into this trip? Does that give the president more or less leverage? Well, it works both ways. President Trump, for example, could come in and directly ask Xi Jinping, well, are you giving the Iranians targeting data from your satellites? Are you giving them anti-ship missiles, the missile fuel for ballistic missiles? Are you helping them? And if Xi Jinping says no, well, we'll know they're lying. And it makes it uncomfortable for him. At the same time, the Chinese look at it, and they've been trying to do two things at once. One is they like to see the Americans bogged down in Iraq, or at least not ending it quickly, because they know it causes President Trump a lot of political problems domestically. They know he's got an election coming up. So they're glad to see him, but they're feeling a bit of heat. But at the same time, the Chinese do get a huge amount of oil from the Persian Gulf. And as long as the Straits of Hormuz are closed, that causes them some problems, even though they claim that it's no big deal at all. And David, speaking of the Iranian oil, there's a lot of focus on shadow fleets or ways that Iran and China are still getting around that. There's other reports about Iran using a rail inside China, basically a railroad to get whatever it needs out as well. And a big focus on the teapot refineries inside China. Now, if President Trump were to ask China to put pressure on Iran or stop what it's doing to fund Iran, what would China ask for in return? I can't imagine what they want. They won't do anything against their interests. They'll say whatever they have to say, but they will continue doing what they do. And I think that the president is probably the best suited to actually getting something in return. But all these things, like Secretary Pompeo said back in 2021, distrust and verify. It doesn't matter what we agree to. If they don't follow through, as they say with Hong Kong, it's just scraps of paper and they'll walk away from it. So I'd be very careful about putting any stock in any agreements. And it's definitely going to be you first, my friend. China, you act and we'll act if you act accordingly. On shadow fleets, if you recall, when North Korea was violating UN Security Council resolutions on ship-to-ship transfers, they were doing it inside Chinese waters. A lot of the headlines right now going into the summit are painting China very strong and the U.S. on the back foot. Is that true? I don't think that's the case. China has always been a place where the expression fake it till you make it applies. This is still a country that has at least 600 million people living on $5 a day or less. It depends on the overseas for a lot of its energy, a lot of its food as well. It has a currency that's not convertible, which means nobody much wants it. And it's had its main proxies in the Western Hemisphere, Venezuela, and soon to be Cuba, really get hammered pretty hard by the Americans. And China couldn't do anything about it. Iran, the same thing is happening. China's been supporting Iran for 40 years in all sorts of ways. And the Americans come in and the Israelis, and there's nothing China can do about it when their best friend, when China's best friend in the region gets hit very hard. So they've suffered both a reputational harm, a lot of reputational harm, but also they now face the prospects of having to pay for their oil. And they do import a lot of it in real money. They're getting it either for free or just heavily discounted and even being able to pay in Chinese currency. Well, that's over. So they've got a lot of problems of their own. The Chinese economy is not in great shape. Foreign direct investment from overseas has dried up. They've got an unemployment problem that they will not tell what it really is, but it's a lot bigger than the admitted rates. So they've got some problems as well. And the Americans have, as we know, they've gotten control over so much of the world's energy, either direct or implicit. And they've also, the Chinese have made enemies of the Gulf nations as well by supporting Iran that is attacking the Saudis, UAE, Kuwait. So the Chinese have not the best hand to play. It's not a bad hand because of their rare earth dominance, the pharmaceutical dominance that they have over us. But at the same time, they've got some real problems. And Mr. Trump has a much better hand to play than he had a few months ago. I want to dig into that, David, because it does seem that rare earth is less of a card, if you will, on the table this time around. In terms of leverage, China is mostly an export-driven economy and it has been struggling. It's also been increasing a bunch of domestic laws. When far-reaching, it would like to enforce those beyond its own borders. That is scaring a lot in the business community. But when it comes to that relationship, we're seeing a lot of big business leaders part of this delegation. And it does look like in the past, a lot of the issues we have now started with this type of engagement, where it was a lot of goodwill, a lot of business went in, and then policy started changing to be more almost pro-CCP. How does the engagement aspect fit in here? Is it good or bad in most cases, looking back at history? I did an event at the East-West Center a few years ago, right after I got out of government, called the Folly of Engagement, from firsthand experience of lots and lots of talks in the Obama administration resulting in nothing. And the fact that the Trump administration, especially after 2019, realized that they're getting nothing for all this talks and engagement. And if you remember, from 19 to 21, there was almost none, partly because of COVID. But most of it was intentional, again, to let the PRC know that if we're not going to get anything for the talks, then what's the point? Let's go talk with our friends and allies and those who can do something. I mean, look at what Japan is doing. Look at what the Philippines and others, even Vietnam, are doing. Our greatest asset is the fact that we have others in the region and globally who support free and open trade and all the rest of things. In terms of leverage, President Trump has said he will raise human rights in terms of the case of Jimmy Lai, also Pastor Jing and a few others. How big of a deal is that? Because looking back at engagement, the elite capture, if you will, it seems most presidents have shied away from the issue of human rights since the Tiananmen Square massacre. By and large, we have. And it's puzzling because we do hold ourselves up as the world's biggest defenders of human freedom. It's a card to be played, and the Chinese communists hate it whenever it's raised, particularly when it's raised repeatedly. If you just mention it and then say, well, let's move on to the next thing, it doesn't have so much effect. But you have to raise it all the time, the idea that they are uncivilized, something that really does bother them. But also morally, this is something really the United States should be mentioning all over the place. And it does have an effect. And they may say, well, we'll just ignore it. Or maybe that's just words. Well, to go along with it, delist all of the Chinese companies on U.S. exchanges. But what we do need is a systematic political warfare campaign really to present the truth about the Chinese Communist Party, where it needs to be presented, and that would be effective. We don't have a systematic approach to that. We should be pointing out all the time that nobody in China has ever voted for anything. And thus, how could it be a legitimate regime? To say these are some of the things, the tools that you use in what is called political warfare. Coming up, Taiwan, artificial intelligence and the price of engagement. What I'm watching for is it's really out of sheer curiosity to see how really dumb, very well-educated people can be to keep going into the China market. What does it take in terms of empirical evidence to tell you that this is a rigged casino and you will always lose? It's the Chinese Communist Party's avowed objective is to put foreign companies out of business, replace them with Chinese companies. Welcome back to China In Focus. I'm Tiffany Meyer. Taiwan, the AI race and the price of engagement. We welcome back retired Brigadier General David Stilwell and retired Marine Colonel Grant Newsham to delve into the big geopolitical issues shaping the world and what a win would look like for President Trump out of his China visit. And a big topic that is expected to come up is Taiwan. Some headlines are fearing that perhaps if the U.S. side asks for help with Iran, that could lessen if you want support for Taiwan. Now, U.S. officials have said that nothing has changed when it comes to Taiwan. David, what are you watching out for on that front when it comes to Taiwan and if anything changes? To piggyback on Grant's point about political warfare, we're both former military. The first thing that comes to mind on Taiwan is an outright kinetic attack and all that stuff. And I tell people I wouldn't waste a bit of time on that. When you've got the KMT chief, Cheng Liyun, going to Beijing, talking about the 92 consensus, and then the KMT decrementing the defense budget by, what, $15 billion? What message do the Americans take from that? Legitimately, it's like Europe. If you're not willing to pony up resources for your own defense, why in the world do you expect us to care more about your defense than us? Why should Germany expect us to ride to the rescue to keep them from having to learn Russian? I've never understood why we coddle NATO the way we do. I think the president's going to make the same probably short-term calculation on Taiwan. If they are going to continue through the KMT's control of the legislative end to reduce their funding for their own defense, it's going to be a hard sell to the American people to ride to their rescue when they don't care. So whatever President Lai has to do, whatever the Taiwan voters have to do to ensure that they demonstrate that their own interest in their own defense matters greatly, and then look at what Prime Minister Takeuchi in Japan has been doing. I can't say enough about what Japan has done to ride this ship, but if they can put any pressure on Taiwan to convince all of us that they're going to fight for their own freedoms instead of waiting for us to do it, that's going to be hugely important. Grant, when it comes to the Trump administration's track record here, Alex Gray, who's the chief of staff of the National Security Council under the first Trump administration, pointed out that this administration has been very strong on Taiwan for too many years, or too many people in Washington were always kind of saying, Taiwan isn't our issue, we should essentially let it fold. But he was highlighting how Taiwan is a key American interest. Why is Taiwan such a key American interest? Well, if Taiwan comes under Chinese control, there's a few things that happen. One is that the so-called first island chain, this chain of islands from Japan down to Taiwan through the Philippines down to Malaysia, you've broken the middle of it. China has then got free access to the Pacific. Swing up to the north, you isolate Japan. Swing to the south, you isolate Australia. And that's operational. But there's a political psychological aspect to this as well. If Taiwan, 23 million free people are enslaved by the Chinese, well, it shows that the U.S. military couldn't prevent it, shows U.S. economic and financial power couldn't do it, and U.S. nuclear weapons couldn't do it. And you have that happen, and you're going to find that every country in Asia is going to have some real doubts about the United States and try to cut the best deal that they can with the PRC. So Asia would turn at least dark pink overnight. And every country anywhere that thinks it has an agreement, sort of explicit or implicit, with the United States that America will keep them free, well, they're going to have their doubts about it as well. So America would probably be finished as an Asian power, and it would also put in doubt our actual global predominance if this were to happen. So it is unusual that a small island of 23 million people has this kind of an outsized effect. But as I know, there is a psychological, political aspect to Taiwan that tends to get overlooked. But as General Stilwell said, the Taiwanese have to do their part as well. And Chinese political warfare and subversion over the decades has been very effective against Taiwan, and we're seeing that on display now. Most Taiwanese do not want to be part of China. But as I said, the Taiwanese have to do their part as well. And if they expect Americans, particularly in flyover country, the Youngstown, Ohio, the Wichita, Kansas, you expect them to support sending their children off to defend Taiwan. And the same thing applies to the Europeans as well. So that's the reason why Taiwan matters. People like me who live and breathe it tend to understand this. But the average person, this is not part of their daily life, and it needs to be clearly articulated by U.S. administrations. Right now, on top of that, the headlines mostly are noting the economic aspect with high-end chips. TSMC especially is in the headlines a lot. David, when it comes to the other topics that could be covered in the summit, some headlines are suggesting AI is a big one. China is really trying to ramp up their own self-reliance, is what they're calling it. So they're not reliant on, for instance, the United States letting them get those high-end chips. Perhaps deals in terms of the farmland, soybeans, corn on the U.S. side is another aspect that's come up in some headlines. What are you watching out for, though, in terms of what could come out of these talks? On the business side, I guess I'm very depressed with language that says if we don't give them our best, highest-end tech, AI chips, whatever, that that will force them to develop them on their own. That is ignorant. They're doing everything they can to develop their own. And if you listen to Xi Jinping, he talks about being a world-leading ELIO country in all aspects, in virology, which is what got us the pandemic, by the way, and then in tech. So to argue that if we don't give them our best stuff through NVIDIA, who wants to make a profit? I get it. That it'll incentivize them to put effort into that. I think that's pretty ignorant. They're doing it anyway. Grant, your thoughts on the economic side specifically? Because a lot of headlines are highlighting that Boeing CEO is there. There could maybe be a deal with Boeing. Apple's Tim Cook is there. Of course, Tesla's Elon Musk as well. He has a huge Gigafactory in China as well. What are you watching for on that business side? What I'm watching for is really out of sheer curiosity to see how really dumb, very well-educated people can be to keep going into the China market. What does it take in terms of empirical evidence to tell you that this is a rigged casino and you will always lose? It's the Chinese Communist Party's avowed objective is to put foreign companies out of business, replace them with Chinese companies. This is a market where a contract cannot be reliably enforced. There's no property rights. It's irresponsible to go into that market, particularly if you're a publicly traded company and responsible for somebody else's money. You will find that some of the financial people who are on the list, they make money no matter what. They take other people's money invested in China. They get a cut of the action going into China and coming out of China. Many of these are people who have done their very best to build up the Chinese state, the Chinese economy, the Chinese military that is a threat to us now and potentially and probably will kill Americans at some point. Definitely a lot at stake here and a lot of geopolitical implications too in terms of this summit. Grant, what would a win look like for President Trump coming out of the summit? The win would be Xi Jinping actually doing something about the fentanyl that he's pumped into America that's killed 800,000 plus Americans, getting them to live up to the promises they made when they joined the World Trade Organization, going easy on Taiwan, stop the breathing threatenings and slaughters against them, showing some respect for human rights and telling the Iranians to knock it off. Are any of those likely to happen? I doubt it. So I don't know that there is actually a deal to be cut with the Chinese. I think the trade arguments are just that, trade arguments, but they take place in the context really of a civilizational struggle between two systems and that's how the Chinese would see it. Maybe this will buy us some time and if we get serious and act like adults and break this dependency on the China market, on the supplies of precursors and manufactured goods that come from China, then if we can get some breathing space, that would be something, but I don't expect we're going to get any huge results from this. A lot at stake for sure. David Stilwell, Grant Newsham, thank you both so much for your time. Thanks for having me. That's all for today's China In Focus. Tiffany Meyer, if you have any feedback on the show or have something you'd like to see us cover, send us an email at ChinaInFocus at NTD.com. We'd love to hear from you. For on the clock original news coverage, visit us at NTD.com or download our NTD app. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.