• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Paul Haenle",
    "Xue Gong",
    "Ngeow Chow Bing",
    "Tong Zhao"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Carnegie China Commentaries"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": []
}
Commentary
Carnegie China

Carnegie China Scholars on the Biden-Xi Meeting

Carnegie China scholars share their assessment of the Biden-Xi meeting and its implications for U.S.-China relations going forward.

Link Copied
By Paul Haenle, Xue Gong, Ngeow Chow Bing, Tong Zhao
Published on Nov 21, 2023

This publication is a product of Carnegie China. For more work by Carnegie China, click here.

On November 15th, U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met outside San Francisco at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation event. In this quick take, Carnegie China scholars share their assessment of the meeting and its implications for U.S.-China relations going forward.

Paul Haenle, director, Carnegie China

While the Biden-Xi meeting resulted in several important agreements, the structural dynamics of intensifying competition and rivalry are expected to persist. Among the agreements reached between the two leaders, the most significant were the commitment to stem the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals from China; to reopen military-to-military dialogues; to establish a dialogue on AI risk and safety; and to increase direct flights and strengthen people-to-people exchanges. The two leaders also exchanged reassurances on Taiwan and committed to maintain further communication at the working-group and executive level. In the coming weeks and months, it will be important to watch the follow through to determine how lasting the post-APEC momentum will be. As Biden said during the post-meeting press conference, his approach to China is one of “trust, but verify.” Although Xi made a number of welcome goodwill gestures, the Biden administration will be playing close attention to see whether Beijing follows through on the commitments it has made. Going forward, several risks, including the uptick in unsafe encounters in the Western Pacific as well as the upcoming presidential elections in Taiwan and the U.S., could derail the fragile stabilization in bilateral relations. 

Xue Gong, nonresident scholar, Carnegie China

There were no major deliverables except to keep communication channels open to avoid miscalculations and prevent conflict. Some progress was made in terms of reestablishing channels for potential cooperation on issues like climate change, fentanyl and military communication. But the Biden-Xi meeting will not change the direction of U.S.-China relations away from strategic competition. Sensitive flashpoints still exist between Beijing and Washington such as U.S. support for the government in Taiwan and its advanced technology export controls against China. 

Ngeow Chow Bing, nonresident scholar, Carnegie China

The Xi-Biden summit follows a series of high-level contacts between the United States and China. It is notable that these high-level contacts have yielded not just symbolic, but in some cases, substantive results. U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, has been reported very positively by the Chinese state media, underscoring the substantial agreement both sides apparently have been able to reach. Similarly, cooperation on the fentanyl crisis will be another concrete policy area where both sides are reportedly working on closely. The summit signals at least the temporary stabilization of the U.S.-China relationship, which has been on a downward spiral for years, although none of the structural and fundamental differences between the two sides will come to any easy solution. Moving forward, the cooperative gains and positive momentum from the summit have to be consolidated and put on a more institutionalized footing, to prevent them from being affected by some strange but unforeseen events such as the balloon incident earlier this year. 

Tong Zhao, senior fellow, Carnegie China

The bar for measuring success is low and the two leaders achieved general agreements that could help put a floor under the relationship, including measures to resume military communication. However, they continue to disagree about whether to define the two nations as “friends” or “competitors.” On top of that, Biden’s “dictator” comment is likely to leave Beijing somewhat disillusioned, reflecting an unfulfilled expectation for a significant advancement in high-level trust with the United States. This casts a shadow on potential future cooperation on practical matters, which are essential to maintain and build upon the current positive momentum. 

Authors

Paul Haenle
Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China
Paul Haenle
Xue Gong
Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie China
Xue Gong
Ngeow Chow Bing
Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie China
Ngeow Chow Bing
Tong Zhao
Senior Fellow with the Nuclear Policy Program and Carnegie China
Tong Zhao
North AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Faces the Gone-Rogue Doctrine

    The hyper-personalized new version of global sphere-of-influence politics that Donald Trump wants will fail, as it did for Russia. In the meantime, Europe must still deal with a disruptive former ally determined to break the rules.

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Europe’s American Predicament

    Between Greenland and U.S. interference in Europe’s democracies, transatlantic relations risk rising to an unprecedented level of crisis. Amid continued arguments on how Brussels should react, tough times lie ahead for European leaders.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: What Issue Is Europe Ignoring at Its Peril in 2026?

    2026 has started in crisis, as the actions of unpredictable leaders shape an increasingly volatile global environment. To shift from crisis response to strategic foresight, what under-the-radar issues should the EU prepare for in the coming year?

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Solidarity Is a Must for Europe to Ensure Its Own Security

    Europe is designing a new model of collective security that no longer relies on the United States. For this effort to succeed, solidarity between member states that have different threat perceptions is vital.

      • Erik Jones

      Erik Jones

  • Commentary
    Can Europe Trust the United States Again?

    In Donald Trump’s second term in office, the transatlantic relationship that helped define the postwar European project and global order appears broken. Is it time for Brussels to chart its own path?

      Nathalie Tocci, Jan Techau

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.