• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • 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": []
}

Source: Getty

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. 

About the Authors

Paul Haenle

Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China

Paul Haenle held the Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is a visiting senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. He served as the White House China director on the National Security Council staffs of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Xue Gong

Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie China

Xue Gong’s current research interests include International Political Economy, China’s economic diplomacy, regionalism and governance, and geoeconomics in the Indo-Pacific.

Ngeow Chow Bing

Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie China

Ngeow Chow Bing focuses on China’s relations with Southeast Asian countries.

Tong Zhao

Senior Fellow with the Nuclear Policy Program and Carnegie China

Tong Zhao is a senior fellow with the Nuclear Policy Program and Carnegie China, Carnegie’s East Asia-based research center on contemporary China. Formerly based in Beijing, he now conducts research in Washington on strategic security issues.

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 Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia

    The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    What GDP Means in a Soft Budget Economy Like China

    The GDP measure is an attempt to measure value creation in an economy. This measure, however, can vary greatly between economies that have disciplinary mechanisms that force them to recognize investment losses quickly and economies that don’t, and can postpone this recognition for many years.

      Michael Pettis

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Is Uncovering the Weakness in U.S.-Gulf Ties

    Neither the Abraham Accords nor the presence of large U.S. bases are enough to protect Arab Gulf states.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Article
    Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of Connectivity

    The U.S.-sponsored TRIPP deal is driving the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process forward. But foreign and domestic hurdles remain before connectivity and economic interdependence can open up the South Caucasus.

      • Areg Kochinyan

      Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev

  • U.S. President Donald Trump (C) oversees "Operation Epic Fury" with (L-R) Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles at Mar-a-Lago on February 28, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida. President Trump announced today that the United States and Israel had launched strikes on Iran targeting political and military leaders, as well as Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. (Photo by Daniel Torok/White House via Getty Images)
    Paper
    Operation Epic Fury and the International Law on the Use of Force

    Assessing U.S. compliance with the international laws of war is essential at a time when these frameworks are already fraying.

      • Federica D'Alessandra

      Federica D’Alessandra

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.