Chang on the Xi-Trump Summit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXQQKcHRgnA

There have been numerous commentaries regarding the recent Trump-Xi meetings in Beijing. Some insist that Trump arrived in a position of strength and came away scoring significant victories in terms of geo-strategic commitments and trade deals. Unsurprisingly, such interpretations are found among Trump supporters.

Others have been more circumspect and some outright critical. Gordon Chang is among the latter. Now in some circles Chang has been discredited as a China scholar given his predictions of the CCP's collapse by 2011. Though it seems misguided and even ridiculous in 2026, at the time such thinking was hardly on the fringe. Chinese society had undergone a massive upheaval over the previous twenty years and there were signs of social stress and threat of implosion. Indeed, many US strategists were counting on further unrest and hoping it would lead to the overthrow of the Communist Party - a party that was (and is) authoritarian, but had abandoned communism altogether (or even the pretense of it) by the late 1970's.

The CCP has no narrative connected to authority or a mandate apart from that of Mao and so they continue to place his picture out in public even while they have repudiated his ideology.

Chinese society and stability was in trouble by the 2000's but then something changed in 2012 - Xi Jinping came to power. Whether he read the proverbial tea leaves and had the right message for the moment or was effectively sponsored by those who believed he was the right man for the job - or perhaps a bit of both, he did turn things around. He did this through authoritarian rule and a series of purges. He turned Chinese investment outward and despite many setbacks, China has continued to rise and is now a global power able to rival the United States.

Chang was wrong but not as wrong as his critics insist. No one could have predicted the rise of Xi. It seemed impossible that after the Mao years, the CCP and the Chinese public would allow another authoritarian ruler to return. But at the end of the day, people are happy enough to trade freedom for security and prosperity. We've seen it happen here in the United States as well but given the differences in the two societies - in a different way. But then again, the US has never undergone the kind of upheaval, mass death, and suffering China experienced over the 20th century. Despite all the disastrous policies of Mao and the bloodbaths they engendered, there are still plenty of older Chinese that praise his name and the changes he brought to their society.

Some dismiss Chang's assessment of the Xi-Trump meetings. Did Xi really insult him? It very well may have been a subtle insult or rebuke. I don't believe Trump has any kind of coherent policy and that Beijing has enjoyed watching him blunder and has benefitted from his short-sighted policies and unsophisticated thinking. Xi is by all accounts a deep thinker. He's an evil man to be sure but he's not dumb. In many respects Trump is both. His chief asset is a kind of brash cunning - the kind of street smarts that makes a mafia don. But even then, Trump doesn't really seem to have the bravado or grit to see things through. He waffles and if he were a mafia don, he would have been removed long ago. The fact that he has no shame, sense of decency, or conscience has helped him to press on and spin his defeats. Also, he uses his money effectively as a weapon, pursuing his enemies and using fear of litigation to silence them.

Now, does China really plan to destroy America as Chang insists? I'm not so sure. They'd like to see the US knocked down a few pegs and forced out of Asia. Truth be told my guess would be that most Chinese planners look at the United States and see no real need to come up with a plan to dismantle or take down America. It's clearly on a path toward self-implosion. It's much simpler to manage the situation, keep up the pressure, and simply wait. America will destroy itself before long.

Was the reference to the Thucydides Trap an insult or warning? It's a bit of both - the bold warning could easily be perceived as arrogant and thus insulting. It's also subtle and Trump defenders don't do subtle and so are likely to miss the point or spin the narrative for their audiences. If Trump had understood the reference (which given he doesn't read, it's likely he didn't) he would have certainly been offended.

Chang wants to maximise US public anger toward China and that also has to be taken into account - even if (in the broad strokes) his assessment in this case is correct. He may have read the situation in a correct manner but his interpretation is biased and motivated by other than objective standards.

I found Trump's near gushing statements about Xi and their friendship to be more degrading than whatever he might have endured from Xi himself.

China persecutes Christians, oppresses minorities, and is engaged in all manner of human rights abuses - I'm using the standards of Western Liberal metrics here to make a point.

At the end of the day it's about the money. Whatever Elon Musk, Tim Cook, or any of these American corporate or political leaders (who accompanied Trump) want to say about their ideals and values, at the end of the day it's economically critical to cooperate with China and Xi already showed he could push back against Trump's tariffs. Trump backed down and now upon meeting face to face, he allowed himself to be talked down to even while he played the sycophant. The corporate titans he brought along are all also (to some extent) playing the role of supplicants. Apple can pretend like it stands for freedom and progressive values even while it's fiscal strategy relies on an authoritarian state and its permission for Apple to utilize sweat shops. China clearly has the upper hand - perhaps even morally.

This does not mean that China is willing to take on the US in a war - although I have to say given the recent US performance in Iran and the depleted stockpile of US missiles, there has to be Chinese generals (in the spirit of Curtis LeMay) arguing that since war is inevitable, now is clearly the time. Hegseth and Trump are hoping no one listens to them.

In the end, Chang is probably not the best voice to turn to. He just wants the US to step up and confront China. In other words he seems to want war and while I don't think his 2001 prediction was unfounded, he has subsequently said some pretty off the wall things demonstrating less than sound judgment. In Chang's mind, Beijing is the font and focus of all evil in today's world.

I think it's also safe to say that he would vigorously support Donald Trump - if Trump was more militant.

This episode is instructive in that sometimes unscrupulous or even unwise people can still have some insight and others who are sincere can also be wrong. These things are complicated and yet the news media is a business looking for ratings which allow it to charge more for advertising revenue. This creates an inherent conflict and invites corruption. Unless you're thinking and reflecting on what you read and hear, it's easy to get swept away and so many do.

Chang is probably guilty of slight exaggeration in this instance but only slight. That said, in general his credibility is somewhat dubious. If Forbes wants to be taken seriously then it should probably avoid commentators like Chang. That said, if the media (generally speaking) was more diligent in its reporting, the public might have a better grasp of how feckless and feeble Trump sometimes is. He's all brusque and bravado but like the playground bully or the loudmouth in the local bar - such figures often cave when confronted. When those same people are given tremendous authority and have their finger on the levers of military power - that's dangerous. Personal slights and a desire for petty revenge can destroy lives, nations, and even civilizations.