Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Stay Tuned in Brief. I’m Preet Bharara. Last week, President Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia. That meeting was three hours, and it was the first time the two leaders had spoken in person since 2017.

To help us understand the key issues shaping US-China relations, which is very important, and what if anything was accomplished by the highly anticipated meeting, I’m joined today by Evan Osnos. Evan is a staff writer at the New Yorker and former Beijing Bureau Chief for the Chicago Tribune. His first book, Age of Ambition, was based on his experience living in China. And it won the 2014 National Book Award. Evan Osnos, welcome back to the show.

Evan Osnos:

Thanks, Preet. Glad to be with you.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to start, not with the substance of the meeting, what was at stake and what was accomplished, if anything. I first want to ask you a couple of other questions which may be silly.

So obviously, Joe Biden and President Xi have had many conversations and dialogue, and their emissaries have as well. So much emphasis has been placed on this fact that it’s the first in person meeting in five years. Why is it so important and why is so much attention being paid to the fact, in the age of Zoom and Teams and Google Meets, why it’s so important that they’re meeting in person?

Evan Osnos:

I think it’s not a silly question at all. In fact, I think it is one of the strange and important pieces of international diplomacy that actually, it matters to get into the room. I mean, to give you a really concrete example, Biden and Xi last saw each other in 2017, but they had previously spent time together, as you mentioned. They’ve gone back, really gone back to 2011 was the first time they met, and they spent an unusual amount of time together. At the time, they were both vice presidents. And they went on this, almost like a strange buddy comedy where they went across China. Eventually, then XI came to America and they traveled in the United States.

The net effect was that they had given the United States a really rare, extended look at somebody who was on their way to be the most powerful leader of China. Meaning they understood things like, how does he handle unexpected events? What happens when the meeting takes a turn? How does he handle stress? What makes him vulnerable? What makes him passionate? What gets him angry? And when you’re dealing in a Zoom environment, as all of us have come to understand, there is a strange constraint to it. And Biden is this believer, a zealous believer in the power of a physical encounter. Of getting in the room with somebody.

And I’m reminded that when he met Xi the first time in 2011, he came out of it and he said to his advisors, he said, “I think we’ve got our hands full with this guy.” Which is a very Biden-y form of analysis. Turned out to be quite prescient. So these meetings do matter.

Preet Bharara:

Let me just say for the record, that you and I are not in the same room, and I still feel like can glimpse your soul.

Evan Osnos:

You see my vulnerabilities.

Preet Bharara:

I can see your vulnerabilities, and I feel them. So one more non-substantive point and then we’ll get to the substance. So am I correct, a three hour meeting of this sort is very long? Is that because one or both of them were very long winded and the translations take a while? How significant is three hours?

Evan Osnos:

Actually, it is significant, and all those details matter. Actually, one of the things that they did was that they did simultaneous translation for this, which is unusual for a summit meeting. Usually, you have it go afterwards. It actually buys the participants a little more time to think about what they want to say. Anyway, they made a choice to do that because they wanted to pack it all in.

I will say at the risk of, really a silly detail, but an interesting one, there was one break in the middle. It was reported as no breaks, which anybody who’s done this kind of work immediately said, aha, this is the iron bladder standoff. But actually, there was a break. But the point was this thing went on a full hour longer than it was originally budgeted for, which is a good sign. That did not happen when Biden met Vladimir Putin, I should point out, in summer of 2021.

Preet Bharara:

So what was at stake with respect to this meeting? Are we spending too much time focusing on it, because it’s just one of many things that the United States is doing?

Evan Osnos:

It’s a very important meeting. I think it’s funny to focus on the actual event, except that it matters. Because look, we’re still talking about major summits, whether it was Reykjavik, between Gorbachev and Reagan a generation ago. They’re not just moments that punctuate the chronology of diplomacy. They’re actually moments in which decisions are made, judgments are reached. And in this case, one of the things that we got out of this that we didn’t know going in … and frankly, I was surprised by. Was that China clearly has made a decision, Xi Jinping specifically, that it has work to do to repair some of the damage to its image over the course of the last … particularly the last three years.

And so you saw that not only in, just even in his physical bearing with Biden. That when they came out together, it wasn’t clear at all whether Biden was going to shake his hand. I mean, Xi Jinping had met with Olaf Scholz recently and they hadn’t shaken hands. It was this awkward encounter. They started off, Biden and Xi had this very warm embrace. This reflects something very specific. If you look at polling data on China’s image around the world, Pew just recently put out numbers that showed that in the United States, their standing has been cut in half over the course of the last decade. And that’s not just because America’s more hostile, you’re also seeing it in South Korea, in the UK, and elsewhere. China has some repair to do on its hands.

Preet Bharara:

Did Nancy Pelosi’s trip from some weeks ago to Taiwan make this a more fraught meeting between the president and Xi?

Evan Osnos:

It did. It certainly did. I think Nancy Pelosi’s meeting was a shock, really to the Chinese. I’ve gotten that sense partly from some encounters with Chinese diplomats since then.

Preet Bharara:

But in a good way? In a good way, did it move the needle on …

Evan Osnos:

Yeah, I think so.

Preet Bharara:

Oh. So you, in retrospect, some weeks later, you think that the Pelosi trip was good for the United States?

Evan Osnos:

I think it was good for the United States because in a sense, it forced the Chinese to recognize the scale of the opposition that they were going to encounter in Washington. Because they really thought they could work this the usual way. They would send the right person to meet with somebody close to the president and the president would squelch the trip. And that didn’t happen. And what they realized was Biden took a look at his political profit and loss statement and decided, no, I’m not going to try to squeeze Nancy Pelosi not to make this trip.

Preet Bharara:

You know what’s interesting about that? I was talking to some very high ranking government officials in the last week. And one or more of them has, in their portfolio, international relations and other national security issues. And I was struck … I mean, this seems evident when you think about it. But I was still struck by something they said to me.

Because we were talking about the election and would there be more scrutiny on their agencies or on their bosses if the House flipped or if the Senate flipped. And they said, well, on the issue of China, it’s pretty bipartisan. You can’t possibly be too tough on China, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. And to the extent that these folks were engaging in tough on China policies, they were politics free. What do you make of that?

Evan Osnos:

Yeah, I think that’s true. It’s this strange moment in which it’s the one utterly bipartisan issue. I think we may be approaching a period when pressure on technology companies is number two. But right now, as you say, in effect, you can’t be too hawkish on China right now in Washington. That creates political opportunity. It certainly forces the Chinese diplomatic hand a bit.

I would also say, I think that’s never a healthy situation to be in, from a policy making standpoint, when we have all of this ambient pressure pushing in one direction. You need to have a robust give-and-take. You have to have a serious voice for engagement and you have to have a serious voice for serious pressure and scrutiny on China. But when you don’t have one, it’s a bit of a precarious moment. I think you can make mistakes.

Preet Bharara:

So Evan, you wrote in the last couple of days in The New Yorker, the following … about the meeting. Quote, “For the time being, the willingness to undertake more meetings seemed to be the most tangible result.” End quote. Is that it?

Evan Osnos:

That’s it in the very short term, and it’s actually very important. Because when you talk to people in national security in Washington these days, one of the things they were really getting worried about is that all of the channels, the usual channels were beginning to choke off. This happened partly after the Pelosi visit. They canceled things like the climate dialogue, which has a long term benefit. But in the short term, they were also literally just not talking to Americans. I mean it was Nick Burns, the US ambassador to Beijing, who was getting frozen out of stuff. And on the American side also, they weren’t talking much to Chinese diplomats.

And then there was even things like the hotline, which is the communication channel of last resort. As one of my colleagues reported recently, “The Chinese weren’t picking up,” as he put it. So there was just a real risk that you have all of these planes, as we’ve all talked about in the past, all of these boats that are running into greater and greater proximity with one another in the South China Sea. And you were losing the avenues to prevent what is something small from becoming something big and that was dangerous.

Preet Bharara:

The title of your piece, by the way, that I just quoted from, Did Joe Biden and Xi Jinping lower the Risk of War Over Taiwan? What’s the answer to that?

Evan Osnos:

I think that the short term answer is, yes, for two reasons. One …

Preet Bharara:

So no war over Taiwan in the holiday season?

Evan Osnos:

Exactly. Not until you’ve taken down the decorations. I think the answer is that there’s that short term risk of a miscommunication, which is the core … miscalculation, miscommunication, whatever you want to describe it. That has always been, in these circles, the biggest fear. That you get some sort of unintentional fight. And that China is essentially encroaching on Taiwan, but they don’t intend to actually mount a full scale war. And then you get American and Chinese, some encounter that gets big. That has been dissipated somewhat by the events.

And then more broadly, you have Joe Biden walking out of that room having formed a strong enough impression of Xi Jinping’s intentions that he got in front of the cameras and said something that was quite remarkable. As you’ll recall, he said, “I don’t think that China has the intention of an imminent attack on Taiwan.” That is important because there’s been this growing drum beat, coming mostly from the Pentagon, a little bit from the intelligence community that there is a growing risk. And this is a pretty clear statement to beat that back a bit.

Preet Bharara:

Reading between the lines, do you think that means that Biden knew Xi wouldn’t be upset about that statement or that Xi implicitly approved and enjoyed that statement, or something else?

Evan Osnos:

I think it was actually a reading that he knew that Xi Jinping would accept. Because actually, it’s not in Xi Jinping’s interest to have the United States in suddenly red alert awareness or fear of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Not only because I don’t think that that is supported by what the best analysis says, but also because that would generate a response on the part of the United States that would fundamentally destabilize the US-China relationship.

Look, I think that for all of the conversation and the emphasis that we have on Taiwan, which is entirely appropriate, I don’t think that anybody really expects that this thing’s about to happen. That there’s about to be a war in Taiwan. That’s one of those things that has taken on a little bit more momentum in the American vernacular than it has within the specialist community.

Preet Bharara:

Any progress on the issue of China’s relationship with Russia, and the war in Ukraine?

Evan Osnos:

Yeah, that was an interesting one. That was something we weren’t expecting. Which is that recently, China’s begun to give little indications that they have a bit of buyer’s remorse on this relationship. Everybody remembers right before the invasion that they signed what was described as a no-limits partnership, just short of a security alliance. And then since then, of course, it’s been a series of setbacks for Russia. It’s also been a colossal public relations problem for China. And just recently you’ve gotten indications that they’re beginning to rethink.

So out of that meeting, the Americans came out and said that Biden and Xi had agreed that nuclear weapons are unacceptable. Interestingly, the Chinese readout of that meeting made no mention of it. But the key … and this is, talk about getting into the interesting little minor mechanics of diplomacy, but it all matters. When the Chinese were asked about that discrepancy, they did not dispute the American readout. That means, in effect, that that’s what happened.

And there’s been little signs. There was an interesting leak from the Chinese side recently in which a Chinese official said that Putin had lied to Xi Jinping in that meeting. Whether or not that’s true, I’m not sure it is, what that tells you is that there’s a lot of frustration at the senior ranks on China’s side. And I think what’s really interesting, Preet, is the question is are they frustrated that Putin invaded, or are they frustrated that Putin invaded poorly? Because they’re a bit difference.

Preet Bharara:

That’s a very important distinction.

Evan Osnos:

It’s a very important distinction, because it actually begins to get into their conception of how countries can and should conduct themselves. And at the moment, I’m of the view that they’re not as angry about the invasion as they are by the fact that it has turned out to be a black eye for authoritarian countries. Because that has real implications for their project of trying to make the case that China and Russia are a viable counterweight to the Western political idea.

Preet Bharara:

One more issue, briefly. Though, it’s one of the most important issues, if not the most important issue. Any progress on climate?

Evan Osnos:

Yeah, that was important. They restarted the climate talks, which is not the same as saying that they’ve come to a full-fledged agreement of any kind. But that had gone into the deep freeze and it was causing real despair on the part of some of US climate negotiators. There cannot be any serious … as we all know, I think. There cannot be any serious progress on climate unless the US and China are able to do something. And on that, they reopened the tap.

That is one area where I am a bit hopeful because as you begin to see, one of the things we’ve talked about is China trying to rehabilitate some of its image that has suffered in the last few years. Climate is a huge opportunity for them. And it’s a self-serving opportunity actually, because China will suffer if climate change goes mitigated or goes unchecked. And this is about getting them to prioritize the issue and to make it actually a matter of diplomatic and security concern as well.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. This is not the most important issue, but it was interesting and I wondered if you had a comment on it. There’s this footage of President Xi, essentially dressing down Justin Trudeau of Canada. What was that about?

Evan Osnos:

Yeah. That’s super interesting.

Preet Bharara:

And how was that received?

Evan Osnos:

That was fascinating. Partly, it was interesting because we very rarely get to see Xi Jinping in an unscripted moment. And I mean, it’s literally been years since we saw something like that. Everything else is so formal. And here he was in this reception after some of their meetings, when a pool camera from the Canadian side caught the image of Xi Jinping going up to Justin Trudeau and saying, “Everything we talked about in that meeting the other day was leaked to your newspaper. That’s inappropriate,” he said in Chinese [foreign language 00:16:24]. Which is a fascinating formulation, actually. I mean it is really …

Preet Bharara:

Wait, that sounds worse than inappropriate.

Evan Osnos:

It is …

Preet Bharara:

We might have to bleep that.

Evan Osnos:

For certain markets, I just went very blue. And interestingly enough, Trudeau did not back down, actually. Trudeau said, “Hey, I practice frank and constructive dialogue in our country. We believe in an open society,” in effect. And they had this moment. And then you got the sense that Xi Jinping took note of the fact there was a camera at his shoulder and he wrapped things up and he said, “Well, we need to build a relationship before we get to that.” And he walked off. The Canadians are not all that unhappy about it. They said, look, this is actually a window into how these two interacted and our guy held his ground.

But what was fascinating was that the Canadians and the Chinese have a terrible relationship right now. It goes back to 2018 when China locked up a couple of Canadian researchers and held them for a long time, charged with espionage. They were later released, part of this big back and forth over a Chinese technology executive. And ever since then, Canada has been this surprising thorn in the side of the Chinese government. They never thought that Canada would be a problem. They thought, hey, this is a country we can roll. It needs us, and so on. And in instead, they’ve ended up having quite a serious philosophical pushback from the Canadians on a variety of fronts. And I think that scrambled the circuits a bit for Xi Jinping.

Preet Bharara:

So in the immediate term, you’re saying China will neither invade Taiwan nor Canada?

Evan Osnos:

I can’t go so far on the second one. But I think that the surprise story out of this is that if you stand up to Xi Jinping, that you may come out of it actually a little bit better off than you expected.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. So two final things I’m going to ask you for. One, would you continue to keep an eye on China for us?

Evan Osnos:

With pleasure.

Preet Bharara:

And number two, tell folks about your new podcast quickly and then we’ll let you go.

Evan Osnos:

Yeah, thanks. I have the pleasure of doing a new podcast with my friends and colleagues, Jane Mayer and Susan Glasser at The New Yorker. We’re going to be getting together every Friday for a round table conversation about some piece of politics or another. And the honest answer is, Preet, the two of us … the three of us, I should say. Do this anyway. And it’s just like somebody’s sticking a microphone into the conversation and we’ve already started and it’s a lot of fun.

Preet Bharara:

Terrific. And what’s it called?

Evan Osnos:

The Political Scene.

Preet Bharara:

Do I have to teach you how to plug, Evan?

Evan Osnos:

I’m a pretty lousy plugger.

Preet Bharara:

Oh my God. David Remnick listens to this thing. All right, so congratulations on the new podcast. Thanks for all your great work.

Evan Osnos:

My pleasure.

Preet Bharara:

The terrific Evan Osnos, thank you so much.

Evan Osnos:

Glad to do it.

Preet Bharara:

For more analysis of legal and political issues making the headlines, become a member of the CAFE Insider. Members get access to exclusive content, including the weekly podcast I co-host with former US attorney, Joyce Vance. Head to cafe.com/insider to sign up for a trial. That’s cafe.com/insider.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me, @PreetBharara, with the #askpreet. Or you can call and leave me a message at (669) 247-7338. That’s (669) 24-Preet. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producer is Adam Waller. The editorial producers are Sam Ozer-Staton and Noah Azulai. The audio producer is Nat Weiner, and the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, David Kurlander, Jake Kaplan, Namata Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. Stay Tuned.