A view of Beijing (left) and Washington. Photo: VCG

Editor's Note:

"The US has no choice but to work with China if it wants to solve important issues of concern to Americans," said Chas Freeman (Freeman), a former senior US diplomat who has witnessed the establishment and development of China-US diplomatic relations, in an interview with Global Times (GT) reporter Su Yaxuan. He made these remarks following the recent state visit of the US president to China. Freeman also expressed concern about the shortage of "China hands" among young experts in the US.

GT: Two weeks after US President Donald Trump's visit to China, international public opinion is still actively discussing this highly anticipated meeting. What significance do you attach to this China-US leaders' summit?

Freeman: I think it's a good thing that the two leaders can meet and talk; it's better than not talking and not meeting at all. This demonstrated an intention to work together or to act in parallel.

The visit represents a recognition by Trump that the US has no choice but to work with China if it wants to solve important issues of concern to Americans, whether in the energy, economic or political fields. 

I have argued that we should be talking about multinodality. A node - think of a three-dimensional object - can have a very robust economic connection, a very weak political connection and even a negative military connection. It evolves over time, twisting and turning. And nodes, unlike poles, can create networks. 

GT: The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations. How do you view the recent developments on this question between the two countries?

Freeman: I thought Trump's answer to that question is a very pragmatic way of saying that he recognizes how important this issue is to China. He does not want to draw China in or stir China up on the issue. I am not sure how this turns out, but I think it is a very important development.

I am hoping that the two sides of the Taiwan Straits will find a way to reconcile, and that we will be supportive of that reconciliation but not be an obstacle.

GT: What is your understanding of the vision of building "a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability" that both sides have reached?

Freeman: I think the basic premise is that each side should avoid making trouble for the other, and that both should try to maintain a constructive relationship rather than allowing it to become destructive.

What are the specific measures we will take to achieve that? That is where there is an opportunity to work together to define the relationship in practical terms.

I think China has demonstrated an ability to work out a definition of "constructive strategic stability." I am less certain about the US. And I hope China will take some initiatives, rather than simply waiting for the US to respond.

GT: You have previously said that neither China nor the US can change the other, and that both sides must learn to coexist with their differences. Do you think the two countries are moving in that direction now?

Freeman: I am not sure. I hope so. I think there are many obstacles to the forward progress I would like to see.

We have to recognize that we need to be realistic. There are obstacles to improvement on both sides, but mainly on the US side. We need to work together to make it a better future. It will not come automatically.

The US and China have each changed the other. The US is a different country now than it was when I grew up, in large part because of Chinese influence. We have been changed by our contact with China, and I think mostly for the better. 

I also think the US has changed China. China's universities are now largely shaped on the American model; they are research universities. So, I would like to see the kind of cooperation between China and the US that would enable the improvements China is making to be exported to the US. I think it would change us for the better.

In the US, there is quite an entrenched anti-China view among some of the elites. The business elites see China, appropriately, as a very important market and collaborator. 

I understand that domestic American production, or production by American companies in China, amounts to about $470 billion, which is huge. This is rarely mentioned when we talk about the trade balance, but American investments in China have turned out to be very profitable for both China and the US. If we are going to resume investment relations on a two-way basis, that is very good.

GT: As a veteran "China hand," are you concerned about the current shortage of "China hands" among young experts in the US? What differences and limitations exist in how the younger generation of "China hands" perceives China compared with the older generation?

Freeman: Yes, I am concerned about this. 

When I began my studies, China was a mystery to be understood by me and others who had not been to China and had no background in Chinese affairs. We approached it very positively.

After I took up China studies, the reform and opening-up of China that followed the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee held in December 1978, enabled many Americans once again to have firsthand, positive experiences of China. 

I am very concerned that we will have a young generation that grew up in a period of China-US antagonism rather than friendship, and therefore does not have an intimate connection to affairs in China. I don't think this is good preparation for the future.

I think younger scholars reflect their lack of personal experience on the ground in China with a more hostile or skeptical attitude toward China. The older ones may not understand China perfectly, but they are generally more empathetic toward it. They want to see the world through Chinese eyes as well as their own. The younger generation finds that more difficult. 

When you understand why people think and act the way they do, you can make arguments that appeal to their viewpoints, and you can better predict how they will react to events if you understand their culture, history and perspective. If you do not, you end up living in a kind of fantasy world - and fantasy foreign policy is not a good idea. So, I think more person-to-person contact is very important.

GT: In December 2025, a wave of European leaders marked an early round of diplomatic engagement with China. Now, we are seeing a new wave of high-level diplomacy. What is your interpretation of the broader trend of increasingly frequent visits to China by world leaders?

Freeman: China is now a world power and is central to global affairs. Naturally, people want to consult with China on issues that concern them. As a result, you see quite a parade of people coming to Beijing or meeting elsewhere.

China has considerable prestige, and it has been helpful in certain contexts where other countries have failed. For example, famously, the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

People also look to China for support in mediation efforts in other regional tensions. China is a large and important country, and people want to engage with it.