The Truth About Sullivan’s Trip to China: Engagement Is the Fentanyl of the Elites

Sullivan is already using this trip to further burnish his image as a potential future secretary of state. At the conclusion of his trip, during a press conference in Beijing on August 29, Sullivan made the following comment: “Beginning in May of last year, that diplomacy [“responsible management through diplomacy”] has been an all-hands-on-deck effort across the U.S. government and the Cabinet, which has included four meetings between myself and Director Wang Yi.” This statement coincides with an article from the Financial Times two days before Sullivan’s arrival in Beijing entitled “The inside story of the secret backchannel between the US and China,” which was clearly leaked from Sullivan and his team. The self-promoting article boasted of a “cloak and dagger,” James Bond-like series of meetings between Sullivan and his CCP handler, Wang Yi, all coming in the aftermath of the PRC’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (aka “spy”) balloon that had flown over America in early 2023.

These series of clandestine talks from Vienna, Malta, Thailand, and now Beijing were described in glowing terms and even labeled as the “strategic channel”—again all designed to promote Jake Sullivan’s stature as the new Henry Kissinger, the man responsible for establishing and sustaining America’s disastrous 50-year policy of Engagement with the PRC.

If this were all there was to the story, then there would not be much else to say except for “This is how the swamp in Washington, DC, works.” But there is a far graver and more pernicious aspect of Jake Sullivan’s trip to Beijing: in essence, he surrendered U.S. national sovereignty to the direction of the CCP.

The evidence is provided by the White House itself. In the August 28 official White House “Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Meeting with Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia of the People’s Republic of China,” it states, “as directed by President Biden and President Xi at the November 2023 Woodside Summit.”  No U.S. national security advisor to a U.S. President should ever take “direction” from a foreign leader, let alone the leader of the CCP, which has been at war with the U.S. since it came to power in 1949 and most recently declared a People’s War against America in 2019.

Another example from the White House readout states, “Mr. Sullivan and Vice Chairman Zhang recognized the progress in sustained, regular military-military communications over the past ten months and planned to hold a theater commander telephone call in the near future.”

With respect to the emphasis on the past ten months of mil-to-mil engagement, there was no reference made to what the PLA has done over those ten months. The statement falsely implies that while differences may still exist, mil-to-mil engagement has benefited the U.S.

In fact, mil-to-mil has hurt the U.S. historically and continues to do so. The PRC continues to aggress against U.S. national security interests and that pace is quickening. The situation in the South China Sea near Scarborough or Sabina Shoal is dramatically worsening. The PLA is increasing pressure on Taiwan through its operations.  PLAAF bombers have flown into the Alaskan ADIZ for the first time.  This month, the PLAAF violated Japanese territorial waters for the first time ever. Moreover, the PLAN and Russian Navy sailed into the Gulf of Alaska. Additionally, it has been confirmed that the PLA is supplying Russia with military weapons to aid Moscow in its war against Kyiv.

By any objective metric, the resumption of mil-to-mil engagement has not decreased the tensions in the Indo-Pacific region and thus has decreased America’s national security.

Another area of national surrender emanating from Sullivan’s trip to Beijing was the extension of mil-to-mil engagement with the agreement that so-called theater commanders would conduct a call with their counterparts. While Admiral Paparo is the commander of the Indo-Pacific command, he will only be talking with the PRC’s Southern Theater commander, not the commander of the Eastern Theater command, which will be the responsible PLA commander in any Taiwan invasion scenario.

Given the record, the Biden administration must explain how this theater commander call will aid U.S. national security. Such a call comes at a considerable cost. It involves considerable work for the headquarters staff of Indo-Pacific Command and is certain to impact other theater-level work Paparo’s staff must do. Moreover, the call will invariably create a faction within Paparo’s staff that will be de facto “pro-engagement” proponents, just like what happened when the U.S. Pacific Fleet hosted the PLA Navy at the Rim-of-the-Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise during the Obama administration.  It will also impact the service component level at U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pacific Air Forces, Army Pacific, and Marine Forces Pacific in the same manner.