Washington — A high-level phone call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump has drawn global attention, marking one of the most significant diplomatic exchanges of the year. During the conversation, Xi delivered an unusually explicit message regarding Taiwan, framing the island’s status as an essential component of the post–World War II international order. The call occurred against the backdrop of rising tensions between China, the United States, and Japan, and amid ongoing geopolitical shifts in East Asia.
While both leaders discussed a wide range of issues including trade, bilateral visits, and the war in Ukraine, Xi’s remarks on Taiwan stood out for their assertive tone and historical framing. Taiwan’s leadership responded quickly, reiterating its position as a sovereign and independent country, signaling the depth of disagreement between Taipei and Beijing.
The differing summaries released by Washington and Beijing further highlighted the diplomatic complexities surrounding the call.
Xi’s Message on Taiwan: Framing the Issue Through WWII History
According to the Chinese readout, President Xi Jinping stressed that Taiwan’s “return to mainland China” is not simply a modern geopolitical objective, but rather “an integral part of the post-war international order.” Xi referenced the fact that China and the United States fought together against fascism and militarism during World War II, a historical argument often invoked by Beijing to reinforce its claim that Taiwan’s status was settled through wartime and post-war agreements.
China frequently cites the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945) as evidence that Taiwan was intended to be restored to Chinese sovereignty. By linking the Taiwan question to these historical documents, Xi placed the issue within the broader architecture of the post-war settlement an international framework that China argues should be preserved and respected by all major powers, especially the United States.
The timing of this reference is notable. Beijing is currently navigating heightened tensions with Japan following remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who suggested that Japan could potentially intervene militarily if China launched an attack on Taiwan. Analysts view Xi’s historical framing as a deliberate diplomatic signal not only to Washington, but also to Tokyo, underscoring Beijing’s belief that the post-war order continues to shape contemporary territorial and sovereignty issues.
U.S. Readout: Emphasis on Cooperation, No Public Mention of Taiwan
President Trump’s public account of the call presented a contrasting emphasis. In posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump described the U.S.–China relationship as “extremely strong” and highlighted several areas of cooperation. He referenced shared interests in resolving the conflict in Ukraine, progress on trade agreements, and commitments related to fentanyl control.
Notably, Trump’s statement did not mention Taiwan, even though the Chinese readout suggested that the issue was discussed at length. The Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that Trump conveyed that the United States “understands how important the Taiwan question is to China,” a phrase that received considerable attention from political analysts. If accurate, the wording may reflect a more cautious U.S. tone, aimed at maintaining open channels with Beijing while avoiding commitments that could alter Washington’s established position on Taiwan.
The discrepancy between the two readouts is not unusual. U.S. and Chinese summaries of leader-level conversations often differ, reflecting each side’s diplomatic priorities and domestic messaging goals. In this case, the contrast underscores the sensitivity surrounding Taiwan and the divergence in how Washington and Beijing publicly frame their bilateral engagements.
Taiwan’s Firm Response: “Return Is Not an Option”
Taiwan’s leadership reacted swiftly and firmly to Xi’s characterization of the island’s status. Taiwan’s Premier stated that Taiwan is a “fully sovereign and independent country,” emphasizing that its 23 million people have determined their own political future. The Premier added that “return is not an option,” directly rejecting the notion that Taiwan’s status could be resolved through historical post-war agreements.
This response reflects Taiwan’s longstanding position: that the island’s sovereignty is determined by its own democratic processes, not by historical documents or external pressures. Taiwan has consistently argued that, regardless of historical interpretation, its political identity and modern democratic governance represent the decisive factors in its status.
The exchange further highlights how deeply entrenched the disagreement over Taiwan’s status has become. Beijing views the Taiwan issue as its most significant foreign policy concern and core national interest, while Taiwan insists on its separate identity and political autonomy. For Washington, the issue remains deeply complex, shaped by the Taiwan Relations Act, strategic ambiguity, and a desire to maintain stability in East Asia.
Japan’s Position and the Growing Diplomatic Rift with China
Recent comments by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi intensified the regional context surrounding the Xi–Trump phone call. Takaichi stated that Japan could consider military action if China were to launch an attack on Taiwan, a statement that Beijing strongly criticized. The comments added friction to an already strained China–Japan relationship, with disputes over history, territory, and regional security contributing to rising tensions.
Xi’s decision to frame Taiwan’s status within the post-war order is seen by some analysts as a subtle rebuke to Japan. Post–World War II treaties and declarations are central to diplomatic relations in East Asia, and Beijing frequently references them to frame modern territorial issues. By highlighting that China and the U.S. were allies against militarism during WWII, China may be signaling that Japan should refrain from altering the post-war settlement.
The growing diplomatic friction between China and Japan adds another layer of complexity to the triangle involving the U.S., China, and Taiwan. Any shift in Japan’s security posture—including potential involvement in a Taiwan contingency would significantly affect regional stability.
Trade Progress: Implementation of Busan Agreements
Beyond the tensions over Taiwan, the phone call also addressed economic issues. Both Xi and Trump reaffirmed that trade agreements reached during their meeting in Busan, South Korea, are being implemented as planned.
These agreements reportedly include:
- a reduction of U.S. tariffs on select Chinese goods
- a resumption of Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products, particularly soybeans
- commitments to stabilize the two countries’ broader economic relationship
The mention of soybeans and farm products aligns with the longstanding role of U.S. agricultural exports in bilateral trade discussions. The implementation of these measures suggests that, despite strategic rivalry and political tensions, both Washington and Beijing see value in preventing economic decoupling.
Future Diplomatic Engagements and Planned Visits
President Trump stated that he accepted an invitation from Xi to visit Beijing in April. He also extended an invitation for Xi to visit the United States later next year. These reciprocal visits indicate that both countries are attempting to maintain high-level diplomatic communication amid broader geopolitical tensions.
Leader-level visits have historically played a significant role in stabilizing U.S.–China relations, especially during periods of heightened rivalry. Should these visits proceed, they may offer opportunities to address issues such as Taiwan, trade, military communication channels, and global security challenges.
Discussion on Ukraine: A Search for Stability
The two leaders also discussed the war in Ukraine. Xi reiterated China’s support for “efforts conducive to peace.” While China has maintained a position of neutrality in the conflict, it has repeatedly called for dialogue and a negotiated settlement.
The U.S., meanwhile, continues to support Ukraine militarily and diplomatically. The discussion reflects that, despite divergent positions, both sides recognize the global implications of the conflict and the importance of diplomatic channels for crisis management.
Conclusion
The phone call between President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump marks a critical moment in the evolving dynamics of U.S.–China relations. Xi’s explicit framing of Taiwan’s status as an integral part of the post-war international order highlights Beijing’s determination to assert its position on the issue, especially amid tensions with Japan. The contrasting readouts from Washington and Beijing underscore the diplomatic sensitivity of Taiwan, which remains one of the most contested and consequential issues in global politics.
Taiwan’s firm response reinforces the complexity of the situation and the deep divide between Beijing and Taipei on issues of sovereignty and self-determination. Meanwhile, progress on trade agreements and planned high-level visits suggest that both the U.S. and China are attempting to preserve channels for cooperation, even as strategic rivalry intensifies.
With the Taiwan issue at the center of regional and global diplomatic discussions, the coming months will likely see continued attention on how Washington, Beijing, and Taipei navigate the geopolitical challenges ahead.
0 Comments