Location: George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, for USCET on Fri, Mar 6. It was broadcast on C-SPAN, and you can watch the whole thing here.
Nicholas Burns: Former US Ambassador to China (2022-2025, Biden) and a ton of other ambassadorships. Wildly tactful public speaker.
Thomas Pickering: Former US Ambassador to Russia (1997-2000, Clinton) and many other ambassadorships. Born in 1931, he is a titan in the US foreign service.
NOTE: ‘quote’* means I approximated the quote and wrote it out as it appears in my notes. To get the actual quote, dear reader, you will have to watch the lecture for yourself.
Appetizer
Pickering offered the opening remarks, which were that he’s tired of hearing about how bad China is. You really think he doesn’t know? This much negativity is not productive, and it’s become obstructive.
He has six ‘baskets’ of topics as far as US-China relations are concerned, but he only elaborated on four of them. The last two are likely Climate and Public Health, but who am I to hazard a guess? Let’s jump in.
1) Russia-Ukraine: ‘Without China engaged more in Ukraine, we [have] condemned ourselves to the use of force as being the [only] way out’*
- If China can be convinced to put pressure on Russia, there may be a more optimistic outlook for Ukraine. He hinted that behind closed doors in private meetings between US and Chinese diplomats, there is a lot of Chinese doubt on the ‘Russia question’, as I’m calling it.
- He reiterated the current stance among pro-Ukrainian US politicians (as of 3/7/2026) that Zelenskyy shouldn’t have to give up any Ukrainian territory to Russia, but he added that realistically there may be a divided Ukraine for some time, with parts under Russian control. A scenario he mentioned (which I still think is rather optimistic) is Russia having five years to withdraw troops from Ukraine (excluding Crimea). Crimea would need a referendum conducted by reputable groups, eg. UN.
2) Non-Proliferation and Arms Control: Nuclear states don’t want more nuclear states.
- “China should be interested in [arms control] and over time have been”, but they seem to have “bounced” in recent years. So here, Pickering talked about China as if China should have been a part of New-START, which isn’t really a thing, and a tri-lateral US-China-Russia nuclear deal would be very difficult to negotiate (see my previous post).
- One genuine ‘yes absolutely’ this section got from me was that there needs to be a restriction placed, not only on the number of warheads possessed by world powers, but also limits on military spending, personnel, weapons systems, and newer disruptors (drones, AI).
3) Tariffs
- You probably know all about this one, and if you don’t, there are a hundred articles and explainers online, so I won’t bore you. Pickering hit the topic of tariffs succinctly on the nose, expressing bemused dismay at the way Trump seems to think the economy works.
4) Taiwan: “All I am suggesting is meeting at the table and putting together a list of subjects.”
- It’s no secret that Xi Jinping wants the PLA to possess the military ability to take Taiwan by 2027. It’s not a start date for a ‘forceful reunification’, but it is the time when Xi wants China’s threats to Taiwan to be credible. Pickering described that threat as ‘infinitely postpone-able, but always there’. And that is a zinger of a line.
- I’m not sure if Pickering actually meant to ask this, but the following question certainly shone through: What is the value of ‘One China’? If there isn’t regular contact between the PRC and ROC where they come together to discuss their common interests and points of friction, what is the point of believing in a ‘One China’? If you want a One China, act like it. Sit down, and talk to each other, ‘China’! Even if you do it in secret!
- It wasn’t even that controversial of a call to action, but Pickering rounded out this section by calling himself a lunatic and asking the audience to indulge him in this ‘lunacy in support of a good service’*. Good to see a fellow madman out in public.
Main
Burns started off his notes by absolutely glazing everyone in the room, especially Pickering, whom he clearly admires a lot. It was sweet. He also opened a vein in the ongoing beef between George Washington University and Johns Hopkins SAIS, which apparently exists. It was funny, and then I remembered that these schools compete to influence future government officials in the same way that Shenzhen drone manufacturers compete to make UAVs for both sides in the war in Ukraine.
Burns then spent the rest of his speech on ripping the Trump administration a new one, making the audience laugh, and verbally outmaneuvering everyone. Hopefully he starts a podcast?
Here are some highlights:
He called the US’ recent partnership with India, ‘the most important strategic partnership’* the US has. But that’s consistent with what Burns has been saying for years: check out his Foreign Affairs article from 2014, and the fact that he was a major player in India-US relations since the 2000s (source and source).
The US Foreign Service is in crisis. Looking at the recent diplomatic interactions that the US has been having, (Feb26 Board of Peace meetings / February talks with Iran / Mid-February Russia-Ukraine talks in Geneva), Burns said that there were no foreign service officers in the room—they have been entirely shut out. (I have not verified this myself, but it tracks with other water cooler talk I’ve been hearing.) Burns expressed shock. Roughly, he said that ‘It would be unthinkable to exclude the military. (…) It would be unthinkable to exclude the intelligence community.’* He leaves us to fill in, why are the diplomats—whose function is peace—being excluded?
Burns then said that the shuttering of USAID is a crime. Yes! I am so glad that other people have not forgotten about that decision, which I estimate as the single most world-ending event to happen in the past two years.
“Now on to the easy subject—China.”
Burns’ bottom line was this: “China will not stop competing”, even if the US does. The US and China are now “embedded in a structural rivalry”. He reiterated that China could be considered a competitor, or even a rival, but that the US cannot, cannot, consider China as an enemy. The stakes are simply too high.
His opinions on areas in US-China relations, roughly:
Ukraine: Burns believes “We [the US] should be Ukraine’s lawyer”, not an impartial mediator. Ukraine should have the US’ full support.
China is violating the Law of the Sea left right and center. The US shouldn’t just do nothing while allied nations have their sovereignty violated.
Technological Competition: China has set targets to become competitive in Quantum Computing, Synthetic Biotech, Cyber, Space-based, and AI technologies. In a very restrained subtle call-out to the Trump administration, Burns said, ‘So stop fucking cutting science budgets at universities, dipshit!’ (calm-to-rage translation mine)
And finally, there should be no silence on Human Rights.
But even as the US has differences with China, Burns noted that there are many pressing areas for cooperation:
Climate: The US and China are the world’s two biggest emitters. Without them both onboard, the fight to reduce emissions is so screwed.
Global Health: While ambassador of China (2022-2025), Burns asked his counterpart four times about conducting an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and was stonewalled. He said that China needs to start contributing to the World Health Organization.
Fentanyl: Burns highlighted that this is one of the places where Trump and Biden’s goals aligned. A ton of the drug’s precursor chemicals originate in illegal markets in China. The government has a responsibility to stop the illegal drug trade, seeing as it’s illegal. Burns was glad that the Trump admin is not minimizing the problem.
The US and China need to ‘just live in peace’ – a sort of Peaceful Coexistence pt. 2, for all you history nerds. However, Burns mentioned that if there is a real détente between the US and China, then what will happen to Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan? As he mentioned, China won’t stop pushing the boundaries, so the US must draw the line. (But where? And how?) It’s still a bit hard to piece together how to live in peace if there is constant friction, but smarter folks than I have set their minds to this question for longer than I have, so I don’t feel bad at not giving you, dear reader, an answer.
Floss
Final Notes on What Was Said:
- Mar 31-Apr 2, Trump will be in China to talk with Xi, hopefully about… everything.
- China is not an enemy, and it must never become the US’ enemy. The two countries should compete (in fact they have no choice but to compete), yet they must also work together on the great issues of our times.
- Since China will not stop competing, the US should also ramp up competition instead of shooting itself in the foot over and over again.