The Financial Times betrayed more than a little nervousness about the Xi Jinping state visit to Washington. It was “a summit in Washington that was rich in pomp but failed to resolve tensions over US claims that China is not honoring its pledge on rare earth exports.” Not only that, but “Observers say the US and China maintained good communications during state visit but achieved no breakthroughs in trade stand-off.”

Additionally, “In one area where the two statements diverged, China said the US and Chinese militaries had agreed to ‘conclude a memorandum of understanding on crisis communication.’ The Trump administration said that was not true. ‘This is not accurate and was not even discussed,’ a US official told the FT.”

The FT felt the need to add a disclaimer, by quoting Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the German Marshall Fund. “The two leaders genuinely seem to enjoy each other’s company. It’s rare to see Xi so relaxed… Now that they have committed to attend the Apec and G20 meetings, the odds that relative stability in the bilateral relationship will endure for the rest of the year are high.”

A second FT article by Evan Medeiros, who served on the US National Security Council staff from 2009 to 2015 under President Obama, opined that “this week’s US-China summit was long on symbolism and short on substance. No big deals or grand bargains were reached, let alone discrete deliverables… Yet this summit should not be dismissed as mere spectacle. Trump hosting Xi Jinping at the White House matters. And regular leader meetings, possibly two more at multilateral gatherings this year, keep the trade truce alive and the lines of communication open…

“Trump’s affinity for Xi and dealmaking with China are also at odds with hawks in his own administration and Congress, undermining its political sustainability at home and credibility abroad.”