The interview given by Chinese Ambassador to Washington Xie Feng to Newsweek on May 5, 2026, represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing Sino-American war of words over Taiwan. Xie, who assumed his post in May 2023, employed a clever, albeit controversial, historical analogy, reminding Americans of the American Civil War (1861-1865) to legitimize Beijing’s position. The ambassador’s interview carried profound implications, conveying specific political messages to the United States in the context of President Trump’s visit to China. Trump’s visit was seen as a clash of wills between American pragmatism and Chinese sovereignty ideology. From Beijing’s perspective, the visit’s success hinged on its ability to convince Trump that calm in the Taiwan Strait is the most profitable investment for the American economy. Therefore, Ambassador Xie Feng’s interview carried significant strategic, political, and military dimensions, crucial for deciphering the current state of US-China relations. Especially given Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng’s statement: We believe that the American people, who faced the threat of division between North and South and endured a civil war, are capable of understanding China’s will and determination to safeguard its territorial integrity, referring to Taiwan. Here, Ambassador Xie invoked the American Civil War as a historical precedent to emphasize his country’s resolve to protect its territorial integrity regarding Taiwan, rejecting foreign interference, particularly from the United States, in this sensitive issue for China. The aim of this speech by the Chinese ambassador to Washington was to manage expectations by combining firmness on matters of sovereignty with flexibility in the anticipated economic cooperation during Trump’s visit to China.
As for analyzing the reasons and significance of China’s summoning of Ambassador Xie Feng to the American Civil War and linking it to the Taiwan issue, this reveals profound strategic, political, and diplomatic dimensions for China, aimed at deciphering the code of relations between Beijing and Washington. Regarding the strategic and political dimensions of the historical invocation of the American Civil War and the undermining of the historical legitimacy of comparing the situation in Taiwan with that of the United States, Beijing is drawing a parallel between its current stance on Taiwan and that of US President Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, considering its pursuit of unification to be exactly like the North American Civil War to protect the Union from secession. This represents a significant embarrassment for the US narrative, as this Chinese connection places Washington at the heart of a moral and political dilemma. America historically celebrates preventing the secession of its southern states from the North, while simultaneously supporting separatist movements in Taiwan that Beijing rejects. This constitutes a reaffirmation of the One China principle for China, as the Chinese discourse reinforces the idea that the Taiwan issue is a purely internal Chinese matter and a sovereign dispute that cannot be divided, much like the American Civil War, in which any European intervention was rejected. The speech of the Chinese ambassador to the United States also carries several military dimensions and direct Chinese deterrent messages, including the importance of China’s readiness for a difficult solution. The reference to the American Civil War is, in my analytical view, a veiled military allusion that Beijing is prepared to pay a heavy price and engage in armed confrontation if forced to do so to prevent the secession of Taiwan. To this end, China is drawing red lines for the United States, sending a direct message to the Pentagon and decision-makers in Washington that any move towards a declaration of Taiwanese independence by them will ignite a conflict that China considers a sacred national war to protect its territory. While China skillfully employs subtle hints within the Chinese ambassador’s speech in the United States, employing diplomatic tactics and a specific psychological approach to address the American public, its aim is clearly to appeal to American sentiment. The ambassador’s address wasn’t directed solely at the US government and administration but also at the American people themselves. He leveraged their historical legacy to build a bridge of mutual understanding, transcending current political tensions and rejecting the mentality of foreign intervention. Through his ambassador, China reminded the US of its own history, specifically that it would never have accepted foreign intervention on behalf of the then-separated South. This prompted strong official US reactions to the ambassador’s speech, leading to a review of the key events of the recent military escalation in the Taiwan Strait and a detailed comparison of the Chinese and American perspectives on the law governing relations with Taiwan.
Herein lies the significance of China’s reminder of American history (the American Civil War) within the framework of China’s efforts to preempt American intervention in the Taiwan issue. This was further demonstrated by the Chinese ambassador to Washington’s repeated statements and interviews that Taiwan is a separate province from China, not an independent state. The ambassador emphasized the element of comparison by reminding Americans that during their Civil War, they did not accept foreign intervention to support the South that had separated from the North (the American Union) and that President Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the unity of the country. Thus, the essence of the Chinese message to Washington is that if the United States continues to support Taiwanese independence, as it did with the historically separate South, it risks direct armed conflict with China, just as it did if foreign powers intervened in the American Civil War.
As for the most prominent and strong official American responses to the remarks made by Chinese Ambassador to Washington Xie Feng in Newsweek magazine, these Chinese analogies and statements provoked anger and mobilization in Washington. The responses manifested in the reprimand of the Chinese ambassador, with the US administration, represented by both the White House and the State Department, summoning him to deliver a formal rebuke regarding China’s provocative military maneuvers around Taiwan. The White House position emphasized that the United States maintains that the Taiwan issue is not about a secession akin to the American Civil War, but rather a matter of democracy and a threat to China regarding a self-governing island. Washington rejected the Chinese threat, with the official American rejection coming through several statements affirming Washington’s complete rejection of the Chinese ambassador’s remarks that supporting Taiwan is playing with fire. The US also reaffirmed its commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act.
The most important milestones of the recent Chinese military escalation regarding Taiwan in the period (2024-2026), within the framework of continuous Chinese pressure, have been an unprecedented escalation in the Taiwan Strait in recent years, represented by several Chinese military maneuvers, most notably the Joint Sword maneuvers in 2024, which came after the inauguration of Lai Ching-te as President of Taiwan in May 2024, where Beijing conducted huge maneuvers that surrounded the Taiwanese island and were closer to the Taiwanese coasts. Events also revealed that 2025 saw a record increase in the number and frequency of Chinese air and sea incursions near Taiwan, with Chinese aircraft crossing the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) by 129%. This was in addition to China’s massive military exercises, known as Justice Mission 2025, in December 2025. In these exercises, China conducted its largest-ever drill in terms of geographical scope, aimed at practicing a rapid encirclement of Taiwan and disrupting any supply efforts from Japan or the United States.
This helps us understand the underlying Chinese perspective behind the Chinese ambassador to Washington’s threats of armed secession from the United States should Washington aid or encourage Taiwan’s independence. As for the most prominent implications and objectives of the Chinese discourse, conveyed through its ambassador in Washington, it reflects a strategy of managing early expectations. This involves setting clear red lines for the Trump administration before the anticipated visit to China, separating sovereignty from economics by demonstrating complete Chinese flexibility on trade issues while maintaining absolute firmness on matters of sovereignty. Simultaneously, China aims to strip Washington of its moral superiority by using American history to embarrass decision-makers in Washington and portray the Chinese position as a natural stance for any unified nation. An analytical reading of Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng’s interview with Newsweek, particularly his invocation of the American Civil War, reveals China’s emphasis on engaging with the United States through a shared historical and self-referential framework. China’s choice of a pivotal event in American consciousness, the Civil War, aims to resonate with both the American public and officials. From my research and analytical perspective, this constitutes a shrewd Chinese historical projection onto Washington, drawing parallels between Taiwan and the secessionist Southern states and between Beijing and Abraham Lincoln’s central government, which fought to prevent division. This effectively negates the pretext of foreign intervention. The implicit message from China is that America would not have accepted foreign intervention to support the South at that time and therefore has no right to support Taiwan now.
This perhaps leads us to a deeper point concerning the impact of Chinese rhetoric on Trump’s visit to China. This can be analyzed as a real-world test of Trump’s policy toward China. Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng’s speech puts Trump’s principle of negotiable deals in a difficult position regarding a non-negotiable Chinese issue: Taiwan. China is hinting at reciprocal pressure tactics, offering economic incentives to the United States, such as increased investment or purchases of American goods, in exchange for Washington softening its military and political rhetoric supporting Taiwan. This involves formulating new Chinese rules of engagement. Beijing aims to completely neutralize the Taiwan issue to ensure that Trump’s visit to China concludes with stable economic agreements, free from any political complications. Through this rhetoric, China seeks to establish new rules of engagement and impose a new political reality in its relations with Washington. Beijing also aims to complete the process of complete separation, meaning isolating the economic file (the area for negotiation and deals) from the political and military file on Taiwan (the area of stalemate and red lines). Here, we can analyze the significance behind the Chinese rhetoric directed at Washington at this time, aiming to achieve mutual deterrence by conveying a Chinese message that any American pressure on the Taiwan issue will be met with the immediate cancellation of Chinese economic incentives, and even their transformation into counter-pressure tools, such as imposing Chinese restrictions on rare earth minerals or supply chains.
In this context, Trump’s approach, based on a deal-making mentality, will clash with China’s red lines. Trump treats international politics as a series of transactional deals, subject to bargaining and negotiation. Meanwhile, the Chinese perspective is that the Taiwan issue is a matter of existential sovereignty that is not open to any compromise, a point clearly expressed in the speeches of the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Xie Feng. The difficult equation remains: Beijing is trying to make Washington understand and convey a Chinese political message that Taiwan is not a bargaining chip that Trump can buy or sell in a trade deal but rather a red line, the crossing of which would mean a complete breakdown in relations with Washington. To achieve this, Beijing will seek to use economic incentives and carrot-and-stick tactics against Trump, exploiting his preferred weakness, direct economic gains for the US, by offering a tempting proposal that includes substantial pledges to increase Chinese purchases of American agricultural products and energy resources to reduce the US trade deficit. This would be coupled with Chinese investments directed toward Washington, either through opening specific Chinese markets or by creating jobs in the United States, on the condition that the US freezes or reduces arms sales to Taiwan and ceases provocative statements regarding the island and its relations with China.
