Who's the daddy? Trump sucks up to Xi.

Key Concepts

• Diplomatic Nuance: The traditional, highly calculated use of language in international relations.
• Supplicant Behavior: A diplomatic posture where one party appears submissive or overly deferential to another.
• Obsequiousness: Excessive fawning or servility, particularly in a political context.
• Geopolitical Rivalry: The strategic competition between the United States and China, specifically regarding military and cyber capabilities.

---

Analysis of Diplomatic Communication and Strategy

Ambassador Burns critiques the shift in diplomatic communication style introduced by Donald Trump, contrasting it with the traditional, "textured," and "highly informed" language typically employed in international diplomacy. The core argument is that while civility is a standard expectation in high-level meetings, the specific rhetorical choices made by President Trump during interactions with Chinese leadership undermined American interests.

The "Supplicant" Perception

Ambassador Burns argues that President Trump’s approach in a Chinese context inadvertently projected the image of a "supplicant." In the realm of international relations, the perception of power is as critical as the reality of it. By adopting a tone that appeared overly deferential, the President risked signaling weakness rather than strength, which is counterproductive when dealing with a strategic competitor.

Critique of Rhetorical Praise

A significant portion of the critique focuses on President Trump’s public praise of President Xi Jinping. Burns highlights a fundamental disconnect between the President’s laudatory language and the objective reality of China’s actions against the United States. He cites three specific areas where this praise is misplaced:

1. Cyber Warfare: Xi Jinping is identified as the leader responsible for the most aggressive series of cyberattacks against the United States in history.
2. Military Expansion: The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is actively building capacity with the explicit goal of exceeding U.S. military power within the Indo-Pacific region.
3. Human Rights: The Chinese leadership is characterized as a major violator of human rights, making the label of "great" morally and ethically incompatible with the values of a democratic nation.

Conclusion and Synthesis

The central takeaway from Ambassador Burns’ perspective is that words in diplomacy are not merely polite gestures; they carry strategic weight. He concludes that while President Trump may have intended to be civil, his "excessive personal praise" for a leader actively working against U.S. interests was a "great mistake." The synthesis of his argument is that diplomatic language must remain grounded in the reality of the geopolitical relationship; failing to do so—by being "obsequious"—erodes the moral and strategic standing of the United States on the global stage.