30th December 2024 – (Beijing) Jimmy Carter’s passing at 100 marks not just the end of an era, but presents a compelling case study in strategic foresight that the incoming Trump administration would do well to examine. Carter’s 1979 normalisation of relations with China stands as perhaps the most consequential diplomatic achievement of the past half-century – one whose wisdom grows more apparent as U.S.-China relations face their greatest test since the Cold War.
The timing of Carter’s death coincides with a pivotal moment in Sino-American relations. As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, the bilateral relationship sits at its lowest ebb in decades, with conflicts ranging from trade disputes to technological competition threatening to spiral into a new Cold War. Yet Carter’s legacy offers a roadmap for how patient diplomacy and strategic vision can transform seemingly intractable adversaries into partners.
“When I look back on it now, establishing diplomatic relations with China was the right thing to do, not just for the United States but for the world,” Carter reflected in one of his final interviews. This wasn’t mere retrospective self-congratulation – the numbers tell the story. In the decades following normalisation, bilateral trade grew from $4 billion to over $600 billion annually. People-to-people exchanges expanded from virtually zero to millions of students, tourists and business travellers moving between the two nations each year.
What made Carter’s China breakthrough particularly remarkable was its execution against fierce domestic opposition. Many viewed his decision to switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Beijing as a betrayal of a longtime ally. Yet Carter understood that America’s long-term strategic interests required engaging with a rising China rather than containing it. This required both political courage and diplomatic finesse – qualities sorely needed in today’s charged atmosphere.
The parallels to our present moment are striking. Like Carter, Trump faces a China that many Americans view with suspicion and hostility. Yet unlike Carter, who saw engagement as a path to influence Chinese behaviour, Trump’s first term was marked by confrontation and escalating tensions. The results speak for themselves: rather than moderating Chinese behaviour, this approach has pushed Beijing closer to Russia while alienating U.S. allies in Asia.
Carter’s approach offers an alternative template. His decision to normalise relations wasn’t born of naïveté about Chinese communism, but rather a clear-eyed assessment that isolation would prove counterproductive. “You don’t have to like a country’s system to engage with it,” he often said. This pragmatic wisdom feels especially relevant today as calls grow louder for economic “decoupling” from China.
The incoming Trump administration has an opportunity to recalibrate America’s China policy by drawing on Carter’s legacy. This doesn’t mean abandoning legitimate concerns about Chinese trade practices, intellectual property theft, or military expansion. Rather, it means recognising, as Carter did, that engagement provides more leverage than isolation.
Several specific lessons from the Carter playbook merit consideration. First, prioritise direct leader-to-leader dialogue. Carter’s personal chemistry with Deng Xiaoping helped overcome decades of mistrust. Trump’s self-proclaimed dealmaking skills could be similarly deployed to establish a working relationship with Xi Jinping. Second, identify areas of mutual interest. Carter found common ground with China on countering Soviet influence. Today, climate change, global economic stability, and North Korea offer potential areas for cooperation. Third, maintain clear communication channels. Even during periods of tension, Carter kept diplomatic lines open. The current practice of suspending dialogue during crises has proven counterproductive.
Perhaps most importantly, Carter demonstrated that strength and engagement aren’t mutually exclusive. While normalising relations with Beijing, he simultaneously strengthened U.S. security commitments in Asia through the Taiwan Relations Act – a balancing act that helped maintain regional stability.
Carter’s China legacy offers a timely reminder that even the most challenging diplomatic relationships can be transformed through vision and patience. The question now is whether today’s leaders possess the wisdom to learn from his example. Donald Trump, who once sought Carter’s advice on China during his first term, would do well to revisit that conversation as he prepares to retake office.
In Carter’s own words from his final book: “The choice between conflict and cooperation is ultimately up to us.”
