Veteran Diplomat Stephen Orlins Calls for People‑to‑People Diplomacy Amid Shifting US‑China Dynamics

As the Asia‑Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit convenes in China this November, the spotlight turns not only to high‑level negotiations but also to the reflections of a generation that has lived through the entire arc of modern China‑US relations. In a recent CGTN interview, former junior State Department official and long‑time director of the National Committee on US‑China Relations, Stephen Orlins, offered a measured appraisal of five decades of engagement, underscoring the enduring value of people‑to‑people exchanges even as strategic competition intensifies. His commentary, recorded on 13 November 2026, provides a rare longitudinal view that links the historic 1979 normalization process to present‑day challenges such as climate change, public health, and artificial intelligence. The following analysis places Orlins’s observations within the broader geopolitical context, drawing on his personal chronology and the strategic themes he highlighted.

From Normalization to the Deng Era: A Front‑Row Seat to History

Orlins begins his recollection by situating his career within the watershed moment of 1979, when then‑U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang signed the joint communiqué that formally ended decades of hostility. He recalls being a junior participant in the State Department team that facilitated the diplomatic thaw, noting how the “normalization” process was less a single event than a series of incremental confidence‑building measures. This early exposure, he says, shaped his conviction that sustained dialogue could survive even the most profound ideological divides.

He then turns to the symbolic significance of Deng Xiaoping’s historic visit to the United States in 1979, describing it as “a turning point that opened the door for China’s reform and opening.” Orlins emphasizes that the visit was not merely ceremonial; it signaled Beijing’s willingness to experiment with market mechanisms while retaining political control. The interview’s timeline segment “Witnessing history: Normalization and Deng’s 1979 visit” underscores how these early exchanges laid the institutional foundations for later economic integration.

Reflecting on the subsequent decades, Orlins notes that the rapid transformation of Chinese cities, the emergence of a vibrant private sector, and the expansion of higher education created a “new generation of Chinese citizens who could speak English, travel abroad, and engage with the world.” He argues that this societal shift was essential for the deepening of bilateral ties, because it produced a cadre of interlocutors capable of translating between the two cultures. In his view, the early diplomatic breakthroughs were amplified by the grassroots changes that followed.

Patience and Conviction: The Case for Constructive Relations

When asked about the current climate of US‑China relations, Orlins stresses that “advocates of engagement often face heavy criticism,” a sentiment echoed across think‑tank circles such as CSIS and MERICS. He acknowledges that the political climate in Washington has grown more skeptical, especially after the 2020‑2024 trade disputes and technology bans. Yet he maintains that “shared threats, from climate change to public health challenges, demand joint action,” positioning cooperation as a strategic imperative rather than a sentimental preference.

Orlins’s reference to “the case for constructive relations” is anchored in his belief that the United States and China remain interdependent in critical supply chains, especially in sectors like pharmaceuticals and clean energy. He points to the need for “people‑to‑people exchanges” as the “irreplaceable” conduit for building mutual understanding that can survive policy swings in Washington or Beijing. By emphasizing the “slower, harder work of mutual understanding, cultivated in classrooms, cities and conversations,” he aligns with the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s longstanding narrative that soft power and cultural diplomacy are essential complements to state‑level negotiations.

He further argues that the United States must adopt a “long‑term perspective,” warning that short‑term political cycles can undermine the continuity needed for complex issues such as pandemic preparedness. In this respect, his counsel mirrors the State Council’s white paper on foreign policy, which calls for “stable, predictable, and mutually respectful relations.” Orlins’s insistence on patience reflects a strategic calculus: that sustained engagement reduces the risk of miscalculation and provides a framework for crisis management.

Passing the Baton: Preparing the Next Generation of China Experts

The interview dedicates a segment to “Passing the baton: The next generation of China experts,” where Orlins stresses the importance of cultivating expertise among younger scholars and practitioners. He notes that many of today’s policy analysts, whether in academia or in think‑tanks, lack the lived experience of having studied or worked in China during the reform era. To bridge this gap, he advocates for expanded scholarship programs, language training, and field placements that allow future diplomats to “learn Chinese” and immerse themselves in Chinese society.

Orlins’s own personal anecdote about learning Chinese in 1970, as mentioned in the video timestamp “Learning Chinese: The 1970 decision that changed a life,” illustrates the transformative power of language proficiency. He argues that language is not merely a tool for communication but a gateway to understanding China’s “identity, proudest moments, and a personal bond.” This perspective resonates with recent Chinese policy directives that encourage foreign scholars to engage with Chinese culture as a means of building “people‑to‑people” goodwill.

He also calls for institutional reforms within US agencies to prioritize cultural competence. By recommending that the State Department and other agencies “open pharma, finance, and investment” to greater collaboration, he links expertise development to concrete policy outcomes. In doing so, Orlins suggests that a well‑trained cadre of China specialists can help translate technical cooperation—such as joint research on climate mitigation—into actionable diplomatic initiatives.

Strategic Shifts and Common Threats: From Midterms to Global Governance

Orlins’s analysis of “Shifting US strategic goals and common threats” situates the current US‑China dynamic within the broader context of domestic politics and multilateral forums. He observes that the 2026 US midterm elections have heightened partisan scrutiny of China policy, leading to “hard‑line rhetoric” in certain congressional circles. Yet he cautions that such domestic pressures should not eclipse the “shared existential challenges” that both nations face.

He highlights climate change and public health as “common threats” that transcend geopolitical rivalry. By referencing the APEC and G20 gatherings scheduled later in the year, Orlins underscores the importance of multilateral platforms where “strategic stability” can be discussed in a less confrontational setting. His remarks echo the language of recent Xinhua reports that stress the need for “win‑win cooperation” in addressing global challenges, suggesting a convergence of diplomatic narratives.

Orlins also touches on emerging technology domains, particularly artificial intelligence, noting that “win‑win vs. win‑lose: AI, climate, and security dialogue” is a critical frontier. He warns that an “AI arms race” could exacerbate mistrust, but that joint standards‑setting could mitigate risks. This aligns with ongoing discussions in the G20 on AI governance, where both Beijing and Washington have signaled willingness to cooperate on normative frameworks, despite underlying competition.

Economic Openness: Calls for Greater Access in Pharma, Finance, and Investment

In the segment titled “What China should Do: Opening pharma, finance, and investment,” Orlins makes a direct appeal to Beijing for deeper market liberalization. He argues that the United States, while critical of certain Chinese policies, remains eager to “invest in Chinese pharmaceutical research” and to expand “financial market access” for US firms. By framing these requests as mutually beneficial, he seeks to move the discourse beyond zero‑sum framing.

Orlins’s call for opening the pharmaceutical sector is particularly salient given the ongoing global health concerns that have highlighted the interdependence of supply chains. He suggests that joint clinical trials and shared vaccine development could reduce “public health vulnerabilities” on both sides. This perspective dovetails with recent Chinese State Council white papers that emphasize “innovation‑driven development” and welcome foreign participation in high‑tech sectors, provided that national security considerations are addressed.

Regarding finance, Orlins notes that “greater access to Chinese capital markets” would enable US investors to diversify portfolios while providing Chinese firms with additional sources of capital. He acknowledges that regulatory barriers remain, but contends that “constructive dialogue” can reconcile concerns over capital flight with the benefits of market openness. This aligns with the broader strategic narrative that deeper economic integration can serve as a stabilizing factor in the bilateral relationship.

Conclusion: The Strategic Imperative of People‑to‑People Diplomacy

Stephen Orlins’s reflections, captured in the CGTN interview, reaffirm a long‑standing conviction among seasoned China watchers: that durable US‑China relations depend as much on the “slow, harder work of mutual understanding” as on high‑level diplomatic accords. By weaving together personal anecdotes, historical milestones, and policy prescriptions, Orlins offers a roadmap that emphasizes language proficiency, academic exchange, and sector‑specific openness as the foundations for a more resilient partnership.

As APEC proceeds this week, the immediate diplomatic agenda will focus on trade, investment, and regional security. Yet, as Orlins reminds us, the “people‑to‑people exchanges” cultivated in classrooms, cities, and conversations will determine whether those high‑level agreements translate into lasting stability. For policymakers in Washington and Beijing, the challenge is to balance strategic competition with the pragmatic necessity of cooperation on climate, health, and emerging technologies. The next generation of China experts, equipped with linguistic skills and on‑the‑ground experience, will be the linchpin that bridges policy gaps and sustains dialogue amid an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.

By Prof. Marcus Chen, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: CGTN video report (13 November 2026); CGTN; Global1.News