US, China agree to pursue military crisis communication pact

BEIJING, 27 SEPTEMBER 2026 —

China and the United States have agreed to pursue a new military crisis-communication pact following the summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, according to Beijing, potentially giving commanders another mechanism for managing dangerous encounters across the Indo-Pacific.

The two militaries already have consultation arrangements and senior communication channels. The Chinese announcement did not explain whether the proposed memorandum would create a new hotline, establish procedures for using existing connections or define which incidents would trigger crisis consultations. That distinction could determine whether the agreement proves useful during an actual confrontation.

Previous periods of improved military contact have been interrupted by political disputes, while formal communication mechanisms have not always produced timely exchanges during crises. The commitment was not included in the White House’s account of the summit, and neither the Pentagon nor US Indo-Pacific Command had publicly confirmed it as of Saturday. Beijing announced the proposed military agreement separately from eight summit deliverables covering trade, artificial intelligence, counternarcotics cooperation and international affairs.

Its statement also said the two militaries would continue working together to locate the remains of missing US service members in China. The announcement offers a concrete, if still preliminary, answer to a question US military officials were considering before the Washington meeting: whether renewed senior-level engagement could produce communication channels capable of preventing an encounter at sea or in the air from escalating.

“We pay very close attention to what comes out of it, who says what, and when and how,” a US Navy official told the South China Morning Post before the summit. The official said the conversations leading up to the meeting mattered as well. Both governments appeared serious about holding a constructive discussion, he said, describing public dialogue between Washington and Beijing as a “confidence builder for everybody”.

The remarks reflect the concerns of those managing the day-to-day military risks in the US-China relationship. Although trade and economic agreements dominated the public summit announcements, military forces from the two countries continue to operate in a region where an encounter at sea or in the air could quickly raise tensions.

Another US military official, speaking on background, put the challenge this way: “I believe the US’ goal is to enable both strategic stability and deterrence by denial, and I believe respectful and professional communication with China does not preclude that.” Chinese Defence Minister Dong Jun had also publicly emphasised communication before the summit, calling at the Xiangshan Forum in Beijing for an approach to security based on dialogue rather than confrontation.

The proposed memorandum would be the first indication that the two governments intend to translate that public emphasis into a new military mechanism. It would build on the recent resumption of senior-level contact between the armed forces. Admiral Samuel Paparo, the senior US commander in the Indo-Pacific, met General Yang Zhibin, commander of the People’s Liberation Army’s Eastern Theatre Command, during a defence conference in Victoria, British Columbia, in late August.

It was their first meeting and ended a two-year interruption in theatre-level contact between the two countries. According to the US military, they discussed maintaining communication among senior leaders to reduce the risk of miscalculation and encourage safe, professional conduct by their forces.

Yang’s participation was especially significant because the Eastern Theatre Command oversees PLA operations facing Taiwan, the East China Sea and Japan, placing him at the centre of several of the region’s most sensitive potential flashpoints. Even if concluded, the memorandum would not resolve the strategic disagreements driving military competition between the two countries.

For Denny Roy, a senior fellow at the East-West Centre in Hawaii, expectations of a broader strategic breakthrough from the Washington summit should remain modest. Economic predictability appeared to be a priority for Beijing, while the Trump administration sought a bilateral economic agreement, he said. The underlying strategic rivalry continued. Military communication could nonetheless serve a practical purpose.

Talks between commanders can help each side understand the thinking behind the other’s actions and, in some cases, prevent a manoeuvre from being mistaken for a hostile act, Roy said. The proposed memorandum focuses on crisis management rather than the strategic disagreements driving military competition.

Its significance will depend on whether the two sides agree on specific procedures, identify officials empowered to communicate and ensure the channel remains available during the political disputes that make military contact most necessary. The test will not simply be how quickly the memorandum is concluded, but whether commanders are authorised to use it when an aircraft interception, naval encounter or operation around Taiwan leaves little time for consultation.