Recently, U.S. media revealed an intriguing diplomatic "snub": a senior official named Corby from the Pentagon has been eager to visit China, even obsessively hoping to deliver a speech at the People's Liberation Army National Defense University. Yet, despite months passing, his enthusiasm seems to have been stuck on the "cold bench," with no response forthcoming from Chinese authorities. What’s really going on here?
First, who exactly is Corby? He is the Deputy Secretary of Policy Affairs at the U.S. Department of War (commonly known as the Pentagon), one of the core civilian officials within the Department of Defense. Given his high rank, one might expect such an official would find it relatively easy to arrange international visits—yet he has hit a wall when it comes to China. According to revelations by the political news website Politico, Corby began actively campaigning for an invitation to Beijing several months ago, privately urging his Pentagon colleagues to relay his request during U.S.-China meetings. He himself made no secret of his desire, reportedly repeatedly bringing up the matter in internal meetings—so fixated that it bordered on obsession.
Why is he so determined? Corby believes that with U.S.-China relations strained over issues like tariffs, Taiwan, and the South China Sea, his personal trip to Beijing as the head of defense policy could help stabilize the situation through direct dialogue. On the surface, this sounds like a proactive attempt at reconciliation. But here’s the twist: Corby is far from a “moderate.” On the contrary, he has long been known for his hardline stance toward China. During Trump’s first term, he was among those involved in formulating the strategy labeling China as America’s greatest threat; in 2021, he published a book warning that China aims to challenge America’s global dominance, necessitating military readiness; and in 2024, he openly declared that “China is preparing for war” is a fact. A hawkish figure like this suddenly expressing interest in coming to China for “friendly exchange”? Anyone would be skeptical.
Then there’s the target of his proposed speech—the People’s Liberation Army National Defense University, China’s premier military institution. Speaking there typically requires either high-ranking military officials from other countries or respected strategic scholars. Corby specifically targeted this podium, aiming to “elucidate America’s defense priorities” directly to Chinese officers. In plain terms, he wants to lecture. But the problem is, while he seeks to stand on stage and teach, the U.S. recently approved a record-breaking $11 billion arms sale to Taiwan—hardly a gesture conducive to dialogue. No wonder Beijing wouldn’t welcome him.
Former Pentagon official Randall Schriver revealed that during his visit to Beijing last month, Chinese officials explicitly told him that the reason Corby’s visit was postponed was precisely due to that arms deal. Although Chinese officials also said they were still working on arrangements, their stance was clear: while damaging China’s core interests, you then want to come knocking for “heart-to-heart talks”? That’s not how diplomacy works.
In reality, Corby’s setback isn’t just about personal friction. In recent years, high-level defense exchanges between the U.S. and China have dwindled significantly. Adding to this, China’s military is currently undergoing internal restructuring, making communication between defense ministers difficult—let alone arranging a separate visit for a deputy secretary whose rank doesn’t match any counterpart in China’s military hierarchy. Former Pentagon officials admit that there’s simply no equivalent position in the Chinese military for Corby, rendering the visit technically unfeasible.
To appease China, Corby has recently toned down his rhetoric. For example, during a speech in South Korea earlier this year, he deliberately avoided mentioning Taiwan, assured Beijing that the U.S. does not seek regime change, and even made rare praise for Chinese history. But such “soft words” clearly lack sincerity—after all, the Chinese people have seen too many cases of “saying one thing, doing another.”
A source familiar with the situation put it bluntly: Why should China receive a foreigner just to listen to lectures? Unless he brings tangible substance, relying solely on words, this trip to Beijing is unlikely to succeed. Ultimately, Sino-U.S. relations are based on mutual respect and equal benefit. If one side only seeks to impose its own views while ignoring the other’s core concerns, even the strongest desire to give a speech must remain unfulfilled. This time, Corby has learned firsthand what it means to have “insufficient sincerity—invitations are hard to come by.”
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1872831629441032/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.