More insider disclosures: Who is treacherous in the Sino-US negotiations on the timeline?

category:Global
 More insider disclosures: Who is treacherous in the Sino-US negotiations on the timeline?


After imposing a 25% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports to the United States, the United States also threatened to initiate a 25% tariff on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese imports to the United States, regardless of the results of the 11 rounds of economic and trade negotiations between China and the United States. This irresponsible pressure further overshadows and sets up obstacles for consultation.

A meeting of heads of state, eleven rounds of high-level economic and trade consultations, three telephone calls from the leaders of the two sides, as well as several meetings and calls at the Deputy ministerial level... Time not only witnesses the negotiation process of the Sino-US team across the Pacific time difference day and night, but also records the true: Who is betraying?

In December last year, after a partial consensus was reached between China and the United States, the United States arbitrarily raised its price.

Looking back a year ago. From May 3 to 4, 2018, the US delegation visited China and voluntarily requested consultation after the threat of taxation; from May 17 to 18, the Chinese delegation visited the United States and the two sides issued a joint statement on economic and trade consultations; from June 2 to 3, the US delegation visited China again, and the two sides made positive and concrete progress, and the relevant details need to be finalized by both sides. On June 15, the U.S. government issued a wayward tax list, and so far the three rounds of economic and trade negotiations have been null and void.

Geng Shuang, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, revealed more insights of the U.S. side betrayed the consensus at a regular press conference this afternoon (May 14): Last December, China and the United States reached a consensus on Chinas trade procurement figures with the U.S., but the U.S. raised its bid wantonly in subsequent consultations. Therefore, the hat of retrogression and breach of promise can never be buckled on the head of the Chinese side.

In May this year, the United States misjudged that China was going to the United States for consultation and continued to ask for a lot of money.

In January 2019, there were three days of high-level consultations at the Deputy ministerial level and two days of high-level consultations; two high-level consultations in February, totaling six days; one call from the leaders of the two sides in March and two days of high-level consultations; two high-level consultations in April, totaling five days; and the eleventh round of high-level consultations in May.

In this unprecedented century of negotiations, new progress and new consensus have been reached continuously, ranging from principled consensus to substantive progress, from text consultation to discussion of relevant texts of the agreement. Who knows that before the negotiation, the US side changed its face again, threatened to raise the tariff rate on China and Canada, and carried it out flagrantly during the negotiation.

The U.S. side said that Chinas retrogression was a complete reversal, said Wei Jianguo, deputy director and executive vice-director of the China Center for International Economic Exchange. May I ask the U.S. side, how can we betray our faith? What have we overthrown? On the contrary, what we have talked about in the first nine times is precisely the fact that the United States has not kept its promises, broken its promise, said nothing and overturned it at the last moment.

Geng Shuang disclosed that the 11th round of Sino-US negotiations almost synchronized with taxation: The Chinese team is still going to the United States for consultations, showing the utmost sincerity in promoting the resolution of differences through responsible actions. But some Americans seem to have misjudged the situation, underestimated Chinas determination and willingness to safeguard its own rights and interests, continued to confuse people and ask for prices all the time. Of course, China should definitely oppose this and resolutely resist it.

Any country will make this choice in the face of unreasonable trade requirements.

Two sincere and active approaches, two sudden changes of face and direct taxation, time to who is treacherous made the best answer. Negotiations are not accomplished overnight, and repeated games are common. It is an underestimation of the will and determination of the Chinese people to think that trade bullying can achieve its goal. Reporters noted that after the eleventh round of high-level economic and trade consultation between China and the United States, China also stressed that the agreement must be equal and mutually beneficial, and that no concession should be made on major principles.

From historical experience, other countries will also emphasize in their negotiations with the United States that the United States itself should make corresponding adjustments, in addition to requests from the United States side. China emphasizes that non-tariff means are not only Chinas requirements, but also rational choices made by countries in the face of unreasonable trade requirements. Dong Yan, Director of International Trade Office, Institute of World Economy and Politics, Academy of Social Sciences, said.

Alicia Garcia Erero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at the French Foreign Trade Bank, argues that Trumps sudden shift in negotiation strategy shows more despair than strength, by raising tariffs from 10% to 25% on some Chinese imports to the United States and threatening to raise tariffs in the same way on other Chinese imports to the United States. The Financial Times website quoted Chinese experts as saying that the United States can hardly defeat China through trade.

Source: Responsible Editor of Voice of China: Li Wan_B11284