US and Chinese officials meet in London for pivotal trade talks
LONDON: Top US and Chinese officials were meeting in London on Monday to try to defuse a high-stakes trade dispute that has widened beyond tit-for-tat tariffs to restrictions over rare earths, threatening to cripple supply chains and slow global growth.
Officials from the two superpowers were meeting at the ornate Lancaster House to try to get back on track with a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva that had briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing. Since then the US has accused China of slow-walking on its commitments, particularly around rare earths shipments. US economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Monday that the US team wanted a handshake from China on rare earths after Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping spoke last week.
'The purpose of the meeting today is to make sure that they're serious, but to literally get handshakes,' Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told CNBC in an interview. He said the expectation was that immediately after the handshake, export controls would be eased and rare earths released in volume.
The talks, which could run into Tuesday, come at a crucial time for both economies, with investors looking for relief from Trump's cascade of tariff orders since his return to the White House in January.
China's export growth slowed to a three-month low in May while its factory-gate deflation deepened to its worst level in two years.
In the US, the trade war has put a huge dent in business and household confidence, and first-quarter gross domestic product contracted due to a record surge in imports as Americans front loaded purchases to beat anticipated price increases.
But for now, the impact on inflation has been muted, and the jobs market has remained fairly resilient, though economists expect cracks to become more apparent over the summer.
Attending the talks in London will be US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng.
The inclusion of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the US, is one indication of how central rare earths have become. China holds a near-monopoly on rare earth magnets, a crucial component in electric vehicle motors.
Lutnick did not attend the Geneva talks at which the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other.
The second round of meetings comes four days after Trump and Xi spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration. During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary.
But Trump said on social media the talks focused primarily on trade led to 'a very positive conclusion,' setting the stage for Monday's meeting in London. The next day, Trump said Xi had agreed to resume shipments to the US of rare earths minerals and magnets and Reuters reported on Friday that China has granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three US automakers. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Newer world order in Trump era — and Pakistan
Listen to article After President Donald Trump's second coming to the Oval Office, the US ways, means and ends of foreign policy are witnessing a transformation. The evolving 'Newer World Order', though dynamic and transitory, needs to be understood. Deciphering President Trump's speeches, announcements, presidential orders, tweets and utterances of last five months, it can be concluded that "trade and tariffs" are the principle means of his interstate relations philosophy. He is well focused at realising his electioneering slogan 'Make America Great Again', for which he is trying to rejuvenate the US economy, bring FDI, reinvigorate the industrial sector, create more jobs, secure US homeland against crimes and illegal immigration, save on extra expenditure made overseas, shift responsibility of defence to self-help by partners and collect more tariffs on imports to reduce taxes on American citizens. His major worry appears to be the back-breaking US debt of trillions of dollars. This approach has been well reflected in his visit to the Middle East where he was successful in securing trillions of dollars of investments and billions of dollars of sales in defence, technology and aviation sectors. Trump portrays himself as anti-war, but perhaps he is for short military showdowns, trade wars and employment of economic coercion to attain his policy ends. Manifestation of this approach was also seen during the last month's Indian aggression against Pakistan, and Pakistan's effective and successful counter offensive. He has reiterated multiple times the role played by him and the US secretary of state in brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. It is inferred that, during his presidency, US interstate relations shall be increasingly woven around trade and economy, rather than security. Trump desires to go down in the history as an American President who helped stop major conflicts in the world, and took his country out of colossal debt and deficit. Trump is likely to help bring peace in the Middle East and work for 'two-state solution' to realise his dream of 'Abraham Accords'. KSA and Turkey are also playing a role in his peace efforts. Lifting of sanctions on Syria, meeting with the Syrian president and expression of hope that a deal could be reached with Iran are positive indicators. Iran is expected to be pragmatic as well. President Trump is ardently working for a ceasefire in Ukraine, and get closer to Russia — perhaps to forestall Russia and China getting into an unmanageable alliance. Though a priority, containment of China may retake shape of 'Congagemnent' during his tenure. China making great strides in high-end technology would wish to maintain pace of its comprehensive rise by avoiding conflicts and developing a good working relationship with the US. However, to protect its interests, China is expected to remain assertive in all domains. The US is likely to continue trade with China, but on more favourable terms. Important fact is that finding an alternative to high quality Chinese products on cost effective rates for US consumers in short term may not be possible. China has been a trusted ally of Pakistan. The China-Pakistan friendship bond has gained newer heights during the May 2025 Pak-India War. Pakistan's grit and tenacity and its courageous, swift, skilful, comprehensive and lethal response to the Indian aggression must have impressed the friends and foes alike. At this point in time, Pakistan and China, their people and militaries are closer than ever before. China will continue to support Pakistan unequivocally. This relationship is likely to experience stress due to the enduring US-China competition. It is important that an understanding is developed in the western capitals that for Pakistan, in the absence of any alternative, the only choice for realising ends of its comprehensive 'National Security Policy' that is predicated on geo-economics, remains the People's Republic of China. The recent China-Pakistan-Afghanistan tripartite meeting and PM Shehbaz Sharif's visit to Turkiye, Iran and Azerbaijan — aimed at conveying gratitude for their support during the Indian aggression, reaffirming the closer relation and expanding the ties to make the mutually beneficial friendship even stronger — is a step in right direction. The warm welcome and pleasant exchanges reflect mutual desires to strengthen the exiting bonds. The second tripartite meeting held between Pakistan, Turkiye and Azerbaijan at Lachin in Azerbaijan further manifests the growing understanding between Pakistan and the regional countries. The PM and his delegation also visited Tajikistan to strengthen the bilateral cooperation in multifaceted areas. Russia and Pakistan are getting closer too, which is being seen as a very positive development. Pakistan has sent delegations to various countries of the world to forge an understanding in the comity of nations to communicate Pakistan's position on perpetuating Indian arrogance and aggressiveness as against Pakistan's desire for enduring peace and stability in the region. Pakistan has been making efforts to develop good relations with all the neighbours, including India. Unfortunately, Indian intransigence remained a hurdle. The impasse seems to have been broken by the short but intense May 2025 War, imposed on Pakistan by the rash Indian leadership, and the ceasefire sought by India through the US. President Trump has expressed his willingness to help resolve the Kashmir dispute by convening a Pakistan-India meeting in some third country — something that is being considered a silver lining. The global milieu engenders quest to forge peace and enhance trade instead of war. Pakistan should continue trying to avoid conflicts and have good relations with all the countries, including India. The US president's promise of mediation must be pursued for resolution of the Kashmir dispute, reversal of Indian announcement of holding IWT in abeyance and restoration of special status of IIOJK. Very good relations with China, the US, the UK, EU, Gulf states, Turkiye, Afghanistan and Iran warrant added focus by Pakistan. Connectivity is the way forward for mutually beneficial socio-economic development and societal emancipation.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Relevance of 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals' by Chomsky
Listen to article In a 1962 article Chomsky wrote that those with knowledge and influence must use their intellect to challenge falsehoods and reveal the truth. Intellectuals, whether scholars, journalists or thinkers, have a duty to question power structures and educate the public. Silence in the face of deception allows misinformation to spread. Intellectuals are in a position to expose lies of governments: in the western world intellectuals have the power coming from political liberty, access to information and freedom of expression. They can unravel the truth from the veil of falsehood, deception and class under which the present is depicted. The responsibility of the intellectual is far greater than the common man lacking the facilities and leisure to delve into questions of truth and lies. We can hardly ask ourselves to what extent the American people bear responsibility for the savage assault on a rural Vietnamese people and the Israel inflictions upon the hapless, unarmed population of Gaza. Not only is the Israel assault overwhelming but indiscriminate and genocidal. The realpotick viewpoint of US intellectuals is reflected in the suggestion of Yale University's Prof Rowe that with a view to quell communist threat in Vietnam and other South Asian countries, all the surplus wheat of Canada and the US be buried in order to cause starvation in China not as a weapon of extermination of people, which it will result in, but as a weapon against government, as the internal stability of the country cannot be maintained in the face of general starvation. Rowe has no qualms of moralism, leading one to the conclusion that this policy is the same as Ostpolitick of Nazi Germany. It is easy for the American intellectual to deliver homilies on the virtues of liberty and freedom but if he is really concerned about, say Chinese totalitarianism or the burdens imposed on the peasantry in forced industrialisation, he should undertake a task that is infinitely more significant and challenging — the task of creating, in the US, the intellectual and moral climate, as well as the social and economic conditions that would permit the US to participate in modernisation and development in poor countries in a way commensurate with its material wealth and technical capacity. Massive capital gifts to Cuba and China (in 1950s) might not succeed in alleviating the authoritarianism and terror that tend to accompany early stages of capital accumulation, but they are far more likely to have this effect than lectures on democratic values. Discourses on the two-party system or other democratic values that have been realised in the west are a monstrous irrelevance in the face of the effort that is required to raise the level of culture in western society to the point where it can provide a "social lever" for both economic development and development of true democratic institutions in the Third World. An arch example of a western intellectual is symbolised by how Churchill said to Stalin in Tehran in 1934: "The government of the world must be entrusted to satisfied nations who wished nothing more for themselves than what they had. If the world-government were in the hands of hungry nations they would always be in danger." It was not military aid funnelled from the North to South Vietnam up to 1964. Most of the aid was in the form of "doctrinal material" and "political leadership" rather than in military assistance. All of this is of course reasonable, so long as we accept the fundamental political axiom that the US, with its traditional concern for the weak and downtrodden, and with its unique insight into the proper mode of development for backward countries, must have the courage and persistence "to impose its will by force" until such time as other nations are prepared to accept these truths or to simply abandon hope. It is also the responsibility of the intellectual to view events in their historical perspective. As Munich showed, a powerful and aggressive nation with a fanatic belief in its manifest destiny will regard each victory as a prelude to the next one. Herein lies the danger of appeasement as the Chinese tirelessly point out to the Russians, which they claim is playing Chamberlain to our Hitler in Vietnam. Of course the aggressiveness of liberal imperialism is not the same as that of Nazi Germany: we do not want to occupy Asia. The west merely wants "to help the Asian countries progress towards economic modernization as relatively 'open' and 'stable' societies to which western access is free and comfortable." Chomsky says, "Recent history shows that it makes little difference to us as to what form of government a country has as long as it remains an open society a society which remains open to American economic penetrative or political control. If it is necessary the west will approach genocide in Vietnam [Iraq, Syria, Gaza] and this is the price we must pay in defense of freedom and the rights of man." Meagher and Hobart said before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "If it was possible, India would probably prefer to import technicians and know how rather than foreign corporations. Since this is not possible therefore India accepts foreign capital as a necessary evil." During the early period, US entrepreneurs insisted upon importing all equipment and machinery where India had a tested capacity to meet some of their requirements. By adopting strict import and price restrictions, America has helped India and other developing countries to become open societies. "Based upon a proper understanding of the core of American ideology, namely the sanctity of the individual in relation to the state in this way the US refutes the simple minded belief of the Asians that the West has been driven and then to cling on to its imperial holdings by the inevitable workings of capitalist economics."( Eugene Rostow). In pursuing the aim of helping other countries to progress towards open societies, with no thought or desire of territorial aggrandizement, we don't see any new ground being broken. This was the policy used by Britain in India during the 18th and 19th centuries of no conquest but in a conceited fashion shortly after the initial economic steps, actually conquest was in full swing.
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US envoy says he does not think Palestinian state is US policy goal, Bloomberg reports
WASHINGTON: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said he did not think that an independent Palestinian state remains a goal of U.S. foreign policy, according to an interview with Bloomberg News released on Tuesday. 'I don't think so,' Huckabee said when asked if a Palestinian state remains a goal of U.S. policy, Bloomberg reported. Asked whether Huckabee's remarks represented a change in U.S. policy, U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment, saying policy-making was a matter for President Donald Trump and the White House. 'I'm not going to characterize the ambassador's remarks. I'm not going to explain them or really comment on them at all. I think he certainly speaks for himself,' Bruce told a regular press briefing. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Huckabee's remarks. US asking countries for 'voluntary' Palestinian relocation: Rubio Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is a staunch pro-Israel conservative picked by Trump to be his envoy to Israel. 'Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there's no room for it,' Huckabee was quoted as saying. Those probably won't happen 'in our lifetime,' he told the news agency. Trump, in his first term, was relatively tepid in his approach to a two-state solution, a longtime pillar of U.S. Middle East policy, and he has given little sign of where he stands on the issue in his second term. Huckabee suggested a piece of land could be carved out of a Muslim country rather than asking Israel to make room. 'Does it have to be in Judea and Samaria?' Huckabee said, using the biblical name the Israeli government favors for the West Bank, where some 3 million Palestinians live under occupation. An evangelical Christian, Huckabee has been a vocal supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Trump has pursued strongly pro-Israel policies as president and his choice of Huckabee as ambassador signaled that they would continue.
