Trade war avoidable if US will ‘act like a superpower', China says as Aug 12 deadline looms
Wang Wentao urges United States to act like a superpower
China facing August 12 tariff deadline
BEIJING, July 18 — China wants to bring its trade ties with the US back to a stable footing, its commerce minister said, adding that recent talks in Europe showed there was no need for a tariff war while urging the US to act in a manner befitting of a superpower.
Commerce Minister Wang Wentao told reporters on Friday that the 'ups and downs' in the two countries' relationship underscored their economic interdependence.
Asked about the United States specifically, Wang said: 'Major countries should act like major countries. They must shoulder their responsibilities,' adding that China would protect its national interests.
China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with the United States, after Beijing and Washington reached a preliminary deal last month to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs.
If no deal is reached, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from duties exceeding 100 per cent.
Wang said negotiations in Geneva and London earlier this year demonstrated there was no need to return to a trade war.
'Practice has proven that through dialogue and consultation, with leadership and communication at the highest levels, we can properly manage contradictions and resolve our differences,' he said.
'We will continue to strengthen dialogue and communication, deepen consensus, reduce misunderstandings, enhance cooperation, to jointly put China-US economic and trade relations back on track to achieve healthy, stable and sustainable development.'
China's rare earths exports rose 32 per cent month-on-month in June, customs data showed on Monday, in a sign that agreements struck last month in London to free up the flow of the metals were possibly bearing fruit.
Chipmaker Nvidia will also resume selling its H20 AI chips to China, Chief Executive Jensen Huang said at an event in Beijing this week, a move US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said was also part of negotiations on rare earths.
Wang said on Friday that he had met Huang the previous day, describing the meeting as evidence that 'as the dust settles, everyone has come to the conclusion – especially the US side – that forced decoupling is impossible.'
Wang said the current overall tariff level imposed by the US on China was 'still high' at 53.6 per cent.
Analysts have said that additional duties exceeding 35 per cent will probably wipe out Chinese manufacturers' profit margins.
'Both sides have come to understand that they need each other, as lots of the goods and services that we exchange are irreplaceable, or at least difficult to exchange in the short-term,' Wang said.
'China does not want a trade war, but it is not afraid of one,' he reiterated. (US$1 = 7.1811 Chinese yuan renminbi) — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
a minute ago
- The Star
Oil rises as US-EU deal boosts trade optimism
SINGAPORE: Oil prices rose on Monday after the United States clinched a trade deal with the European Union and may extend a tariff pause with China, relieving concerns that higher levies could have hurt economic activity and limited fuel demand. Brent crude futures inched up 20 cents, or 0.29%, to $68.64 a barrel by 0336 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude stood at $65.31 a barrel, up 15 cents, or 0.23%. The US-European Union trade deal and a possible extension in the US-China tariff pause are supporting global financial markets and oil prices, IG markets analyst Tony Sycamore said. "With the risk of a prolonged trade war and the importance of the August tariff deadlines being steadily defused, markets have responded positively," he added in a note. Sunday's US-EU framework trade pact sets an import tariff of 15% on most EU goods, half the threatened rate. The deal averted a bigger trade war between two allies that account for almost one-third of global trade and could crimp fuel demand. Also set for Monday is a meeting in Stockholm of senior US and Chinese negotiators aiming to extend before an August 12 deadline a truce holding off sharply higher tariffs. Oil prices settled on Friday at their lowest in three weeks weighed down by global trade concerns and expectations of more oil supply from Venezuela. State-run oil company PDVSA is readying to resume work at its joint ventures under terms similar to Biden-era licenses, once U.S. President Donald Trump reinstates authorisations for its partners to operate and export oil under swaps, company sources said. Though prices were up slightly on Monday, gains were limited by the prospect of OPEC+ further easing supply curbs. A market monitoring panel of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their allies is set to meet at 1200 GMT on Monday. It is unlikely to recommend altering existing plans by eight members to raise oil output by 548,000 barrels per day in August, four OPEC+ delegates said last week, though another source said it was too early to say. ING expects OPEC+ will at least complete the full return of 2.2 million barrels per day of the additional voluntary supply cuts by the end of September. That would work out to a supply hike in September of at least 280,000 barrels per day. However, there is clearly room for a more aggressive hike. The producer group is keen to recover market share while summer demand is helping to absorb the extra barrels. JP Morgan analysts said global oil demand rose by 600,000 bpd in July on year, while global oil stocks rose 1.6 million bpd. In the Middle East, Yemen's Houthis said on Sunday they would target ships of companies that do business with Israeli ports, regardless of nationality, in what they called a fourth phase of military operations against Israel over the Gaza conflict. - Reuters
The Star
a minute ago
- The Star
US-China set to meet with extension of tariff pause on the cards
STOCKHOLM/WASHINGTON: Top economic officials from the United States and China are set to renew negotiations Monday (July 28) -- with an extension of lower tariff levels on the cards -- as President Donald Trump's trade policy enters a critical week. Talks between the world's top two economies are slated to happen over two days in the Swedish capital Stockholm, and they come as other countries are also rushing to finalise deals with Washington. For dozens of trading partners, failing to strike an agreement in the coming days means they could face significant tariff hikes on exports to the United States come Friday, Aug 1. The steeper rates, threatened against partners like Brazil and India, would raise the duties their products face from a "baseline" of 10 per cent now to levels up to 50 per cent. Tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have already effectively raised duties on US imports to levels not seen since the 1930s, according to data from The Budget Lab research centre at Yale University. For now, all eyes are on discussions between Washington and Beijing as a delegation including US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent meets a Chinese team led by Vice Premier He Lifeng in Sweden. While both countries in April imposed tariffs on each other's products that reached triple-digit levels, US duties this year have temporarily been lowered to 30 per cent and China's countermeasures slashed to 10 per cent. But the 90-day truce, instituted after talks in Geneva in May, is set to expire on Aug 12. Since the Geneva meeting, the two sides have convened in London to iron out disagreements. "There seems to have been a fairly significant shift in (US) administration thinking on China since particularly the London talks," said Emily Benson, head of strategy at Minerva Technology Futures. "The mood now is much more focused on what's possible to achieve, on warming relations where possible and restraining any factors that could increase tensions," she told AFP. Talks with China have not produced a deal but Benson said both countries have made progress, with certain rare earth and semiconductor flows restarting. "Secretary Bessent has also signalled that he thinks a concrete outcome will be to delay the 90-day tariff pause," she said. "That's also promising, because it indicates that something potentially more substantive is on the horizon." The South China Morning Post, citing sources on both sides, reported Sunday that Washington and Beijing are expected to extend their tariff pause by another 90 days. Trump has announced pacts so far with the European Union, Britain, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines, although details have been sparse. An extension of the US-China deal to keep tariffs at reduced levels "would show that both sides see value in continuing talks", said Thibault Denamiel, a fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. US-China Business Council President Sean Stein said the market is not anticipating a detailed readout from Stockholm: "What's more important is the atmosphere coming out." "The business community is optimistic that the two presidents will meet later this year, hopefully in Beijing," he told AFP. "It's clear that on both sides, the final decision-maker is going to be the president." Sweden's Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said both countries' willingness to meet was a "positive development". For others, the prospect of higher US tariffs and few details from fresh trade deals mark "a far cry from the ideal scenario", said Denamiel. But they show some progress, particularly with partners Washington has signalled are on its priority list like the EU, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea. The EU unveiled a pact with Washington on Sunday while Seoul is rushing to strike an agreement, after Japan and the Philippines already reached the outlines of deals. Breakthroughs have been patchy since Washington promised a flurry of agreements after unveiling, and then swiftly postponing, tariff hikes targeting dozens of economies in April. Denamiel warned of overlooking countries that fall outside Washington's priority list. Solid partnerships are needed, he said, if Washington wants to diversify supply chains, enforce advanced technology controls, and tackle excess Chinese capacity. - Reuters
Malay Mail
a minute ago
- Malay Mail
When maps can lead to serious conflict: Another thorn in the Thai-Cambodian border dispute — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 28 — In South-east Asia, borders are not just lines — they are living legacies of colonial cartography, shifting sovereignties, and unresolved nation-building. The latest escalation in the Thai-Cambodian conflict reveals how something as seemingly technical as a map scale can become a powder keg of geopolitical tension. At the centre of this intensifying dispute lies a bitter disagreement: Thailand insists on the use of a 1:50,000 map; Cambodia refuses anything but the 1:200,000 version. To the untrained eye, these figures may seem inconsequential. But for seasoned observers of regional politics, this divergence underscores a broader battle over historical legitimacy, territorial sovereignty, and competing national narratives. To understand the friction, we must start with the scales themselves. Thailand's preferred map, at a scale of 1:50,000, is a product of meticulous cartography developed by its Royal Survey Department with technical input from the United States. It is based on the Mercator projection, which privileges accurate distance and direction — critical for military, civil, and administrative functions. This map presents a high-resolution portrait of the Thai-Cambodian border: every ridge, river, road, and village finely rendered, leaving little to interpretation. In contrast, Cambodia clings to a 1:200,000 scale map, originally produced by France during its colonial rule. This map, though far less detailed — 1 centimetre equating to 2 kilometres — is deeply embedded in Cambodia's legal and historical identity. Anchored in the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907, the map is not only a symbolic relic but the very foundation of Cambodia's official border claims. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) famously drew upon this map when awarding Cambodia control of the Preah Vihear Temple in 1962. While the ICJ did not endorse the map's precision, its citation in such a landmark case fortified Cambodia's reliance on it. At the heart of the controversy is not just scale, but projection. Thailand's Mercator-based map distorts area but preserves direction and shape — ideal for navigation but problematic for representing equatorial landmasses. Cambodia's Sinusoidal projection, meanwhile, preserves area but distorts distances, especially at the edges. These divergent projections cannot be reconciled through simple overlay or conversion. The same stretch of land will appear in different locations depending on the map used. In areas like the Dangrek Mountains — home to contested temples, scam-infested outposts, and mine-laden terrain — the consequences of such discrepancies are not abstract. They are dangerous. An aerial view shows displaced people seeking shelter near a pagoda in Oddar Meanchey province, after fleeing their homes near the Cambodia-Thailand border July 26, 2025. — AFP pic Cambodia's rejection of Thailand's map stems from both technical incompatibility and principled opposition. Phnom Penh views Thailand's 1:50,000 map as a unilateral product — one not mutually agreed upon nor recognised in the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding that was supposed to guide border demarcation. By contrast, Cambodia sees its French-produced map as a jointly recognised baseline, affirmed through decades of diplomacy and legal proceedings. Cambodia further argues that Thailand's insistence on its newer map amounts to an ex post facto revision of territorial claims. Thailand, for its part, sees the Cambodian map as outdated, imprecise, and ill-suited to modern boundary work. Bangkok contends that the colonial-era map does not meet contemporary geospatial standards and was never intended for granular demarcation. Thai officials assert that sticking to such an antiquated artifact is neither practical nor fair in a world where satellite imagery, GPS, and GIS tools offer pinpoint accuracy. Yet, what may appear fair in technical terms may be perceived as threatening in historical and emotional terms. Indeed, behind the disagreement over maps lies a deeper asymmetry of perception. For Cambodia, maps are instruments of justice — evidence of colonial wounds and international validation. For Thailand, they are tools of utility — meant to reflect ground realities, not memorialise imperial cartography. When these worldviews collide, diplomacy becomes cartographically constrained, and escalation becomes dangerously probable. This is not the first time borders drawn on paper have spilled into bloodshed. The 2008 clashes over the Preah Vihear temple led to military confrontations, international mediation, and UN involvement. The scars from that episode linger. And now, in 2025, we see history repeat itself — this time not just over temples, but over how to measure the land they sit upon. Therein lies a sobering truth: when two sovereign nations cannot agree on the very tools to define their borders, the prospect of peaceful resolution grows dim. Without consensus on the instruments of demarcation — whether satellite-generated or colonial-derived — negotiations are reduced to parallel monologues. Dialogue becomes doubly difficult when the conceptual foundations are misaligned. What then is the path forward? It is time Asean steps up — not to impose — but to facilitate a technological and diplomatic compromise. Third-party cartographic mediation, perhaps involving neutral institutions like the United Nations or regional geospatial experts, could help develop an integrated digital mapping framework that overlays both scales and projections. A hybrid platform could account for historical maps while reconciling them with modern data. What matters is not to erase history or override sovereignty, but to find common ground in shared facts. The Thai-Cambodian border dispute is not merely a technical disagreement. It is a geopolitical and psychological struggle over history, power, and identity. Until both sides can agree on the most basic of instruments — a map — their path to peace will remain dangerously convoluted. Because in South-east Asia, as this dispute reminds us, even maps can lead to war. And when they do, it is not the lines that bleed — but the people who live along them. *Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is the Director of the Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He served as a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and is a Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar. **This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
