Chinese vice premier urges stronger China-US cooperation, less misunderstanding
Image: VCG
The United States should work with China to continue to enhance consensus, reduce misunderstandings, strengthen cooperation, further deepen dialogue and consultations, and strive for more win-win outcomes, Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng said on Tuesday.
A stable, healthy and sustainable China-US economic and trade relationship serves not only the two countries' respective development goals but also contributes to global economic growth and stability, He said.
He made the remarks during the new round of China-US economic and trade talks in Stockholm, Sweden on Monday and Tuesday with US lead person Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
During the economic and trade talks, the two sides held candid, in-depth and constructive discussions on China-US economic and trade relations, macroeconomic policies, and other trade and economic issues of mutual interest.
The two sides also reviewed and affirmed the implementation of the consensus reached in the economic and trade talks in Geneva and the framework agreed on in the London talks.
Based on the meeting consensus, both sides will continue pushing for a 90-day extension of the pause on 24% of reciprocal tariffs of the US side, as well as countermeasures of the Chinese side.
The economic and trade teams of China and the United States should take the important consensus reached by the two heads of state during their phone call on June 5 as a guide, uphold the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, respect each other's concerns, further consolidate consensus and deepen mutual trust, the Chinese vice premier said.
China's position on China-US economic and trade affairs is consistent, and the essence of China-US economic and trade relations lies in mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, He said.
Noting that the two sides share extensive common interests and a broad space for cooperation in the economy and trade areas, He said that cooperation between China and the United States benefits both sides, while confrontation harms both sides.
He urged both sides to continue adhering to the important consensus reached by the two heads of state during their phone talks and make full use of the role of the China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism.
The US side said that a stable US-China economic and trade relationship is of great significance to the economies of both countries and the world at large.
It added that the United States stands ready to work with the Chinese side to continue to resolve differences in the economic and trade field through the consultation mechanism, promote more outcomes from the talks, and further stabilise bilateral economic and trade relations.
CGTN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Nvidia to pay US 15% of AI chip sales to China: reports
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang met with US President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday and agreed to give the federal government the cut from its revenues, a highly unusual arrangement in the international tech trade, according to reports in the Financial Times, Bloomberg and New York Times. Image: Li Hongbo / CFoto via AFP US semiconductor giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices have agreed to pay the United States government 15 percent of their revenue from selling artificial intelligence chips to China, according to media reports Sunday. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang met with US President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday and agreed to give the federal government the cut from its revenues, a highly unusual arrangement in the international tech trade, according to reports in the Financial Times, Bloomberg and New York Times. AFP was not able to immediately verify the reports. Investors are betting that AI will transform the global economy, and last month Nvidia -- the world's leading semiconductor producer -- became the first company ever to hit $4 trillion in market value. The California-based firm has, however, become entangled in trade tensions between China and the United States, which are waging a heated battle for dominance to produce the chips that power AI. The US has been restricting which chips Nvidia can export to China on national security grounds. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Nvidia said last month that Washington had pledged to let the company sell its "H20" chips to China, which are a less powerful version the tech giant specifically developed for the Chinese market. The Trump administration had not issued licenses to allow Nvidia to sell the chips before the reported White House meeting. On Friday, however, the Commerce Department started granting the licenses for chip sales, the reports said. Silicon Valley-based Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will also pay 15 percent of revenue on Chinese sales of its MI308 chips, which it was previously barred from exporting to the country. The deal could earn the US government more than $2 billion, according to the New York Times report. The move comes as the Trump administration has been imposing stiff tariffs, with goals varying from addressing US trade imbalances, wanting to reshore manufacturing and pressuring foreign governments to change policies.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
As Trump slaps 30% tariffs on SA, Africa's trade reckoning has arrived
The revival of sweeping US tariffs under President Donald Trump's administration has once again placed developing economies — particularly those in Africa — on the frontlines of a trade war not of their own making. Trump's latest imposition of tariffs on more than 90 countries is not just a reordering of the global trade hierarchy — it's a jarring signal that developing countries can no longer rely on the goodwill of powerful economies to access international markets without political strings attached. Although Africa is not a direct target of the tariffs, South Africa now stands as an explicit casualty. As of 7 August, a 30% tariff on all South African goods entering the US was in effect — two days after President Cyril Ramaphosa reportedly called Trump in a last-minute effort to negotiate. The Presidency issued a statement highlighting ongoing trade dialogue, but the timing of the enforcement — just hours later — laid bare the limitations of diplomatic overtures in an era of economic unilateralism. Make no mistake: this is not just a diplomatic skirmish. It is the opening salvo in a trade war that threatens to destabilise Africa's economic recovery. While Ramaphosa has demonstrated admirable restraint and commitment to dialogue, the Trump administration has chosen economic unilateralism over bilateral engagement. The tariff trap and global trade reordering These tariffs are more than mere economic tools — they are a form of political signalling with deep global consequences. Trump's protectionism undercuts decades of progress in trade liberalisation and reveals a worrying disregard for the multilateral trading system. For South Africa, this represents not just a blow to exports — especially in automotive parts, citrus and wine — but a broader signal of how vulnerable even middle-income African economies remain in global trade diplomacy. Sadly, African states are still rule takers, not rule makers, in international trade talks. The risk of dumping and trade distortion The fallout from this tariff will not be contained within US-SA trade flows. African markets, which often lack robust anti-dumping laws, are likely to face a surge in cheap goods — steel, textiles, electronics — originally destined for the US. Dumping will devastate local industries that are already fragile and undercapitalised. It will also widen Africa's trade deficit and increase unemployment, especially in the manufacturing sector. In some cases, these distortions may trigger retaliatory actions or increased subsidies, raising the spectre of full-blown trade wars among developing economies that can least afford them. It can be argued that many of the support programmes to soften the US tariffs and targeting exporters or specific sectors (automotive, agriculture) may make them 'specific' subsidies, particularly if the support is contingent on export performance or import substitution — and hence not subject to World Trade Organization rules on prohibited or actionable subsidies. In the short term, the South African support strategy is probably permissible, especially under the public interest and development exceptions in World Trade Organization rules — and considering the retaliatory nature of the US tariffs (which itself may breach World Trade Organization norms). But the risk for countervailing measures by countries like the US increases, especially if support remains narrowly targeted to exporters with major price impact in other countries' domestic markets, and if South Africa succeeds in replacing US markets with World Trade Organization members like the EU, Japan, or China. This is a form of economic suffocation that will not be televised, but it will be felt. Ramaphosa's tariff gamble and strategic misalignment Ramaphosa's attempt at quiet diplomacy — both during his May visit to the US and again in the last-minute phone call — reflects South Africa's preference for stability and negotiation. However, such strategies appear tragically mismatched against Trump's zero-sum, populist economics. In the absence of a coherent and reciprocal response from Washington, South Africa's strategy may need to shift from engagement to economic repositioning. To date, Pretoria has pursued selective sectoral lobbying, winning small concessions on seasonal fruit exports, but this has done little to protect the broader economy. It is time South Africa recognises that trade diplomacy with Trump's America may no longer be conducted on traditional terms. Interestingly, Pretoria has condemned the US tariffs as unjust and economically incoherent. Government officials argue the move ignores South Africa's complementary role in US supply chains and the fact that more than 75% of American goods enter South Africa duty free. Ramaphosa's administration had even offered investments and LNG purchases under a proposed bilateral framework agreement, which remains unacknowledged by Washington. In response, South Africa has launched a comprehensive, multi-pronged support strategy aimed at cushioning the economic blow: An export support desk has been created to help South African firms explore new international markets. A competitiveness support programme offers financial aid and equipment to manufacturers hit by tariffs. A Local Production Support Fund has been deployed to incentivise import substitution and protect local industry. Competition law exemptions now allow exporters to collaborate on logistics and cost sharing. Additionally, the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) has been activated to absorb job losses, estimated at up to 100,000, especially in the automotive and agricultural sectors. Unemployment was already at a staggering 32.9% before the tariffs. Automotive exports to the US have since collapsed by more than 80%, with ripple effects expected across the citrus, wine and table grape industries. South Africa's rapid-response strategy is laudable in ambition, but its long-term sustainability remains in question. Globally, such programmes — emergency subsidies, market reorientation initiatives, and support funds — have shown mixed success. Similar export pivot efforts in Latin America and Southeast Asia have often struggled under the weight of slow bureaucratic implementation, limited state capacity to disburse funds efficiently, and over-reliance on uncertain new markets South Africa's response hinges on three critical variables: the agility of state agencies; the effectiveness of business uptake; and the readiness of alternative markets to absorb redirected exports. Any slippage in these areas could render the response insufficient and deepen the crisis. Moreover, such trade support frameworks are financially intensive. Without new revenue streams or international financing, Pretoria's ability to sustain these programmes over the medium term may falter, especially in a fiscally constrained environment. China: Opportunistic ally or economic colonist? Meanwhile, China has wasted no time in offering African nations softer loan terms, lower tariffs and increased trade lines. But we must not romanticise this pivot. As some scholars have warned, China's Belt and Road incentives often come entangled with opaque loan conditions and regulatory conditionalities and debt entanglements. While Beijing may offer a short-term trade parachute, the long-term cost may be strategic dependency. In this geopolitical chessboard, African economies are too often pawns, never players. Geopolitically, South Africa's BRICS+ alignment may also be shaping Washington's posture. Trump's recent remarks at the BRICS+ summit in Rio warned of consequences for countries backing 'anti-American' initiatives. This, combined with ideological differences over racial justice and Israel-Palestine legal disputes, is adding friction to an already fragile diplomatic relationship. AfCFTA: No longer a dream, but an urgent necessity If there's a silver lining to this tariff tsunami, it is the wake-up call it offers to the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The World Bank has made it clear: AfCFTA has the potential to lift 30 million people out of poverty and increase intra-African trade by more than 80%. Yet, implementation remains painfully slow, stalled by bureaucratic inefficiencies, political inertia and infrastructural gaps. The Trump tariffs must now serve as an economic alarm. Africa can no longer afford to rely on goodwill from the West, nor can it keep putting off the structural integration that AfCFTA promises. It is time to move from intention to execution. A new doctrine for African trade The 30% tariff imposed on South Africa is not an isolated event — it is a glimpse into a future where the Global South must fend for itself. Ramaphosa's call to Trump may have bought a sliver of diplomatic capital, but it also exposed the limits of soft power when faced with hard tariffs. Africa's path forward is clear. It must diversify its trading partners, strengthen intra-African markets, develop robust trade remedy frameworks and reduce its vulnerability to the whims of any single superpower. If Trump's tariffs represent the thunder, then the lightning must be Africa's resolve to trade with itself and chart its own economic course. Anything less would be economic negligence. The unpredictability of Trump's tariff doctrine underlines a broader truth: no African country can afford to hinge its economic future on the benevolence or volatility of a single trading partner. For South Africa, the US remains its second-largest trading partner, with $17.64-billion in bilateral trade in 2023. But such exposure comes with risks, especially when preferential access can be withdrawn overnight. The International Trade Centre and UN Trade and Development have long warned of these vulnerabilities, urging diversification and intra-African trade expansion as long-term solutions. If this trade turbulence does anything, let it be a clarion call to accelerate the building of resilient, intra-continental supply chains, create robust trade remedy institutions and reduce overexposure to foreign economic storms. African countries must learn to trade more with each other and less at the mercy of superpowers with shifting agendas. For Africa, the path forward is not looking outwards for salvation — it is looking inwards for strength. DM
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
National Convention spokesperson clarifies R700m budget as draft for people's dialogue
The National Convention spokesperson Rev Zwoitwaho Nevhutalu says the R700m budget for the national dialogue is provisional, with most funds aimed at 13,600 community discussions on South Africa's future, funded by both government and donors. Image: GCIS National Convention spokesperson Rev Zwoitwaho Nevhutalu has clarified that the widely discussed R700 million budget for the national dialogue was not a government allocation but a draft figure prepared by the preparatory task team. The National Dialogue is scheduled to take place on August 15 to 16, 2025, in Pretoria. Speaking at a media briefing at UNISA on Monday on the state of readiness to host the first Convention on National Dialogue, Nevhutalu stressed that the initiative is a 'people's project' and not solely a government undertaking. The clarification comes after the estimated R700 million price tag ignited a wave of criticism from trade unions, political parties, academics, and sectors of civil society, especially in a context of austerity measures, service delivery failures, and deepening inequality. 'You see, the budget that people were talking about, the R700 million and so on, it was a budget prepared by the preparatory task team. It's not a government budget,' Nevhutalu said. He explained that the conceptual funding framework envisages 60% of costs being covered by the government through the fiscus, while the remaining 40% would come from donors in cash and in kind. He noted that contributions would be sought from businesses, the private sector, and civil society, with organisations such as churches and municipalities providing infrastructure and venues. 'Civil society has already done a lot,' he said. Nevhutalu said most of the proposed funding would go towards community dialogues, which are planned to take place in every ward across the country. 'It is expected that we're going to have three dialogues per ward for the duration. I think it comes to like 13,600 dialogues,' he said. These sessions will focus on grassroots discussions about the future vision of South Africa. He emphasised that the budget remains provisional, with Treasury still in discussions over the government's contribution. Entities will also be approached and mobilised by the steering committee and eminent persons groups to secure additional support, he said. 'This is a people's project. It's not something that is really a government project,' Nevhutalu said. The National Dialogue, however has been rocked by the withdrawal of several prominent organisations, including the Steve Biko Foundation, Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, WDB Foundation, Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group. In a joint statement issued on Friday, the group said the decision was made with 'deep regret,' but was necessary to protect the process's credibility and integrity. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading They accused the organisers of shifting the initiative away from its citizen-led origins toward government control. 'What began as a citizen-led initiative has unfortunately in practice shifted towards government control,' the statement read. 'In pushing forward for a Convention on August 15, at the will of government officials and against the advice of the Sub-Committee Chairs, we believe that a critical moment in which citizens should be leading will be undermined.' The group raised concerns about a rushed timeline, inadequate logistics, and a lack of meaningful engagement. They warned that the Convention, as currently planned, risked becoming more symbolic than substantive. 'The rushed timeline, constrained logistics, and limited interactive design mean that the proposed Convention no longer offers a meaningful platform for engagement,' they said. 'It risks becoming more performance than participation.' They also cited possible violations of the Public Finance Management Act due to 'emergency procurement' processes and unresolved disagreements within the Planning and Technical Task Team (PTT). While they have withdrawn from the August 15 event and related planning structures, the Foundations reaffirmed their commitment to the broader goals of the National Dialogue. They proposed that the Convention be rescheduled for December 15, 2025, allowing for better preparation and ensuring participatory integrity. 'We cannot pursue that goal by cutting corners, centralising power, or rushing the process,' they said. Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. IOL Politics
