US-China Trade Talks Starting From May 9 In Switzerland
By Nitya Chakraborty
It is now official. After waiting for a few days since Donald Trump diluted the U.S. tariff rates for China and announced his intention for talks, China confirmed on Wednesday morning that a high level Chinese negotiating team will be visiting Switzerland for four days beginning May 9 to hold talks with the U.S. high level delegation led by the treasury secretary Scott Bessent. This was a result of back channel discussions carried out in the last few days by the two offices of President Trump and President Xi Jinping.
In the ongoing tariff war between U.S. and China, President Trump blinked first late last month when he brought down the rates on some Chinese goods and said that he would talk with President Xi and sort out. Soon after he said that he said that he talked to the Chinese President. He is in the habit of exaggerating. He did not speak directly to President Xi but his advisers were in touch with the officials of the Chinese President. So that way what Trump said about his meeting with Xi was half true. The officials of the two presidencies were talking.
Now after some basics were discussed, the two delegations will be meeting in a third country Switzerland for four days to go into details. The trade talks may not be conclusive this time but this will facilitate the process of holding further meetings so that Trump and Xi can finally meet and sign the agreement. What has to be remembered is that the trade talks are only a part of an overall agreement that Trump is trying to arrive with Xi Jinping as a part of his global narrative. This will be time consuming and if needed will be compartmentalised so that other areas are not affected.
The Chinese sources maintained after the announcement that China's position is consistent. Whether it is confrontation or negotiation, China's resolve to safeguard its development interests will never waver, neither will its stance and objectives in upholding international fairness and justice and the global economic and trade order. We will fight if we must. Our doors are open, if the US wants to talk. Dialogue and negotiation must be based on equality, respect and mutual benefit, the spokesperson continued.
He Weiwen, a senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, told the Global Times on Wednesday that the upcoming meeting between Chinese and US officials in Switzerland marks a positive development. 'The fact that the two sides will meet is a good sign, but the key lies in the US side,' He Weiwen noted, stressing that whether any substantial outcome emerges will depend on Washington's willingness to correct its unjust and illegal tariff policy – without preconditions or demands on China. 'There can only be meaningful negotiations if the US reverses its mistakes,' he said.
Global trade experts have noted that the Trump was more interested in early dialogue because his advisers told him that the Chinese President XI is talking to a large number of trade partners of U.S and if Trump still sticks to his strong tariff position on China and other countries, XI will make use of time to influence some more countries to take stand against the USA. The US has trade partnerships with 180 countries but most important are50 to 75 countries which the US president expect to start trade negotiations within the 90 day pause which expires in the first week of July this year.
Only on May 4 during the 28th ASEAN Plus Three Finance Ministers' and Central Bank Governors' Meeting which took place in Milan, Italy, ASEAN members along with China, Japan, and South Korea, called for enhanced regional unity and cooperation to address heightened uncertainties, including rising protectionism and volatile global financial conditions in a joint statement issued after the meeting.
The joint statement, which did not mention the US by name, came as sweeping new US tariffs threaten to hit Southeast Asia hard, Nikkei Asia reported.
Chinese Finance Minister Lan Fo'an attended the meeting and co-chaired some sessions. Lan emphasized that the global economy is undergoing profound adjustments, with globalization encountering headwinds and rising unilateralism and protectionism. Instability and uncertainties have notably increased. The 10+3 regional economies demonstrate strong resilience and have significant growth potential, but they also face complex and severe internal and external challenges.
China is willing to work with all parties in the 10+3 framework to uphold openness and inclusivity, promote solidarity and cooperation, and continuously deepen regional financial collaboration, in order to address global instability and uncertainty with the stability and certainty of this region, Lan said.
The joint statement issued after the meeting released on ASEAN website noted that 'escalating trade protectionism weighs on global trade, leading to economic fragmentation, affecting trade, investment, and capital flows across the region. Near-term prospects may also be affected by other external risks, including tighter global financial conditions, growth slowdown in major trading partners, and reduced investment flows.'
The US is most friendly with Japan and ASEAN countries but still the tone of the statement issued after the summit indicated the influence of China in giving it a direction against the Trump's unilateral tariff hike move. What China is doing now to outsmart the USA in trade diplomacy is that President Xi is presenting himself as the protagonist of rule based globalization as against the gross protectionism of the USA. The US advisers have noted this and have told Trump to engage China in trade negotiations so that other countries also follow.
The global tariff war has also affected China adversely in some sectors. Though China does not admit, the production scale been brought down in some sectors which have been highly affected in the latest tariff war. Chinese economy has resilience but it is so much dependent on export to the U.S. market that it has very limited options if Trump does not change his rates. Similarly Trump also has his compulsions in coming to a trade deal with China as early as possible. But geo politics is involved in a big way as two largest economies of the world fight for supremacy. The Switzerland talks from May 9 will indicate the trends of the evolving trade relationship between the two countries. (IPA Service)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
8 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Gulf Today
8 hours ago
- Gulf Today
How big of a threat is Asian superpower China really?
Daniel DePetris, Tribune News Service Last June, during an annual security conference in East Asia, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin underscored that the United States was not seeking conflict with China. Maintaining a consistent dialogue with Beijing, he hinted, was just as vital to effective deterrence as ensuring the US military was fully equipped and prepared. Fast-forward a year later and the message from Washington is far different. Unlike his predecessor, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth name-dropped China in his speech to the same security conference multiple times, as if to shame the Asian superpower for running roughshod over the so-called rules-based international order. China, Hegseth warned, was trying to become a hegemon in Asia, where it could dominate its neighbours, exploit the South China Sea's vast natural resources and coerce other countries into accepting Beijing's demands. In Hegseth's words, 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.' An invasion of Taiwan, he added, could be 'imminent.' If this all sounds scary, that's because it is. His comments raise the rhetorical gamesmanship to a level US officials weren't comfortable with in the past. The Biden administration was no slouch on China policy, but it still didn't want to inflame things unnecessarily. The Pentagon, for instance, repeatedly emphasized that while China's military drills around Taiwan were aggressive and designed to wear down the island's will to resist, a conflict in the Taiwan Strait was 'neither imminent nor inevitable.' In other words, there was still an opportunity to defuse any tensions before they exploded into a war that could drag the United States in, kill tens of thousands of people and throw a heavy wrench into the global economy. The Trump administration, however, has deployed noticeably sharper words during its first four months. Although the fundamentals of its wider policy in East Asia mimic the Biden administration's own — reinforcing US alliances; engaging in regular freedom of navigation exercises with Japan and the Philippines; and stressing the utility of preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait — Trump's advisers aren't afraid of poking Beijing in the eye. If managing the systemic rivalry with Beijing was a core component of Washington's overall strategy throughout Biden's four years, it increasingly looks like the guardrails that were put in place to prevent miscalculations are now eroding. Even so, does the Trump administration have a point? Is a conflict over Taiwan imminent as Hegseth suggests? And how real is the risk of China becoming Asia's hegemon? First, we should acknowledge that China is a threat in certain respects, particularly to its neighbors who have competing jurisdictional claims. The People's Liberation Army, or PLA, is arguably the strongest military in the region today, a consequence of Chinese President Xi Jinping's long-standing policy of pouring money into its coffers to fund a large-scale modernization campaign. China spent $314 billion on defense in 2024, a 7% increase from the year prior and a whopping 59% increase from a decade ago. The PLA boasts the largest ballistic missile arsenal in Asia and continues to invest in hypersonic missiles, which are difficult for conventional air defenses to intercept. The PLA is also throwing out the old rulebook that used to govern affairs in East Asia. As I mentioned last week, the median line that once served as an unofficial boundary separating Chinese and Taiwanese airspace is now imaginary as the Chinese air force flies closer to the self-ruled island to test Taiwan's defenses and wear down morale. Yet the United States would be wise to refrain from overestimating China's military capability and underestimating the capability of its allies like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia — all of whom have an even greater interest in preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia than Washington does. China is its own worst enemy in this regard: The more it presses its territorial claims, the more incentive its neighbors have to balance Beijing. For the most part, this is exactly what China's neighbours are doing. Japan is the most obvious case study. Traditionally a pacifist country that kept to an artificially low defense budget relative to its wealth, Japan has spent the last three years adding resources to its so-called Self-Defense Forces and buying American weapons off the shelf. Tokyo's latest national security strategy, unveiled in 2022, was a sea-change in how Japan typically talks about its security environment. In that document, China was called out for challenging the international order, partnering with Russia in its war against Ukraine and trying to change the region's status quo by force. Japan's defense budget is set to double by 2027, and with more resources comes a greater capability to preserve the balance of power. The Philippines is another example. While the country can't possibly compete with China in conventional terms, the Philippine government under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has effectively given up on rapprochement with Beijing and thrown in its lot with Washington. China's incessant clashes with Philippine forces in the South China Sea have served as a wake-up call to a country whose previous administration under Rodrigo Duterte (who is now in custody at the Hague for war crimes) drifted into the Chinese camp and took a more suspicious view of US intentions. Today, Manila is not only buttressing its navy and coast guard but also increasingly partnering with countries like Japan and Australia who have a similar threat perception about China.
Middle East Eye
9 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US
It is hard to find a historic or contemporary precedent for the battle raging between Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Elon Musk, the world's richest man. There may be a couple of examples that come close, but nothing that quite captures the current moment. For instance, in 2017, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rounded up his profligate cousins and businessmen at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton for a royal shakedown. They got into line quickly. And almost two decades before, Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to bend the oligarchs who got rich off post-Soviet capitalism to his will. On its surface, the Trump-Musk feud seems to be over policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Tesla chief and former head of DOGE attacked Trump's tax bill this week as a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk was channelling the concerns of deficit hawks in the US, who worry the bill will add trillions to the US debt pile at a time when the dollar has weakened and demand for more US debt is looking stretched. Trump, who has positioned the bill as a do-or-die piece of legislation, said on Thursday during a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, that 'I'd rather have Elon criticise me than the bill,' adding later, 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Then it got nasty. Within hours, Musk was on X calling for Trump's impeachment, to be replaced by Vice President JD Vance. The vice president himself was catapulted to power in part by Peter Thiel, a billionaire tech entrepreneur who mentored and groomed Vance's career in politics. He threatened to form a new political party and stop ferrying Nasa astronauts into space. He said Trump would have lost the US presidential election without his endorsement. And for good measure, insinuated that Trump was linked to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump fired back. He suggested Musk was attacking the bill, not out of patriotic fervour, but because he had snatched away perks for electric vehicles from which Tesla benefits. 'Elon was wearing thin,' Trump said. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said in another post on Thursday night, threatening to leverage the power of the presidency against Musk's business empire, which includes Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla shares dropped about 14 percent on Thursday amid the spat. According to Bloomberg's billionaires index, Musk's net worth plunged $34bn that day. Tesla was trading up around five percent on Friday. Silicon Valley vs 'America First' nationalists The Trump-Musk feud is a decidedly American affair - partly performative, very populist, and made for social media. And on that note, Musk has been posting on X, the social media platform he bought before the US election, and Trump has been posting on Truth Social - owned by Trump Media & Technology Group - that was purposely built as a right-leaning competitor to X before Musk bought it. Of course, the US is no stranger to elite power struggles capturing the public's attention, particularly during its rambunctious, early years as a republic. Aaron Burr, a former vice president, famously killed Alexander Hamilton, the one-time treasury secretary, in a dual in 1804. A century later, Teddy Roosevelt rode a populist 'trust busting' wave that pitted him against the gilded elite, making men like JD Rockefeller his foe. But the Trump-Musk feud has key differences. JD Vance's mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate 'kill lists' of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » The two men had forged an unprecedented alliance that, to a point, symbolised a broader one between Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and crypto bros on one side, and working-class "America First" nationalists on the other. While some media reports say that allies of the two men are urging both to reconcile, the standard bearers of "America First" nationalism appear to be egging Trump on and savouring Musk's fall from grace. Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast WarRoom advocates for "America First" positions, called on Trump to seize Musk's company SpaceX and examine the billionaire's immigration status. Musk was born in South Africa. Bannon himself was critical of Trump's tax bill, but he was one of the few supporters who called for tax hikes on the wealthy. 'You're going to have a few of the tech bros and the crypto crowd stick with Elon because you have the cult of Elon. But MAGA will 100% back Trump. You aren't going to have a person in MAGA who will buy a Tesla,' Bannon said. But Musk donated over $250m to Trump's 2024 campaign and has made clear he has no qualms about deploying his cash against those who turn on him within the Republican Party. On Thursday night, Musk wrote, 'some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…' Do Musk and Trump have options? Trump has a history of engaging in brutal public spats, only to mend fences later. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vance both lambasted Trump during his 2016 run for the White House. But the key difference here is that neither of these men had the deep pockets of the world's richest man to endure a battle with the president. To an extent, Musk is a country unto himself. His technology, like Starlink, is hovering over battlefields in Ukraine, while his company ferries Nasa astronauts into space. The knowledge he has gained of Trump's family and the inner workings of the White House would make him a valuable catch for any foreign leader, including US allies. More broadly speaking, the feud is likely to reaffirm a perception among American friends and foes that something within the US system is cracking. In less than one day, the president of the US threatened on social media to use the power of his office against a comrade-turned-foe, while the world's richest man called for his impeachment. Elon Musk: How a tech nerd became Trump's 'first buddy' Read More » Many observers said the bonhomie between Trump and his former 'first buddy' was bound to implode eventually, given both men's power and outsized egos. Musk also felt his investment in Trump's campaign wasn't paying off, reports suggest. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk tried to block OpenAI from building one of the world's largest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Trump and his aides rejected Musk's bid to cancel the deal in favour of his AI company. On Wednesday, Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire friend of Musk, suggested Trump pulled his nomination to run Nasa because of his ties to Musk. Things could get ugly if the feud refuses to die down, and the president has several institutions that could be weaponised against Musk and his businesses. Trump has not been shy about using state leverage to settle old scores since his return to power. However, Musk has pockets deep enough to make mid-term elections an uphill battle for Trump and his loyalists. If the gloves come off, the world will have a front row seat to an unprecedented battle between the world's most powerful politician and the world's richest man, as it all plays out in real time on social media.
