US and China to talk in Stockholm on trade with eye on Trump-Xi summit later this year
In Stockholm, Beijing will likely demand the removal of the 20% fentanyl-related tariff that Trump imposed earlier this year, said Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Washington-based Stimson Center.
This round of the U.S.-China trade dispute began with fentanyl, when Trump in February imposed a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, citing that China failed to curb the outflow of the chemicals used to make the drug. The following month, Trump added another 10% tax for the same reason. Beijing retaliated with extra duties on some U.S. goods, including coal, liquefied natural gas, and farm products such as beef, chicken, pork and soy.
In Geneva, both sides climbed down from three-digit tariffs rolled out following Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, but the U.S. kept the 20% "fentanyl" tariffs, in addition to the 10% baseline rate — to which China responded by keeping the same 10% rate on U.S. products. These across-the-board duties were unchanged when the two sides met in London a month later to negotiate over non-tariff measures such as export controls on critical products.
The Chinese government has long protested that American politicians blame China for the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. but argued the root problem lies with the U.S. itself. Washington says Beijing is not doing enough to regulate precursor chemicals that flow out of China into the hands of drug dealers.
In July, China placed two fentanyl ingredients under enhanced control, a move seen as in response to U.S. pressure and signaling goodwill.
Gabriel Wildau, managing director at the consultancy Teneo, said he doesn't expect any tariff to go away in Stockholm but that tariff relief could be part of a final trade deal.
"It's possible that Trump would cancel the 20% tariff that he has explicitly linked with fentanyl, but I would expect the final tariff level on China to be at least as high as the 15-20% rate contained in the recent deals with Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam," Wildau said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
C Raja Mohan writes: The West vs the Rest, a fiction
Speaking at the 1957 Moscow Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties, Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong declared that the 'East wind will prevail over the West'. The occasion was the 40th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. For Mao, the 'East wind' meant the 'socialist camp' (led by the Soviet Union and China), and the 'West wind' represented the capitalist countries (led by the US). He declared that the balance of world forces had shifted decisively in favour of the socialist camp in the middle of the 20th century. The idea that the West is in decline and that it will soon be swamped by the rising tide of 'the rest' has been a recurrent theme since the encounter between the West and the rest began several centuries ago. Here is the problem. The West refuses to disappear, and the rest is having a difficult time taking charge. Mao himself embarked on a fight with the Soviet Union barely two years after making the grand declaration on the rise of the East wind. He broke the socialist camp, divided the communist movement all over the world, and paved the way for an alliance between Communist China and the 'evil empire', the US. The marriage between Western capital and the Chinese market produced a breathtaking global economic expansion for nearly five decades. It also made Beijing the second most important power — economic, technological and military – in the world. A risen China now talks again of leading the East, now rebranded as the 'Global South' or the 'Global Majority' to victory against a declining West. Declinism is also in fashion in Western academia and think tanks. Many fear the barbarians from the East are ready to show up at the gates. The fear in the West is matched by the irrational exuberance in the rest about the impending collapse of the US-led world order. Sceptics might say, not so fast. They point to US President Donald Trump's entirely unanticipated initial successes in singlehandedly rewriting the rules of global trade. The rest did not join hands to counter Trump. Most of them have queued up to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with him. The claim that Trump is winning is vigorously contested. Is Trump accelerating the decline of the American empire and the West, or is he heralding its resurgence? While the debate on this question will continue, Amitav Acharya, one of the leading scholars of international relations, puts the debate in a deep historical perspective. Acharya's new book, The Once and Future World Order, seeks to dismantle the conceptions of global order built around the rise of the West. He reminds us that there was a world before the West and another after it. Acharya argues that the pursuit of order — rules, norms, and institutions that enable peace and promote commerce — did not begin with the modern West. He suggests it is rooted in ancient, diverse civilisations across the world. Far from a future dominated by a new hegemon or descending into chaos, he foresees a decentralised, inclusive system drawing on both Western and non-Western traditions. Acharya asserts that ancient Sumer, China, India, Greece, Mesoamerica, and the Islamic world all devised ways to manage interstate relations. While the post-World War II Liberal International Order led by the US shaped the modern age, Acharya sees it as just one chapter in a longer global history. The Western-led order, forged through empire, conquest, exploitation and ruthless Cold War geopolitics, was never as universal or complete as its proponents claimed. Global norms evolved through continuous cross-civilisational borrowing. The West never monopolised the ideals of peace, law, or cooperation. In confronting anxieties about Western decline, Acharya offers a different narrative. Rather than a harbinger of disorder, the erosion of Western primacy creates space for a more equitable global structure. He introduces the concept of a 'multiplex' order — where no single state dominates, and multiple actors, from states to international institutions and non-state players, share responsibility for shaping norms. Rejecting both the 'clash of civilisations' thesis and the idea of an inevitable Chinese hegemony, Acharya advocates a cooperative system grounded in civilisational pluralism. He envisions a world not of imposed norms but of negotiated consensus — a 'confluence of civilisations'. This future demands learning from each other, not dominance. The Once and Future World Order is a timely corrective to the dominant narratives in the West and the East. Acharya's central message is that the rise of non-Western actors is not a crisis but a chance to build a fairer, more representative system. Acharya's hopeful vision of a multiplex order is persuasive but incomplete. It downplays serious constraints in the East that hinder its capacity to shape a just and effective global order. These include authoritarianism, the rise of a state that is free to curb individual freedoms in the name of claimed collective interests, violent politics based on exclusive religious, caste, and linguistic identities, and the empowerment of violent vigilante groups that destroy social peace. There is no question that China has been the most successful non-Western world state in bringing economic prosperity and in rooting out the feudal vestiges. But it is yet to redeem the Chinese national movement's promise to deliver democracy to its people. Externally, China is unable to overcome the temptations of national chauvinism and the urge to dominate its neighbourhood. That, in turn, shatters ideas of Asian unity and the Chinese ability to lead a compact of the rest against the West. If the Western oppression is real, the Eastern ones are worse. Meanwhile, students, scientists, technologists, entrepreneurs, the rich and political dissidents from the East continue to migrate to the West, if they can. The soft power of the West remains a powerful magnet to those who see themselves as suffocating under the Eastern regimes. Acharya's critique of Western dominance is compelling, but not all aspects of the Western legacy can or should be discarded. The Enlightenment ideals of the 17th and 18th centuries — reason, scepticism, science, individual liberty, and secularisation of society away from religious dominance — are at the very foundation of Western primacy in the last three centuries. If the East wishes to lead in shaping the world order, it must engage these ideals critically and constructively. Any notion that the East can rise by short-circuiting these values is an illusion. It only delays and derails the effort to rise. The battles against political, religious, and other absolutisms remain to be fought and won in the East. Until then, a rising East will not present an alternative model — only a different and less attractive one. The profound internal contradictions within and across the East will continue to keep it well behind the West. The writer is distinguished fellow at the Council for Defence and Strategic Research and contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
Narendra Modi ‘failed' to answer questions on Pahalgam, Trump in Lok Sabha: Opposition - ‘typical Nehru bashing'
Opposition parties accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of not answering their questions, including those related to Pahalgam's "intelligence failure" and US President Donald Trump's "ceasefire" claims, while speaking in theLok Sabha during the debate on Operation Sindoor on Tuesday. In his address replying to the debate, PM Narendra Modi affirmed that no leader of any country had asked India to stop Operation Sindoor, which was still giving "sleepless nights" to the masterminds of the Pahalgam attack. Modi, in doing so, rebutted President Trump's repeated claims of mediating a 'ceasefire' after four days of military action during Operation Sindoor in May this year in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack. Narendra Modi said he had, in fact, told US Vice President JD Vance on the night of May 9 that Pakistan will pay dearly for any attack on India. Soon after Modi's 100-minute-long speech in Lok Sabha, President Trump repeated his claim, calling India his 'friend' "Yeah, I think so. India is my friend. They ended the war with Pakistan at my deal with India is not finalised. India has been a good friend, but India has charged basically more tariffs than almost any other country," Trump said when asked by reporters aboard Air Force One if India is going to pay high tariffs, between 20-25 per cent. Opposition leaders, however, said that the prime minister did not categorically deny Trump's claim of brokering peace between India and Pakistan. Congress leader Pawan Khera said they haven't received a single answer. "We were asking for a discussion because both we and the country wanted answers. We haven't got a single answer," Khera told PTI Videos. "Simple question is how did Pahalgam happen, how did the terrorists manage to get into India, and attack our civilians, our tourists. No answers," he said. "Why did the announcement of ceasefire come from America? That's a question we haven't got an answer for," Khera said. Samajwadi Party chief and Lok Sabha MP Akhilesh Yadav, in an apparent reference to China, said the Indian government could not see the real threat, even though he did not name the country. In his earlier speech in Lok Sabha, Yadav had compared China's 'threat to India'to any threat of terrorism. "They are not able to see the real threat, who is standing behind Pakistan. If they can't see the real threat despite being in the government, what can be done..." the former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh said. Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose said the speech was "theatrical", but failed to answer questions. "Typically theatrical speech by the prime minister. He failed to answer the questions of the Opposition. First question about the intelligence and security failure that led to the terror attack in Pahalgam," Ghose said. "Second, why is it that India's diplomatic outreach failed to achieve the desired results? Third, why has President Trump repeatedly taken the credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire, and linked it to commerce, to trade deal," she said. Ghose said the prime minister failed to answer these questions. "All we had was typical theatre and drama, and typical Nehru bashing," she said. She also said that PM Narenda Modi should publicly say that President Trump is "not telling the truth". "The prime minister has failed to counter President Trump," she said. Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi said PM Modi tried to take the whole credit for Operation Sindoor. "Prime Minister Modi, in his two-hour speech, tried to take full credit for Operation Sindoor. At the beginning of the speech, he said that the people of the country supported him. He is wrong, people of the country fully supported the government and the Indian Army," he said, adding that the prime minister did not mention China even once in his speech. Congress MP KC Venugopal said there was nothing new in what the prime minister said. "What Amit Shah said today morning is repeated by the prime minister. There was nothing else," he said.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Asian shares mixed at open before Fed's meeting
With the Fed's benchmark rate holding at a target range of 4.25% to 4.5% since December, the business world is looking for any clue that officials are moving toward a rate reduction in the fall. Asian equities displayed mixed performance ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy decision, with limited impact from US-China trade talks. The US and China are continuing negotiations regarding a tariff truce, while Trump hinted at potential tariffs on India. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Asian equities struggled for direction ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy decision, while a modest progress in US-China trade talks did little to boost in Japan fluctuated at the open while those in South Korea and Australia were flat Wednesday after the S&P 500 snapped a six-day rally. Treasuries were steady in early Asian trading after jumping the most in a month in the prior session. Oil held its biggest gain in six weeks after President Donald Trump's reiteration that further levies on Russia remained on the table without a Ukraine and China will continue talks over maintaining a tariff truce before it expires in two weeks and Trump will make the final call on any extension. Adding an extra 90 days is one option, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent like the muted response to the US-EU tariff deal, the latest signs of progress with Beijing did little to shift investor mood. There are also other market-moving factors on the horizon. Those include Wednesday's Fed decision — where policy makers are expected to keep rates on hold — and key data including Friday's jobs report. Four tech giants will also report earnings over a two-day stretch.'The market is getting better at pricing this behavior - that is, extension, as long as you say it's positive development,' said Billy Leung, investment strategist at Global X ETFs. 'Previously, this lack of development could have caused much larger negative reaction.'The Stockholm negotiations marked the third round of US-China trade talks in less than three months. They wrapped up ahead of an Aug. 12 deadline to resolve differences during a 90-day suspension of tariffs that had threatened to cut off bilateral trade between the world's largest news emerged that China's delegation had indicated a 90-day extension of the two economies' trade-war truce was agreed, Bessent said, his Chinese counterparts have 'jumped the gun a little.''While there is disappointment that nothing material was agreed, the mood seems to be constructive and optimistic about future potential deals,' said Kelvin Lam, senior China economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics in London. 'In the medium term, the extension is basically relaying the uncertainty of trade policies, and it will weigh on the Chinese economy in the second half.'Meanwhile, Trump said that India may be hit with a tariff rate of 20% to 25% but cautioned the final levy had still not been finalized as the two countries negotiate on a trade deal ahead of an Aug. 1 the economic front, US consumer confidence increased as concerns eased about the outlook for the broader economy and the labor market. While job openings fell, they hovered at a level that indicates generally stable demand for workers.'Overall, it was a mixed round of data that has done little to materially challenge the price action or macro narrative,' said Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital a rare occurrence, policymakers will convene in the same week that the government issues reports on gross domestic product, employment and the Fed's preferred price anticipate the heavy dose of data will show economic activity rebounded in the second quarter, largely due to a sharp narrowing of the trade deficit, while job growth moderated in July. The third marquee report may show underlying inflation picked up slightly in June from a month the Fed's benchmark rate holding at a target range of 4.25% to 4.5% since December, the business world is looking for any clue that officials are moving toward a rate reduction in the Chair Jerome Powell could face dissent from one or more colleagues arguing it's time for the central bank to provide more support to a slowing labor market.'We believe the Fed wants to maintain flexibility on when to deploy further rate cuts. In our view, the Fed will remain on hold until 'hard data' begins to confirm the slowdown story,' said Luis Alvarado at Wells Fargo Investment Institute. 'The Fed will have the opportunity to cut rates later in the year if the economy slows and as long as inflation allows.'
