conflict between China and America has been a clash not just of giant economies but of utterly different public negotiating styles. In one corner are President Donald Trump’s tweets, in which he veers between heaping praise on China and declaring that he has pummelled it. In the other is a Chinese bureaucracy that has stuck doggedly to the same message: tariffs must be removed for the two countries to reach a trade agreement.
The outline of the mini-deal—or, as Mr Trump put it, the “substantial phase-one deal”—seemed clear enough. China would buy American agricultural products, and America would hold back from slapping yet more tariffs on China. With this basic agreement under their belts, the two combatants would move onto weightier topics such as China’s support for its strategic industries. But two problems have since emerged: one predictable, one not.
China’s gambit might just pay off. On November 4th a Trump administration official reportedly said that a phase-one deal between America and China could roll back the 15% tariff imposed on September 1st, on $112bn of goods. China could be offering some sweeteners such as a purchase of liquefied natural gas, which Wilbur Ross, America’s commerce secretary, hinted at on November 5th. But the tariff reduction would be an American concession.
The unpredictable complication was Chile’s big protests. Mr Trump and Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, had hoped to seal their mini-deal on neutral ground at a summit of Asia-Pacific countries in Chile in mid-November. But the organisers have cancelled the summit. That poses the question of where and when the leaders should meet, itself a matter of negotiation. Given Mr Trump’s tendency to improvise, China wants to be sure there is a political win on the table before it agrees to meet.
The Chinese may yet include more juicy titbits for American businesses as part of the mini-deal. But even if it is signed without a hitch, the trade war will be far from over. Hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese exports would still be affected by tariffs and companies would still have to live with the uncertainty of the old ones coming back. Mr Trump would still have the final word, and another one after that too.
Not surprising
Like the Economists is a credible source
I may not be a genius qualified it to write for the economist, but I am fairly certain that is how negotiators go
US must be patient while negotiating with chinese. That’s how chinese drain their opponent , show no hurry.
♨ IslamicূState West Africa Wilayah - 📷 | Photos Feature Corpses of the Nigerian Army’sূMurtaddin and Ghanimah Granted by Allah to the KhilafahূSoldiers in the Village of Meshma in Borno Area 📽⇓ .
That's good.
China will always try to squeeze whatever they can!
Let me guese china is just waiting until they act normal again?
not just different negotiation styles, don't be disingenuous pls. different world views, different self-concepts, different agendas.
Utterly different is a true understatement. Some of you fellows did go to school for their diplomas. Cant trust everything you read on the internet it seems.
Our mission at is to build the social news network that ends fake news. Follow us Overlooked_Inc
Hong Kong is in dire straits. The massacre in Hong Kong has already taken place. Hkers can't refuse horror, we don't have guns in our hands, we don't have bullets, we don't have tanks, we Hong Kong people are using the flesh to fight the most evil dictator in the world.
Does this remind you of the shape of the table debates with Hanoi?
If there’s no signed trade agreements, bump up the tariffs. TrumpStrong
Absolutely not. We have the best negotiator on our side!! And trade wars are easy to win!!
This si also what we fail to understand in France.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »