Relations between China and the United States have recently rebounded, just after China introduced rare-earth new rules, which sparked a strong reaction from the United States, but less than a week, the two countries quietly opened working-level talks, the surface appears to be sharp relative, the reality behind the dark flow.
While shouting "cancel high tariffs", the United States threw out conditions requiring China to lift restrictions on rare earths; Vice President Vance even sent a "special tone" signal in a statement.
This game, you come to me, truly mapped a changing pattern: the United States showed anxiety, while the Chinese side adhered to the rhythm and steadily responded.
The cross policy sets the tone
In fact, China's position has long been clearly written on the table: fight, accompany it to the end; talk, the door is open. These eight words are both attitude and strategy, especially on the issue of rare earths. China's actions are based on a deep understanding of the global industrial chain and strategic considerations.
After the introduction of rare earth new regulations, the United States has shown unprecedented sensitivity, which is not surprising, China currently has more than half of the world's rare earth magnet processing capacity, especially in the field of high-performance rare earth materials almost monopoly.
This new rule, not blockade, but increased the security and use review of export links, from a legal point of view, is an export control measure in accordance with international practice, and does not violate the WTO rules, which is also the manifestation of China's choice of "controllable upgrading": not closing the door, but setting a threshold.
At the same time, China has not closed the channels of negotiation, and when the United States proposed to hold an emergency high-level dialogue, China did not immediately respond, but instead chose to develop contacts through working-level talks.
This approach not only avoids being "stuck in the rhythm" at a high position, but also leaves room for substantive progress. The experience of past several rounds of negotiations shows that the United States often talks about cooperation at the negotiating table, but turns around and continues to suppress Chinese enterprises at the market and technical levels.
Therefore, China adheres to the principle of "conditional dialogue" and does not engage in dialogue's sake, but depends on whether the other party is really sincere. From this perspective, China's "cross policy" is a code of action that has been implemented time and again in incidents.
Whether it's refusing an emergency call or accepting consultation at the working level, it's going at its own pace, neither passive nor overreactive.
American anxiety and "finding steps"
Just as the rare earth new rules triggered a chain reaction, different voices began to be released inside the United States, and Vice President Wance’s remarks were remarkable, when he called on China to “choose a rational path” in a public speech.
The tone appears to be tough, the reality reveals a sense of "seeking downstairs", after all, in the high-intensity game, the U.S. side is also facing huge pressure, especially on this rare-earth shortboard, almost no trick.
The U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly admitted in its reports that China is the main source of its rare earth supply, and it is difficult to find alternative channels in the short term, which also means that if China further tightened exports, several key areas of the United States will be directly limited.
However, the Trump administration's plan in this regard has not yet formed a clear plan. Although the previous administration put forward the "rare earth independence strategy", it has not achieved substantial results so far.
Therefore, Vance's "special tone" is more like a "soft but hard" temptation: he is unwilling to show weakness completely, and he has to leave room for subsequent manoeuvre.
A more concrete signal came from Treasury Minister Bessent, who proposed that "three-digit tariffs on China can be lifted, but on the condition that China must lift rare-earth restrictions", which is essentially an invitation to a deal and an expression of anxiety.
During the Trump administration, the United States imposed large-scale tariffs on China goods, increasing taxes by 25% or more on goods worth more than US$300 billion at its peak. However, facts have proved that these tariffs have not effectively curbed China's industrial upgrading, but have instead increased the cost burden on American consumers and businesses.
Today, Bessent’s proposal to “change rare lands for tariffs” exposes several key points: first, the US has recognized the unsustainability of continuing to maintain a high tariff policy.
Second, on key strategic materials, the United States lacks substantive bargaining chips and can only use "old tools" to continue negotiations. Third, internal differences on China policy have begun to emerge. Some people hope to relieve pressure through negotiations, while others continue to maintain a tough stance. Serve the election.
It is worth noting that Trump himself did not speak out directly in this round of play, but his political legacy is still dominating the situation, and the trade war he pushed in 2018 is still the “shadow” of the economic relations between the two countries.
The "three-digit tariffs" at that time were aimed at "manufacturing return", but the result was an increase in manufacturing costs in the United States, and some companies even chose to bypass the U.S. market.
Now, Trump is building momentum for a new round of campaign, and his core voters are concentrated in agricultural states in the central and western regions. If the rare earth issue and soybean trade make waves again, it will inevitably affect its vote structure.
Why “fishing”
From the current perspective, the pace of China's response is stable, because there is enough underground and rotational space, first of all, the rare-earth new rules are not "stopped exports", but through compliance review mechanisms to "controllable adjustable".
This means that China can flexibly adjust its policies according to the progress of negotiations and the external environment. This "leaving room" approach not only stands at the commanding heights of the law, but also avoids the moral backlash of international public opinion. On the other hand, the fierce reaction of the United States is more like a "subconscious rebound of guilty conscience".
Secondly, China does not just rely on rare earths as a bargaining chip. In Sino-US trade relations, soybeans are called "livelihood chips." In the past few years, China has suspended purchasing soybeans from the United States, dealing a heavy blow to U.S. agriculture.
Data shows that China once accounted for more than 60% of U.S. soybean exports, and once orders disappeared, the U.S. agricultural state’s economy was immediately crashed and farmers protested.
Nowadays, soybean procurement has once again become the focus of the game. If China decides to postpone the procurement, the US will face a direct impact on the selection of agricultural ticket warehouses. In addition, China's complete industrial chain system and huge domestic demand market also provide it with the ability to withstand pressure.
Even in the face of external sanctions, China can still maintain economic resilience through domestic demand stimulation, regional cooperation (such as RCEP) and industrial upgrading.
Xinhua has pointed out that the "stability" of China's economy is not based on stimulation, but on structural optimization and technological iteration, this long-termism, making China more valuable in the international game.
In contrast, the U.S. side’s anxiety is more like a “structural imbalance”: it wants to maintain hegemony at the expense of long-term confrontation.
The "America First" promoted by Trump has won the support of some voters in a short period of time. However, under the background of increasingly intertwined global industrial chains, this "retreat diplomacy" itself has laid today's dilemma. Now, in the face of China's "steady progress", the passivity of the United States is even more prominent.
The Chinese side has always adhered to a rhythm: with the principle as the bottom line, with the rules as the standard, even if the situation is complicated, it is not easy to make concessions; even if the dialogue is hindered, it will not actively close the door.
As comments say, “China is not a challenger, but it will not be the airbag,” this sense of strategic rhythm is based on a clear awareness of its own strength and international pattern.
Today's Sino-U.S. relations are related to the global industrial chain, security pattern and the comprehensive game of the system, and the Chinese side uses rare-earth new rules to transmit a clear signal that the pipe must be in charge, that it should be kept, and cooperation can be.
However, we cannot make concessions without a bottom line. If the United States still thinks that it can suppress China with the old routine of "tariffs and threats", it will only find that the fewer cards it plays, and the more difficult it becomes.
Whether tariffs are cancelled and rare earths are liberalized is, in the final analysis, a matter of attitude. It's not who bows his head first, but who is more sober. In this game, initiative does not mean compromise, and toughness does not mean strength. What can really push Sino-US relations out of the deadlock is not shouting and conditions, but showing sincerity with each other and finding a balance point.
When both sides understand that cooperation is not a gift from each other, but a common choice, perhaps the window of "promising future" will truly open.
Source of information:
China: Fight, accompany the end; Talk, the door open 2025-10-14 09:17 · Red Star News