With Trump’s threats and pressure, China-U.S. economic and trade relations became more and more tense, but on October 15 local time, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent suddenly outraged Chinese Deputy Minister of Commerce Li Zhen Steel at a press conference.
This is more like the scene of an emotional collapse. Things have come to this point not because China, but because the United States has repeatedly hit walls at the negotiating table and its mentality is completely out of balance.
Without a doubt, Bessent's "discourse" on the face of global media is a "emotional outbreak" after the American side has not had benefits in the game for a long time.
While trying to suppress China, but unable to come up with an effective solution, we simply rely on accusations and smears to shift the focus. This approach not only failed to solve the problem, but exposed the double anxiety of the US side in terms of strategy and mentality.
“Emotion is out of control.”
At the end of August, Chinese Deputy Minister of Commerce Li Zhengzhou went to the U.S. to engage in face-to-face communication with the U.S. on a series of hot issues.
China's attitude is very clear: cooperation is possible, but respect must be. Problems can be discussed, but we cannot suffer losses unilaterally.
Throughout the talks, China adhered to rationality and pragmatism, and put forward a clear position on specific issues, such as responding one by one to the extra charges charged by the US for Chinese-funded ships, the imbalance of Sino-US trade structure, and the export restrictions of key raw materials.
But just on October 15, the U.S. suddenly switched channels.Besent opened fire at the conference without a sign, fiercely accusing the speech of Deputy Minister Li Zhen Steel, saying Chinese representatives were "not invited" to "release misleading information".
This remark was made urgently and hastily, completely out of the restraint and discretion that should be exercised in diplomatic occasions.
However, the actual situation is that China's speeches during the negotiations also focus on substantive issues and do not involve emotional expression.
The opposing US side, first in a row in the negotiations, then in front of the media to perform the "emotional performance", this is not an escalation of diplomatic strategy, but a disappearance of emotions after the strategy bankruptcy.
As a representative of a country's economic policy, the U.S. Treasury Secretary should have spoken with strict restraint. However, Besent regarded diplomatic occasions as a "show", replacing facts with accusations and covering up weakness with attacks. What ultimately reflected was that the United States could not come up with solutions to substantive issues and had to rely on emotions to create momentum.
There is no advantage to take advantage of at the negotiating table, so the US side is "angry"
In the end, the American side is so unusual because in the last few rounds of the game they have not been able to get the results they want.
In the past, the United States was used to creating pressure on China by exerting pressure, setting restrictions and pulling allies, but this time, China's response was not only powerful, but also accurate, directly hitting the "pain point" of the United States.
The US announced in April this year that it would impose additional charges on Chinese-owned ships, saying it was for "national security" reasons.The Chinese side clearly pointed out that this practice undermines the international shipping order, affecting not only Chinese enterprises, but also bringing the global supply chain into a state of instability.
China strongly opposes such discriminatory tariffs and reserves the right to take reciprocal countermeasures.
In terms of resource exports, China made adjustments to rare earth exports on October 9, mainly for the sake of safeguarding national security and industrial interests.
China did not block exports, but raised the threshold through institutional arrangements. This method is not drastic but effective.
In addition, China has also taken restrictive measures against some American companies that have long been provocative on issues such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. These enterprises are involved in sensitive fields such as military industry and technology. China's approach is not emotional, but has a clear logic: whoever touches the bottom line will pay the price.
The United States originally hoped that China would compromise under pressure, but unexpectedly, instead of giving in, China launched a set of "counter-measure combination boxing", which made the United States feel incompetent and angry.
Therefore, Besant's emotional outburst was not because the Chinese had really said something "out of line", but because he understood that the negotiation he represented had fallen into a passive position.
If you can't fight for substantial interests, you can't talk about the Chinese side. If you can't hang your face, your emotions will come up.
Strategic anxiety emerges, and U.S. China policy falls into a "dilemma"
The U.S. side's reaction, closely looked at it, is not only anxiety at the economic level, but also anxiety at the political level.
At present, the United States is facing multiple domestic pressures: the inflation problem has not been alleviated for a long time, the progress of manufacturing reshoring is not as good as expected, and China policy has become the focus. Politicians shouted "tough on China" one by one, but there were only a handful of real policy measures.
The problem is that U.S. reliance on China has not decreased.Whether it’s raw materials, technology products, or global supply chain collaboration, the U.S. is still largely isolated from China.
This state of "wanting to decouple but unable to get rid of it" has become the most difficult problem for the United States to deal with. He shouted to "reduce dependence," but when he actually operated, he realized that many things could not be done without China.
This contradiction is directly reflected in the policy against China.On the one hand, the United States needs a “hard gesture” that satisfies voters; on the other hand, it has to consider costs and consequences in real operations.
This difficult situation makes the United States appear more and more passive and more emotional in dealing with China.
However, China's strategy is clearer. It is not confrontation to the end, nor concession. Instead, it sticks to the bottom line and takes the initiative to attack under the framework of rules. Every response is a prepared and designed countermeasure.
China's confidence comes from the resilience of its own economy, the stability of its policies, and the expansion of global cooperation. When the United States finds that threats and wooing are no longer effective, it can only "maintain its sense of existence" by venting its emotions.
Calm is down, emotions are broken.
Besent's sudden anger is a microcosm of the predicament of the entire U.S. policy towards China.
In the past game, the United States was used to dominating the rhythm and setting issues, but now China is becoming more and more proactive and stable, which makes them unexpected.
The differences between China and the United States will not disappear in a short time, but the way to deal with the differences determines the direction of the outcome. It is not possible to solve the substantive problems by relying on emotional speech and public opinion. Only rational dialogue and institutional play can find a way out.
China is aware of this, so it is always to remain calm, adhere to the rules, speak the bottom line.
If the U.S. continues to rely on “irritation” to cover up its inability to negotiate, it can only damage its international credibility gradually.The world has long been no longer a time when it depends on who has a loud voice and who acts vigorously.
The one who really has a backdrop is the one who can maintain reason in disputes and adhere to principles under pressure.
This storm may be just an episode in the Sino-US economic and trade game, but it clearly shows one point: rules determine the direction, and emotions can only expose flaws.
There may still be friction in the future of China and the United States, but if the United States wants to really solve the problem, perhaps it should calm down first and return to the track of reasoning.
Because, the real strong, never by anger to prove themselves.China will not change the direction because of a few accusations, this acceptance, is the most solid foundation of China.
The reference information:
The U.S. Treasury Secretary accused our negotiators for no reason, but China refuted it: seriously distorting the facts-Observer.com 2025-10-16 17:57
Ministry of Commerce responds to international economic and trade issues such as approval of rare-earth exports — light network 2025-10-17 07:33