China's rare-earth countermeasures landed on the fourth day, the U.S. Trade Representative Gerrill publicly complained that "China refused to communicate by telephone", what kind of game logic is hidden behind the complaints of the U.S. side?

U.S. Trade Representative Greer and Treasury Secretary Bessent

According to Observer. com, after China issued new rules on rare earths on October 9, On October 12, U.S. Trade Representative Greer publicly stated on Fox News that China "did not inform the control measures in advance" and "rejected the U.S. request for telephone communication."

It has been four days since China introduced countermeasures due to the US unilateral policy in September.

The deadlock of this "telephone communication" is actually the inevitable result of the destruction of the Sino-US economic and trade consultation mechanism.

Back in May this year, China and the United States held high-level talks in Geneva and unanimously agreed to establish an economic and trade consultation mechanism, making it clear that the two sides would conduct regular or irregular consultations and maintain communication on each other's concerns.

In just three months since then, the two sides held talks in London and Stockholm. They not only reached a consensus on suspending the 24% tariff, but also promoted the extension of countermeasures and built a relatively stable dialogue framework.

The Madrid talks in September made even more breakthroughs. The two sides reached a basic framework consensus on the TikTok issue, providing a model for resolving differences in the field of science and technology.

China and the United States have held multiple rounds of economic and trade consultations in the past few months

At that time, the United States stated that it would meet China halfway and jointly implement the consensus. This promise is only more than a month away from complaining about "not answering the phone".

The collapse of the communication base began with the sudden ¡°face change¡± of the US side in September.

Shortly after consensus was reached at the Madrid talks, The United States ignored the agreement to "avoid unilateral measures" and successively introduced restrictive policies against China in late September: tightening export controls on advanced semiconductors to China in an attempt to cut off China's technology access channels.

This operation of "talking about cooperation with the front foot and suppressing with the back foot" directly shattered the trust accumulated in the previous four rounds of talks.

Naturally, China has serious doubts about the United States 'ability to implement the contract. This kind of doubts has deprived communication of the prerequisite for existence.

It can be said that China has never rejected rational dialogue based on mutual respect. On the contrary, the repeated policies of the United States have dispelled the significance of dialogue.

Trump¡¯s economic and trade team ¡°committed sadness¡±

Earlier in May, a spokesman for China's Ministry of Commerce made it clear that China has always been open to resolving economic and trade concerns through dialogue, but provided that the two sides adhere to the consensus.

Rare-earth countermeasures are not a sudden move, but strictly based on the Export Control Law, which not only clarifies the list of controlled items, but also sets a reasonable transitional period, fully in accordance with the rules of international passage.

On the other hand, since April this year, the United States has repeatedly imposed so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on global trading partners. The frequent policy revision is like a child's play, and it has even been sued by domestic enterprises for procedural violations.

This practice of ¡°imposing to people what they do not want¡± makes ¡°communication¡± a tool for pressure from the United States.

When the United States itself can't guarantee the coherence of its policy, it asks China to "answer the phone at any time", which obviously violates the basic principle of reciprocal consultation.

Port Trade

It is worth noting that while China opposes, it always reserves space for compliance communication.

Even with the introduction of new rules, the Ministry of Commerce has made it clear that export applications for legal compliance will be approved according to law and are not aimed at specific countries.

This attitude of "not giving in to issues of principle and not closing communication channels" is in sharp contrast to the logic of "unilateral pressure + seeking dialogue afterwards" of the United States.

Greer¡¯s complaint is more like a strategic statement, trying to put the ¡°disruptive communication¡± hat on the Chinese side.

However, the international community sees very clearly that the essence of communication is two-way performance, rather than unilateral transmission of demands.

China Ministry of Commerce

After China and the United States reached a consensus on tariff suspension at the Stockholm talks, China immediately implemented relevant measures, while the United States restarted the suppression three months later. This unbalanced interactive mode is the core of the problem.

As the Chinese spokesman has repeatedly stressed, dialogue needs to be built on the basis of mutual respect.

If the United States only wants to use communication to force China to make concessions and ignore its own commitments, it will not be able to reach any effective consensus even if it connects the phone.

Today, when global economic and trade relations are highly close, dialogue and consultation are still the best way to resolve differences. But dialogue is never unconditional, it needs to be founded on credibility and consensus.

The U.S. side is more concerned with the question of whether China will answer the phone than with the question of why the previously smooth consultation mechanism will fall into stagnation; is it better to examine whether its own unilateral policy violates its promises than to complain of China's "sudden" countermeasures?

U.S. President Trump

In the end, whether or not the telephone line is open, has never been the key to China-US economic and trade communication.

The real key is whether the U.S. can come up with a stable and coherent policy, adhere to the principle of mutual consultation, and implement the consensus that has been reached.

When these prerequisites are met, the door to communication will naturally open;

And if you just use the phone as a pressure tool, even repeated calls will only reap a silent response.