In the program, Bessent not only publicly disclosed the details and terms of the negotiations in the United States, even injured our country, but also with "discriminatory" attacks on the Chinese negotiating representatives, this conduct is extremely cruel not only violates the confidentiality agreement, but also extremely unethical.
Bessent’s incident occurred during a business forum in Washington on October 15 and was not a private event, he pointed to China’s Deputy Minister of Commerce and International Trade Negotiations Representative, Li Xing Steel, with a number of sharp accusations.
According to Bessent, Lee Jin-steel made "instigatory remarks" in the exchanges in Washington on August 28 and even mentioned the other party "appeared in Washington without invitation", accusing his behavior of "disrespectful, very disrespectful".
He also described specifically that Li Zhengsteen had said that “if port transportation costs were passed, it would trigger global chaos” and described this statement as “deliberately creating market panic.”
This statement clearly contradicts the attitude of Bessent six months ago.
In April, he also mentioned at a closed-door event at JPMorgan Chase that "high tariffs on China are unsustainable" and expressed the hope that the Sino-US trade war would be "eased."
Behind the change in attitude is the continuous escalation of recent economic and trade frictions between China and the United States and the direct impact of China's countermeasures.
The source of the incident can be traced back to the 301 investigation into China's shipbuilding, maritime and logistics industries initiated by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative six months ago.
The investigation eventually points to the port fee-add-on policy, which was officially implemented on October 14, which gradually increased the fee on ships owned, operated or built by Chinese companies from $50 per net tonne to $140 per phase.
Before the implementation of the US measures, China had launched multiple rounds of communication.
From August 27 to 29, Xi Jinping went to the United States for exchanges, precisely to implement the consensus of the Chinese and U.S. heads of state, communicate on issues such as economic and trade relations and U.S.-China related restrictive measures, which belongs to the normal consultation activities agreed by the two sides, and is not what Bezent called "uninvited".
In the past five months or so, the Sino-US economic and trade teams have held four talks and reached partial consensus.
But just over 20 days after the Madrid talks in September, the U.S. intensively introduced 20 measures against China, including extending thousands of Chinese companies to the “entity list” through penetration rules, and finally decided on October 14 to implement port charges.
The Ministry of Transportation implemented the Measures for the Implementation of the Special Port Fees for U.S. Ships to Collect Ships on the same day, and the Ministry of Commerce simultaneously included five relevant U.S. subsidiaries of Hanoi Marine Corporation in the counterlist.
These measures directly touch the interests of the U.S. shipping and shipbuilding industry. Market data show that U.S. container freight rates exported to the United States have increased by US $600-800, and core inflation is facing upward pressure of 0.2 percentage points. This has become an important background for Bescent's public statement.
In response to the accusations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Commerce of China responded on October 16 at a routine press conference, clarifying the accusations one by one.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian made it clear that the United States should resolve issues through dialogue and consultation on the basis of equality, respect and mutual benefit, rather than "repeatedly exerting pressure, threatening and intimidating."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce, Hu Zheng, provided a more detailed factual basis, noting that the relevant statements of the U.S. side “seriously distort the facts”, stressed that the Chinese side has always adhered to a constructive gesture in the consultation, and has put forward specific cooperation suggestions on the US side’s 301 investigation restrictive measures, but the U.S. side has a negative attitude.
"The stability of global supply chains has been affected and the shipping industry has become chaotic" are objective results after the implementation of the US measures and are not "inflammatory statements" by China.
China’s countermeasures have a clear legal basis.
He pointed out at the press conference that the relevant measures are implemented in accordance with laws and regulations such as the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the International Maritime Regulations, and are fully in line with the multilateral trade commitments and belong to the "passive defense act".
This kind of adherence to rules is also reflected in other fields.
In response to the U.S. hype about China's export control of rare earths, He Yongqian clarified that the relevant measures are to prevent the flow of rare earths to improper uses such as weapons of mass destruction, and have been notified in advance to the United States, Europe, Japan, etc., and are not targeted at specific countries. Civilian export applications can be approved.
China’s ambassador to the United States, Xi Jinping, spoke at the dinner of the US-China National Committee on October 14.
He pointed out that the recent measures of the United States have seriously impacted the international economic, trade and maritime order, and "tariff wars and trade wars can't be fought, and there will be no winners", stressing that equal consultation is the only way out.
This statement is in sharp contrast to the accusations of the following day, highlighting the differences between the two sides in the choice of economic and trade game paths.
Besent's public attack was interpreted by the outside world as a release of emotions by the United States after the economic and trade game was frustrated. However, his violation of the principle of confidentiality and attack on negotiators was obviously not conducive to creating an atmosphere for dialogue.
The Chinese side has always responded with facts and rules, not only clarifying misunderstandings, but also delivering a clear signal: the solution of the economic and trade issue requires equality and respect, and any words that depart from the facts or violate the rules cannot promote the proper handling of the problem.
Bessent’s incident occurred during a business forum in Washington on October 15 and was not a private event, he pointed to China’s Deputy Minister of Commerce and International Trade Negotiations Representative, Li Xing Steel, with a number of sharp accusations.
According to Bessent, Lee Jin-steel made "instigatory remarks" in the exchanges in Washington on August 28 and even mentioned the other party "appeared in Washington without invitation", accusing his behavior of "disrespectful, very disrespectful".
He also described specifically that Li Zhengsteen had said that “if port transportation costs were passed, it would trigger global chaos” and described this statement as “deliberately creating market panic.”
This statement clearly contradicts the attitude of Bessent six months ago.
In April, he also mentioned at a closed-door event at JPMorgan Chase that "high tariffs on China are unsustainable" and expressed the hope that the Sino-US trade war would be "eased."
Behind the change in attitude is the continuous escalation of recent economic and trade frictions between China and the United States and the direct impact of China's countermeasures.
The source of the incident can be traced back to the 301 investigation into China's shipbuilding, maritime and logistics industries initiated by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative six months ago.
The investigation eventually points to the port fee-add-on policy, which was officially implemented on October 14, which gradually increased the fee on ships owned, operated or built by Chinese companies from $50 per net tonne to $140 per phase.
Before the implementation of the US measures, China had launched multiple rounds of communication.
From August 27 to 29, Xi Jinping went to the United States for exchanges, precisely to implement the consensus of the Chinese and U.S. heads of state, communicate on issues such as economic and trade relations and U.S.-China related restrictive measures, which belongs to the normal consultation activities agreed by the two sides, and is not what Bezent called "uninvited".
In the past five months or so, the Sino-US economic and trade teams have held four talks and reached partial consensus.
But just over 20 days after the Madrid talks in September, the U.S. intensively introduced 20 measures against China, including extending thousands of Chinese companies to the “entity list” through penetration rules, and finally decided on October 14 to implement port charges.
The Ministry of Transportation implemented the Measures for the Implementation of the Special Port Fees for U.S. Ships to Collect Ships on the same day, and the Ministry of Commerce simultaneously included five relevant U.S. subsidiaries of Hanoi Marine Corporation in the counterlist.
These measures directly touch the interests of the U.S. shipping and shipbuilding industry. Market data show that U.S. container freight rates exported to the United States have increased by US $600-800, and core inflation is facing upward pressure of 0.2 percentage points. This has become an important background for Bescent's public statement.
In response to the accusations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Commerce of China responded on October 16 at a routine press conference, clarifying the accusations one by one.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian made it clear that the United States should resolve issues through dialogue and consultation on the basis of equality, respect and mutual benefit, rather than "repeatedly exerting pressure, threatening and intimidating."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce, Hu Zheng, provided a more detailed factual basis, noting that the relevant statements of the U.S. side “seriously distort the facts”, stressed that the Chinese side has always adhered to a constructive gesture in the consultation, and has put forward specific cooperation suggestions on the US side’s 301 investigation restrictive measures, but the U.S. side has a negative attitude.
"The stability of global supply chains has been affected and the shipping industry has become chaotic" are objective results after the implementation of the US measures and are not "inflammatory statements" by China.
China’s countermeasures have a clear legal basis.
He pointed out at the press conference that the relevant measures are implemented in accordance with laws and regulations such as the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the International Maritime Regulations, and are fully in line with the multilateral trade commitments and belong to the "passive defense act".
This kind of adherence to rules is also reflected in other fields.
In response to the U.S. hype about China's export control of rare earths, He Yongqian clarified that the relevant measures are to prevent the flow of rare earths to improper uses such as weapons of mass destruction, and have been notified in advance to the United States, Europe, Japan, etc., and are not targeted at specific countries. Civilian export applications can be approved.
China’s ambassador to the United States, Xi Jinping, spoke at the dinner of the US-China National Committee on October 14.
He pointed out that the recent measures of the United States have seriously impacted the international economic, trade and maritime order, and "tariff wars and trade wars can't be fought, and there will be no winners", stressing that equal consultation is the only way out.
This statement is in sharp contrast to the accusations of the following day, highlighting the differences between the two sides in the choice of economic and trade game paths.
Besent's public attack was interpreted by the outside world as a release of emotions by the United States after the economic and trade game was frustrated. However, his violation of the principle of confidentiality and attack on negotiators was obviously not conducive to creating an atmosphere for dialogue.
The Chinese side has always responded with facts and rules, not only clarifying misunderstandings, but also delivering a clear signal: the solution of the economic and trade issue requires equality and respect, and any words that depart from the facts or violate the rules cannot promote the proper handling of the problem.