Preliminary
On October 18, Washington was late at night, but a video conference took the initiative to cooperate with Beijing time. The US finance minister immediately announced after the meeting that Sino-US relations had "cooled down" and that face-to-face talks would be held next week.
Even more surprisingly, Trump said before the meeting that "China's strength is too strong" and even hoped that China would give a "fair deal", which is comparable to the harsh image of imposing tariffs around in 2018.
What happened in just a few years? Who holds the initiative in the dialogue?
Night in Washington, morning in Beijing.
While the late-night lights in Washington are still flashing, the first morning light in Beijing has quietly shone on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building, which is not only a time difference, but also a time difference.
The U.S. side, actively cooperating with China's time, this small detail, like a thunderstorm, opened a new chapter in China-U.S. relations.
After the phone call, U.S. Treasury Secretary Basent quickly announced that relations had "cooled down" and that he would see him in Malaysia next week. His tone was filled with eagerness.
What is Urgent?
Just the day before the call, Trump, who once cried out that “the trade war is easy to win,” suddenly changed his face, publicly acknowledging that the strategy of imposing high tariffs on China was “unsustainable” and could even shock the U.S. economy.
The speed at which he changed his face was shocking.
More important things are yet to come. He actually said that we need a "fair agreement"!
Once upon a time, he defined rules, but now he asks for fairness. The difference of one word is the difference between clouds and mud.
What kind of power transfer is behind this?
The answer is hidden in a set of cold data, hidden in a fine layout, and more hidden in the helpless phrase of the opponent "China's power is too strong."
The United States once waved the tariff stick, thinking that it could be easily handled. What happened?
The cost of tariffs has been passed on to American companies and consumers. U.S. stocks have ushered in "Black Friday", and Wall Street is wailing, from manufacturing to agriculture.
Only then did the United States realize that this big stick is easy to swing out, but difficult to take it back. In the end, it is itself that hits it.
As for China, it is no longer the Wuxia Amon seven years ago.
A new regulation on rare earth exports has become the last straw that breaks down camels. No, this is not a straw. This is a precise acupuncture point. It can defeat the enemy in one move, which is fierce and accurate.
90% of the world's refined rare earths come from China, and 70% of the United States 'rare earth products rely on China, especially heavy rare earths used to make fighter jets and high-tech chips, with a dependence rate of 92%. What is more fatal is that the inventories of American companies can only last for 40 to 60 days.
Once the production line is shut down, the consequences will be unimaginable. A group of people in the White House are in a hurry, trying to find alternative suppliers and build their own production lines, but experts have calculated that it will take at least 10 to 15 years!
Far water can't quench the thirst near, so can Bescent push forward the face-to-face meeting without hurrying?
To put it bluntly, I just want to "renew my breath" for the domestic industry quickly. This trick of "acupuncture" is precise and fatal, which makes the former overlord lose his balance in an instant.
Urging Trump to call back the "internal clock"
What made the former overlord so humble? Was he influenced?
No, it was hurt by reality.
Under Trump's tough appearance, there is an "internal clock" that is counting down rapidly. Economic data is the minute hand, ticking, election day is the hour hand, pointing to the end, and public opinion is the clockwork that drives all this.
The U.S. economic “evaluation” of the third quarter is coming soon, which is not a joke.
Since the imposition of tariffs on China, the production costs of American companies that rely on imported parts and components from China have soared, and some small and medium-sized enterprises have directly closed down. As for ordinary people, from daily necessities to electronic products, prices have generally risen, making life difficult.
Industry organizations such as the National Association of Housing Builders have long warned that tariffs will raise the cost of building and drag on the real estate market, and Wall Street's stock index fell due to trade tensions.
Even worse, Trump’s own camp has been divided, with many Republicans publicly singing against him, and so on, with the economic recession, the second quarter continuing to “share” and his presidential throne still seated?
The warning from the Director-General of the World Trade Organization made matters worse. The decoupling of China and the United States may lead to a long-term reduction of 7% in global economic output. This risk cannot be borne by the United States. It is obvious that they themselves will suffer greater harm.
So Trump’s “softening” is not conscious, but can’t bear it.
He has to admit that China is not the object of pressure at will, and continuous confrontation will only lead to more intense counter-measures, which will ultimately harm the interests of the United States itself.
This “angry” he had to let go.
Looking at his statement again, while talking about the "cooling down" of relations, he complained to the International Monetary Fund, accusing China of its economic model, and urging international institutions to take a tougher stance against China. This operation of "pouring dirty water while seeking dialogue" is very familiar.
Even while relaxing, he also shifted the blame to China, claiming that China "forced him to do so" and preserved room for subsequent games.
This statement fully exposes the intrinsic contradictions of U.S. trade policy, both wanting to contain China through tariffs and unable to bear the negative cost of the policy, they decided to "turn back" is a good signal, but at the end, the U.S. side still understands that "tariff war cannot be fought."
But this understanding came too late and too passive.
We have never had too many illusions about the "sincerity" of the United States, because their credibility has long been exhausted in capricious operations.
From "acupuncture points" to "combination boxing"
If rare earth control is a precise point hole, then the multilateral layout is a profound and immeasurable inner work.
China's new regulations this time are not just about restricting rare earth exports. They strengthen export licensing management of rare earth extraction, separation, processing and other technologies.
This is the real straw!
China holds about 92% of the world's rare earth separation and processing technology. What does this mean?
This means that even if the United States finds rare earth mines in Australia and Japan, without Chinese technology, it will be just a pile of waste soil. The U.S. Department of Defense has made an assessment and it will take at least 10 years to restore the local rare earth processing industry chain.
This is not an exaggeration, it is a barrier to technology and a barrier to wisdom.
The United States wants to circumvent China, but can not circumvent it.
What would Besson use to extend the period of tariff exemption in exchange for China’s “flexible adjustment” on rare-earth policies?
It's more of a joke.
Tariffs were used to be a tool for the U.S. to pressure, but now they want to serve as a code for exchange, which can only indicate that they have no other cards.
In the face of the U.S. proposal, China’s response was rather restrained, with neither direct promises nor rejections, but only emphasizing “consult as soon as possible.”
This attitude of not making a clear statement is itself an attitude, which shows China's dominant position in the negotiations.
More ambitious pattern, in the changes in China's foreign trade structure.
In 2017, China's exports to the United States accounted for 19% of the country's total exports, but by 2025, this proportion will directly drop to 10%.
But China's total exports did not decline, which indicates what?
This shows that China has successfully completed an epic "de-Americanization" structural adjustment!
ASEAN, the European Union, the Middle East, Latin America, became the new main force of China's exports, the four together accounted for more than 65%.
Especially within the framework of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, supply chain cooperation between China and Southeast Asian countries will be more efficient and stable.
In the Middle East, China drives manufacturing exports through energy cooperation, while in Latin America, it drives equipment and service exports through infrastructure and clean energy projects.
The US market is no longer “irreplaceable”.
The United States is looking for "substitutes," China is being "needed," the United States is building a "small circle", and China is embracing a "big market." This offensive and defensive trend is self-evident.
The Order of the New Era
This time, China and the United States set the meeting in Malaysia and also made the pad for the subsequent South Korean meeting, but to say that this can adjust the relationship between China and the United States, I am afraid that it is not so optimistic.
The biggest problem is still the credibility of the Trump administration in the United States. There have been too many capricious operations in the past, and no one dares to easily believe their promises.
In the long run, the fundamental dilemma of the United States has not been resolved. Even if some small consensus can be reached in the Malaysian talks, it will be difficult to improve relations at the root cause.
Rare-earth dependence is only apparent, and the real problem is that the United States has always sought to pressure China with unilateral means, but cannot afford the price of disconnection.
But the Trump administration only wants to rely on short-term negotiations in exchange for the interests in front of the eye, not willing to face the problems of its own industrial policy, not to give up on the pressure on China, this "both want to buy cheap and want to be the boss" mentality, determined that it is difficult for them to come up with a truly constructive solution.
The differences between the “hard” and the pragmatists inside the United States have not yet been overcome, and Bezent’s negotiating powers may be limited, making it difficult to overcome deep differences in market access and industry regulation.
Therefore, the so-called "cooling down" is not the same as reconciliation.
Sino-US relations will not warm up immediately because of a video conversation. Bescent mentioned "cooling of relations" and Trump emphasized "the need for a fair agreement". These statements are not linguistic modesty, but strategic adjustments.
China’s attitude is consistent and willing to dialogue, but it must be based on equality, respect and integrity.
A new phase of the Sino-American game has been opened, at the negotiating table, whoever controls the rhythm, whoever controls the initiative, and this time, the power of speech is quietly inclined to the Chinese side.
From the arrangement of the call time, to the choice of the meeting place, to the setting of the topics, and finally to the control of the pace of the talks, the Chinese side has shown a strong initiative.
The US side's so-called "warming down" statements, which appear to be relieving relations, are actually relentless concessions under real pressure.
When opponents start asking for "fairness", is this not just a victory in a bilateral game?
No, this is a prelude to a new era.
And in this new era, who will write the rules?
As Washington’s night becomes deeper, Beijing’s dawn will undoubtedly illuminate a wider world.
conclusion
From passive response to active shaping, this call is not only a relaxation of the relationship, but also a landmark event of the transfer of dominance. It is the most vivid practice of the ancient wisdom of "seeking peace through struggle leads to peace" in the contemporary era.
In the future, the basis of dialogue will be strength and rules, rather than threats and intimidation. A new pattern of a fairer and more stable global order is sprouting, which may be the greatest value that this confrontation brings to the world.
How should we define and grasp this new era when our opponents begin to ask for “fairness”?