On the stage of Sino-US economic and trade relations, the turning point of the plot always seems to come faster than expected.
Just as the outside world had just captured a hint of a possible easing of relations between the two sides, Trump used his trademark dramatic way to blow out the just-kindled fire of hope in an instant.
The day before, he also claimed that high tariffs were "unsustainable" and expressed his willingness to talk to China, giving Wall Street a temporary sigh of relief.
However, before this warmth lasted for 24 hours, he raised the tariff stick again and threw out an amazing ultimatum:
Either a “fair deal” with the U.S. or punitive tariffs of up to 155 percent from November 1.
He also deliberately set an urgent timetable – giving China a week to consider until the two sides meet during the APEC summit.
This "face change" is faster, the threat is great, and the global markets are once again shut down.
People can't help but ask, is this Trump's last bluff before he decides to give in, or is it a wild gamble that gets out of control?
An old script of extreme pressure and the inside cracks of the White House
The combination of Trump’s “frontier pressures” is not unfamiliar to those familiar with the Chinese-US trade friction over the past few years.
It’s a typical “carrot barrel” strategy that aims to force opponents to make concessions at the negotiating table by creating an extreme atmosphere of tension.
The 155% figure is more of a policy that is about to come to the ground than a deliberately enlarged negotiation code that is much more symbolic than practical feasibility.
After all, Trump himself once admitted that even previous tariff levels were "unsustainable" for the U.S. economy. Higher tax rates would be tantamount to burning people, and the ultimate costs would inevitably be passed on to U.S. businesses and consumers.
Looking back on the trade wars in recent years, although Trump's "extreme pressure" tactics have created noise in the short term, the long-term results have not been satisfactory.
It has failed to the so-called “manufacturing flow” and has failed to fundamentally change the trade pattern.
Now, the goal of returning to the old policy is far beyond the tariff itself. The Trump administration actually handed China a "political package" packed with multiple demands, each of which accurately targeted the core concerns of its domestic and foreign affairs.
As an indispensable "vitamin" for modern high-tech and defense industries, the global supply chain of rare earth is highly concentrated in China.
Recently, China has strengthened export controls on related items based on regulations, undoubtedly touching the most sensitive nerves of the United States.
Trump is eager to ask China to relax restrictions. His underlying purpose is to lock in a stable supply of key strategic resources in advance in future global supply chain competition.
The second is the fentanyl issue.
The U.S. has long been accused of blaming external factors for complex domestic social hardships, and this time it will again point its head to China.
Although China has taken extremely strict control measures and has repeatedly expressed a willingness to cooperate, Trump’s move is more of a political performance of “responsibility pushing out” intended to show his tough gesture to those voters who are troubled by the issue.
Finally, there is soybean procurement.
This is directly related to the core interests of agricultural states in the Midwest of the United States, and these areas are precisely Trump's important ticket warehouses.
By deeply binding agricultural product procurement with trade negotiations, he tried to stabilize his political fundamentals and pave the way for the upcoming mid-term elections.
But behind this seemingly calculated strategy is a more chaotic reality: the White House has long been caught up in a profound structural contradiction in its strategy toward China.
According to reports, the recent sudden escalation of tensions between China and the United States is partly due to the fact that U.S. Secretary of Commerce Lutnick bypassed the White House decision-making level and introduced new restrictions on Chinese technology companies without authorization.
This "Veterinary" behavior completely disrupted the layout of Trump's original plan to create an atmosphere of mitigation before the APEC summit, directly triggering China's precise counter-reaction in the field of rare earth.
The news returned to the White House, triggering Trump's thunderous anger.
It is said that at a closed-door meeting, he lost control of his emotions, slapped the table at Lutnik and called him a "fool". The scene was once extremely tense.
This internal public dispute is like a mirror that clearly reflects the "systemic fission" within the Trump administration.
Therefore, Trump's 155% tariff threat at the moment is not only his usual negotiation means, but also a radical attempt to regain his dominance and voice in China policy after he got out of control internally.
China's strategic strength and new norm
Faced with the Trump administration's wavering stance of sometimes easing and sometimes intimidating, China's response was extremely calm and firm.
China has long made it clear that any negotiation must be based on equality and mutual respect, and unilateral threats and pressure cannot be exchanged for real compromise.
For Trump’s ultimate statement, China’s position is consistent: “talk, the door is open; fight, accompany the end.”
This confidence is not groundless, but stems from the systematic mechanisms and strategic determination gradually established in the past few years in responding to external pressure.
China knows that the real solution to problems is rational dialogue based on rules and cooperation, not emotional unilateralism.
Therefore, while responding to the United States, China did not hesitate to take necessary countermeasures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.
The recent introduction of new rules on export controls for rare-earth-related objects is a miniature of China's response strategy.
This is not a "power grab" as described by the United States, but a normal legal act of China to improve its own export control system. It is a "necessary passive defense" against the United States 'long-term generalization of national security and abuse of export controls to suppress China companies.
Unlike U.S. "one-blade" sanctions, China's counter-action is more focused on "reasonable" and precisely managed by setting a technical threshold and clearly classifying its use.
This not only reserves a channel for normal international market demand, but also effectively prevents key strategic resources from being used in areas that harm China's national security.
This series of measures has accurately hit the U.S. pain, exposed its vulnerabilities in the high-tech and military industrial chains, and made the U.S. feel the pressure.
Meanwhile, the international environment is also undergoing subtle changes.The United States is trying to build a unified front against China.
When the British Minister of Commerce visited China, he said directly that "China is worth the conversation", and Canada has also begun to discuss the abolition of high tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.
These signs indicate that U.S. allies are increasingly reluctant to blindly follow U.S. confrontational strategies in the face of their own economic interests.
For Trump’s three major demands, China also has its own pace and bottom line.
On issues of core interests, there is no room for concessions.
The game between China and the United States is far from over, but a more confident, calm and good at using its own advantages has become the new normal in this game.
Win-win cooperation is still the best way out, but if the US insists on going its own way, China will surely accompany it to the end.
References:
Trump is soft again: high tariff blackmail against China is unsustainable – Observer Network