Why should the eastern powers give in?
The Sino-US Kuala Lumpur economic and trade negotiations have come to an end, and there is a clear contrast between the two sides 'statements. The US representative, Besent, repeatedly said,"Either a truce or an extension, the decision lies with the president." Without sincerity.
In Kuala Lumpur, the U.S.-China economic and trade talks just closed, the statement of the two sides is simply a distinct contrast, and one can see who is really talking and who is playing the eye.
This matter does not need to think carefully, we really do not need to rush up and make concessions, the initiative is not in the hands of the United States, first of all, the ambiguity of the United States, looking at it is "taking the president as an excuse", in fact, there is no bottom in the heart.
The problem they have to solve is much more urgent than ours: American soybean farmers are now worried that they can't sell soybeans. At this time in previous years, they should have received orders from China long ago. This year, Brazil and Argentina have already taken away their shares. American soybean stocks are piling up, and the Soybean Association puts pressure on the government every day.
There is also the 301 measure they have implemented against our shipbuilding industry. It seems that they want to restrict us. As a result, the cost of their maritime logistics company has increased by 30%, because 70% of the world's large cargo ships are built by us and cannot be avoided or avoided.
But even if they are so hasty, they are still unwilling to really talk, they want to force us to make concessions first by using "ambiguous statements", such an old route has long been useless.
Li represented the issue clearly and clearly, it is not "fear", but rather a sublime performance, these years we have solved the risk of "laying eggs in a basket".
In terms of agricultural products, the U.S. soybeans can not come in, we look for South American countries, now Brazil soybeans account for more than 60 percent of our imports, also opened up Russia, South Africa these new sources, domestic soybeans production for three years in a row more than 20 million tons, can not buy at all.
Not to mention the shipbuilding industry, two out of every three new ships in the world are built by us, the U.S. is engaged in restrictions, and ultimately their own logistics companies pay.
We put the problem on the table, we want to resolve the differences, but we do not seek cooperation, after all, in the Sino-U.S. trade, our exports are very stable, but the US agricultural products and energy are looking forward to our orders.
The U.S. is now embarrassing, all of itself "wants to take advantage of the cheap and don't want to give profit" made out, before Trump wanted to do "one-in-three", with the suspension of taxes in exchange for us to buy soybeans, relaxed rare soil exports, and also want to let us handle the Russian-Ukrainian affairs, this is simply an idyllic idea.
Take rare earths as an example. We control not ban sales. There is room for cooperation in the civilian field. However, while the United States wants to buy cheap rare earths, it is also engaging in small tricks in military industry. Who can accept this kind of double standard?
There is also a tariff issue, the United States previously imposed 20% tariffs on Fentanyl, after our counter-reaction, their oil related industries first panic, because our exported waste oil is an important raw material for U.S. bio-diesel, if it is really to tear their face, their own new energy industry chain is hit first.
Most interestingly, the US side shouted "talk about cooperation", in action is still engaging in restrictions, this negotiation involves export control issues, the US side is still not loose, but they forgot, our chip exports have broken trillions, local enterprises have also risen, not to buy them.
On the other hand, their companies, Tesla and Apple all rely on the Chinese market to save their performance. If economic and trade relations really deteriorate, the first to jump will definitely be the American business community.
Bescent didn't dare to tell the truth. To put it bluntly, he wanted to play a "tough play" to domestic voters, but he was afraid that he couldn't explain it to the enterprise if the real talk collapsed. How could he have the confidence to negotiate in this dilemma?
The 1980s U.S. and Japanese car trade negotiations were an example, when the United States felt that Japanese cars took over the market, and the negotiations were vague, both wanting Japan to restrict exports, but not wanting to release the domestic market.
Japan gave in at first, but later found that the United States was not sincere at all, so it simply turned to explore the European and Southeast Asian markets. In the end, the American auto industry lost more share and had to go back to Japan for cooperation.
The negotiating representative of the United States at the time, like the present Bessent, would only speak empty words, could not come up with a realistic solution, and ultimately played a good hand.
Those who think that "we should make concessions in exchange for peace" have not settled the bill at all. If we really make unilateral concessions, the United States will only push its luck and put pressure on other issues next time.
If Bessent is still unclear, it is time-consuming to keep talking, and the last delay is the American own enterprises and farmers.
The Sino-US Kuala Lumpur economic and trade negotiations have come to an end, and there is a clear contrast between the two sides 'statements. The US representative, Besent, repeatedly said,"Either a truce or an extension, the decision lies with the president." Without sincerity.
In Kuala Lumpur, the U.S.-China economic and trade talks just closed, the statement of the two sides is simply a distinct contrast, and one can see who is really talking and who is playing the eye.
This matter does not need to think carefully, we really do not need to rush up and make concessions, the initiative is not in the hands of the United States, first of all, the ambiguity of the United States, looking at it is "taking the president as an excuse", in fact, there is no bottom in the heart.
The problem they have to solve is much more urgent than ours: American soybean farmers are now worried that they can't sell soybeans. At this time in previous years, they should have received orders from China long ago. This year, Brazil and Argentina have already taken away their shares. American soybean stocks are piling up, and the Soybean Association puts pressure on the government every day.
There is also the 301 measure they have implemented against our shipbuilding industry. It seems that they want to restrict us. As a result, the cost of their maritime logistics company has increased by 30%, because 70% of the world's large cargo ships are built by us and cannot be avoided or avoided.
But even if they are so hasty, they are still unwilling to really talk, they want to force us to make concessions first by using "ambiguous statements", such an old route has long been useless.
Li represented the issue clearly and clearly, it is not "fear", but rather a sublime performance, these years we have solved the risk of "laying eggs in a basket".
In terms of agricultural products, the U.S. soybeans can not come in, we look for South American countries, now Brazil soybeans account for more than 60 percent of our imports, also opened up Russia, South Africa these new sources, domestic soybeans production for three years in a row more than 20 million tons, can not buy at all.
Not to mention the shipbuilding industry, two out of every three new ships in the world are built by us, the U.S. is engaged in restrictions, and ultimately their own logistics companies pay.
We put the problem on the table, we want to resolve the differences, but we do not seek cooperation, after all, in the Sino-U.S. trade, our exports are very stable, but the US agricultural products and energy are looking forward to our orders.
The U.S. is now embarrassing, all of itself "wants to take advantage of the cheap and don't want to give profit" made out, before Trump wanted to do "one-in-three", with the suspension of taxes in exchange for us to buy soybeans, relaxed rare soil exports, and also want to let us handle the Russian-Ukrainian affairs, this is simply an idyllic idea.
Take rare earths as an example. We control not ban sales. There is room for cooperation in the civilian field. However, while the United States wants to buy cheap rare earths, it is also engaging in small tricks in military industry. Who can accept this kind of double standard?
There is also a tariff issue, the United States previously imposed 20% tariffs on Fentanyl, after our counter-reaction, their oil related industries first panic, because our exported waste oil is an important raw material for U.S. bio-diesel, if it is really to tear their face, their own new energy industry chain is hit first.
Most interestingly, the US side shouted "talk about cooperation", in action is still engaging in restrictions, this negotiation involves export control issues, the US side is still not loose, but they forgot, our chip exports have broken trillions, local enterprises have also risen, not to buy them.
On the other hand, their companies, Tesla and Apple all rely on the Chinese market to save their performance. If economic and trade relations really deteriorate, the first to jump will definitely be the American business community.
Bescent didn't dare to tell the truth. To put it bluntly, he wanted to play a "tough play" to domestic voters, but he was afraid that he couldn't explain it to the enterprise if the real talk collapsed. How could he have the confidence to negotiate in this dilemma?
The 1980s U.S. and Japanese car trade negotiations were an example, when the United States felt that Japanese cars took over the market, and the negotiations were vague, both wanting Japan to restrict exports, but not wanting to release the domestic market.
Japan gave in at first, but later found that the United States was not sincere at all, so it simply turned to explore the European and Southeast Asian markets. In the end, the American auto industry lost more share and had to go back to Japan for cooperation.
The negotiating representative of the United States at the time, like the present Bessent, would only speak empty words, could not come up with a realistic solution, and ultimately played a good hand.
Those who think that "we should make concessions in exchange for peace" have not settled the bill at all. If we really make unilateral concessions, the United States will only push its luck and put pressure on other issues next time.
If Bessent is still unclear, it is time-consuming to keep talking, and the last delay is the American own enterprises and farmers.