海角社区官网

Closed-door negotiations focused on tariff details, a stark contrast to Trump鈥檚 earlier theatrics, where foreign leaders were pressured to praise him publicly. Beijing鈥檚 insistence on equal representation and rejection of direct negotiations between Trump and Xi underscored its refusal to be treated as a subordinate.

Instead, Vice Premier He Lifeng, a seasoned trade negotiator, led China鈥檚 delegation, while the U.S. fielded moderate voices like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, sidelining hardliners like Peter Navarro. This structure allowed Beijing to steer negotiations toward incremental progress, avoiding ideological clashes while securing tangible concessions.聽

The truce鈥檚 terms underscored China鈥檚 growing leverage. The elimination of Trump鈥檚 so-called 鈥淟iberation Day鈥� tariffs 鈥� peaking at 245 per cent on select goods 鈥� and their reduction to a uniform 10 per cent (but the 20 per cent U.S. tariff regarding Chinese handling of fentanyl and China鈥檚 retaliation of 10 to 15 per cent on selected U.S. imports remain) on both sides masked deeper asymmetries.

China鈥檚 retaliatory tariffs selectively pressured politically sensitive U.S. sectors, while Beijing minimized domestic pain by diversifying supply chains through ASEAN partners and boosting domestic consumption.

For its part, the U.S. faced economic headwinds, including a contracting GDP and rising consumer prices, which eroded its bargaining power. By targeting U.S. tech dependencies, such as rare earth export controls, China secured its dominance in green energy supply chains, ensuring long-term strategic stability.

The joint statement鈥檚 rhetorical shift further demonstrated Beijing鈥檚 diplomatic recalibration. Phrases like 鈥渕utual respect鈥� and 鈥渟ustainable economic relations鈥� replaced Trump鈥檚 inflammatory claims about China as a 鈥渃urrency manipulator鈥� or 鈥渦nfair trader.鈥�

While the U.S. retained 10 per cent tariffs on strategic sectors like semiconductors, China鈥檚 broader levy avoided direct political targeting, projecting an image of restraint. Behind the scenes, the new bilateral consultation mechanism institutionalized dialogue, sidestepping disputes over Taiwan or high tech competition to focus on actionable agreements, such as collaboration frameworks that address the large US trade deficit with China.聽

Global markets reacted with relief, but optimism masked underlying fragility. Global Tech Index surged, while recovering U.S. stocks showed easing tensions for automakers and tech firms reliant on Chinese components. Yet the 90-day window left critical issues unresolved. U.S. trade deficits persisted, and China鈥檚 push for 鈥渟trategic autonomy鈥� threatened long-term U.S. tech dominance.

Past U.S. administrations struggled to uphold trade agreements, raising doubts about Trump鈥檚 ability to sustain momentum. Domestically, the truce fuelled tensions: Many decried Trump鈥檚 鈥渃apitulation,鈥� while Chinese state media framed it as a strategic milestone, reinforcing domestic resolve.聽

Beijing鈥檚 pragmatism lies not in defeating the U.S. but in redefining the terms of engagement. By resisting coercion and leveraging its market size and supply chain integration, China forced Washington into a position where escalation risked self-harm. For other nations, the lesson is clear: Economic self-sufficiency and institutional unity are critical in countering American unilateralism.聽

Yet this truce remains precarious. The next 90 days will test whether Trump can suppress domestic hawks or if China鈥檚 concessions prove reversible. But this much is evident: In an era of de-globalization and protectionism, U.S.-China rivalry will be defined not by wars of attrition but by calculated, patient competition 鈥� a contest where Beijing鈥檚 strategic discipline has already reshaped the playing field.聽