The US and China are talking again. Don’t call it a reset

By Karishma Vaswani

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS between the US and China in London mark a cautious step toward easing tensions, but not a new beginning. It’s a short-term strategy to avoid further deterioration — a fragile truce that could be reversed at any moment.

At the core is a deeper issue: National security. Both sides now view trade through that lens, and handshakes won’t fix it. Washington must recognize that Beijing seeks respect and won’t accept a one-sided, long-term deal. China, for its part, needs to understand that it won’t be business as usual — and that the US will expect more concessions and market access to the world’s second-largest economy. The alternative is continued hostility, which will make for a more chaotic global trade environment, and a more dangerous world.

The London climbdown is positive, but precarious. Rapprochement has turned into recrimination before. After the initial euphoria of a trade-war ceasefire agreed in Geneva in May, the other of reneging on a deal to temporarily lower tariffs that had climbed well above 100%.

Now negotiators say they’ve reached an on a framework to deescalate trade tensions, based on the consensus forged in Geneva. Delegations from both sides will take the proposal back to their respective leaders, following nearly 20 hours of talks over two days. “Once the presidents approve it, we will then seek to implement it,” US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. The of the accord weren’t immediately available, but US officials said they “absolutely expect” that issues around shipments of rare earth minerals and magnets will be resolved.

There are no winners or losers coming out of this, notes Steve Okun, founder and chief executive officer of APAC Advisors. The fundamental questions are much larger than any round of talks. “The Trump administration needs to decide whether it views Beijing as a strategic competitor, or an existential threat,” he told me. “Washington can take the economic hit from a trade war, but politically, Xi Jinping can suffer the hit for longer than Trump can. So one side has economic leverage, and the other political leverage — that’s a standstill, for now.”

The Chinese president is biding his time, despite a sluggish economy. In the most recent sign of how the trade war is hurting, less than expected last month. The in US-bound shipments — the outbreak of the pandemic — counteracted strong demand from elsewhere. Still, sales to other markets are providing much-needed support for an economy stuck in deflation and struggling with weak domestic demand.

Beijing is sticking to its narrative that this trade war is Washington’s problem, and that China is being unfairly targeted. A recent warned that America’s security-focused view of economic issues risks undermining global cooperation.

There is a pathway to peaceful coexistence, but , notes Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institution. To break through with Xi, Trump will need to acknowledge that both countries are major powers. Neither can dictate terms to the other. Both would be hurt by high tariffs on each other’s goods — but on their own, they’re not enough to force capitulation.

The US public has no appetite for a broader conflict with Beijing. may be high, but the is still to avoid war. Americans are clear in their desire to manage competition without that escalating into open conflict.

For that to happen, Washington must recognize that Beijing craves respect. The US would be wise to pay heed to the Chinese concept of — Xi will only agree to a long-term deal that he can pitch at home and abroad as a win. Beijing has taken lessons from Trump’s first trade war, and judged that agreement to be one-sided in favor of Washington. It won’t make that mistake again.

China doesn’t always like reciprocating face, but officials would be wise to give some to Trump, too. His tariffs have been outlandish, but his supporters also demand that he show strength, not concession. Beijing should be able to understand what happens when politicians need to cater to public pressure.

Neither side has the upper hand to make the other come away an obvious loser. At the most, the London talks might have achieved just enough to help shape the future on a less-hostile basis. That in itself is progress — but it would be a mistake to call this moment a reset.

BLOOMBERG OPINION