GOOD MORNING FROM LONDON
THE NEW US-CHINA BALANCE OF POWER
WASHINGTON POST
“Throughout April, President Donald Trump’s sky-high tariffs on imports from China had rippled through the U.S. and global economies. But the president was reluctant to move too quickly to lower the penalties on Beijing, believing that the United States needed to stomach some short-term economic pain to achieve a major rebalancing in trade and that China had more to lose in the standoff.
By the end of the month, though, a growing number of blue-collar workers whom Trump saw as part of his political base — including longshoremen and truckers — began warning that tariffs and a near-total cessation of trade with China were hurting them. Behind the scenes, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other aides told Trump that his own voters were in danger if the tariffs did not come down, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions. That gave them a path to initiating negotiations with the Chinese, which culminated this past weekend in Geneva with a partial deal to reduce tariffs. between the world’s two biggest economies. One White House official cautioned, however, that multiple factors contributed to the trade talks in Switzerland.
“The key argument was that this was beginning to hurt Trump’s supporters — Trump’s people,” one person briefed on the talks said.
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-
China and the United States have agreed to remove most tariffs imposed since April 2 – a breakthrough following high-stakes talks that could help resolve a trade war that had raised import duties to unprecedented levels.
The two countries made the announcement in a joint statement on Monday 12 May 2025.
The agreement lowers the US’ additional tariff rates on Chinese goods to 30 per cent, and Chinese duties on US imports to 10 per cent, on top of some retaliatory levies imposed earlier on selected American goods.
“We have substantially moved down the tariff levels,” said US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who led the American delegation at the talks, in a press conference held shortly after the statement’s release. “Neither side wants a decoupling.”
Who Blinked First? And Is It Significant?
Trump blinked first as the above article in the Washington Post makes clear. And it is significant
A growing number of U.S. blue-collar workers were beginning to hurt as the near cessation of trade between the U.S. and China took effect. Trump anticipated that China would “come running” as the 145% tariff figure hit China’s manufacturers and producers. But China was low-key and distant. It knew that Trump had mis-calculated and that tensions would grow more speedily in the U.S. than in China. There were no desperate phone calls from Beijing or approaches on China’s behalf by intermediaries. Whilst other countries fell over themselves in a rush to talk to the White House, Beijing was silent and that put the pressure back on Trump.
It was a shrewd move. Trump had over-played his hand. His big talk got the better of him and his miscalculation handed the initiative to Beijing. Whilst the rest of the world was rushing to come to Washington, China remained quiet, low key, distant and challenging.
There is another point that has been missed by the media. When the time did come to talk, China insisted that the discussions took place in neutral Switzerland and not partisan Washington and they got their way. It was evidence that China was setting the pace.
It is an important moment in time. China has been tested and it has not buckled. It kept its nerve, stayed strong and decided to negotiate at a time of its choosing and not at the whim of the White House.
There is a new balance in relations between the two countries and the U.S. is learning about its China opponent. There will be periods of conflict and periods of co-operation. The two always go together, but there will be a new respect in the U.S. for China’s status and role in world affairs. Something significant occurred in Geneva.
———————————-
CHINA AND JAPAN “A DANGEROUS ESCALATION”
NIKKEI ASIA
“China has initiated a potentially dangerous escalation of activities around the Japan-controlled Senkaku Islands, entering the area around the chain — which Beijing claims as the Diaoyu — for the apparent reason of territorial defense.
On May 3, a helicopter took off from a China Coast Guard vessel that had entered Japanese territorial waters. A Japan Coast Guard patrol boat confirmed the sighting and issued a warning. Japan Air Self-Defense Force fighter jets scrambled from Naha Air Base in Okinawa prefecture.
At a press conference on Friday, Defense Minister Gen Nakatani criticized the helicopter’s violation of Japanese airspace as “extremely regrettable,” saying “there is no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved regarding the Senkakus in the first place.”
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;
There is a distinction between China defending its borders and China, allegedly, seeking to expand its military presence. This Column has repeatedly asserted that China is not expansive; is not seeking to build foreign bases; has no plans for a military presence for the purpose of imposing itself on neighbouring countries. China is not an imperialist power.
In support of this argument consider the fact that China has invested more than one trillion USD in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America without creating any military bases to oversee the investments.
Critics of China will say;-
“China is a military threat; China wants to dominate the world; China is the new Imperialist Power; the World needs the US; Only the U.S. can prevent the world from being taken over by China. “
This is the thinking in Westminster among the MP’s convinced that Chinese people raped, brutalised and defeated the innocent Uighurs of Xinjiang Province. What happened, they assert incorrectly, in Xinjiang will be repeated on the international stage. The Chinese are coming, the MP’s warn
This is not true. But why is it the approach urged on upon the world by the U.S. and the established powers in Western Europe, Japan and Australia?
There is a reason. It is the Communist Thing. The explanation goes like this; –
“China is Marxist. It is Communist. Communism wants to take control of the world. That is the essence of the theories of Marx and Engels. We must protect ourselves. We want Liberal Democracy. Only Liberal Democracy can assure the collective individuals of the world of Freedom. We must be Free. China must be resisted. China must be defeated.”
Either the theory is correct and World War is the likely outcome. Or it is incorrect and the World can live together in Peace. Every individual has to make up their own mind and reach their own conclusion but let this Column suggest a way forward.
China is different. China is building a prosperous country built on the effort, commitment and hard work of its 1.4 billion people. It will take time. Poverty has been overcome but Prosperity remains a target but not yet an Achievement. China has a long way to go but it will reach its target as a result only of its own internal development.
The Militarisation of China has one purpose – to defend itself. It has read the intentions correctly of the global U.S. thinking. The U.S. believes it has to remain #1. Its leading role cannot be allowed to slip. China’s domestic success is challenging the U.S. and must be stopped. War is a distinct possibility.
Pretexts are sought – invading Taiwan; severing cable wires on the seabed of the Arctic; building new aircraft carriers; signing trade deals with the countries of the world (BRICS). The list is endless. At the end of the day China must be stopped, says the anti-China stance. War is on the agenda. Capitalism must prevail over Communism.
China is closer to Socialism in One Country than to Marxism across the Globe. There was a time in the early 1970’s when China cultivated foreign revolutionary groupings throughout the world as part of a worldwide plan to create global instability. This would weaken the major capitalist powers and hasten their demise. This was part of the “Left” policy that dominated the party during the Cultural Revolution and this policy died with the overthrow of the Gang of Four and follows a conversation between Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Deng Hsiaoping of China in 1978. Lee warned Deng – “Do not stimulate disruption in other countries to promote China’s influence.” Deng listened. He was persuaded and now China has a record of strict non-involvement in the internal affairs of other countries. MI6 and the U.S. CIA say differently but produce little information to justify their suspicions.
China has its hands full dealing with the rising expectations of its 1.4bn people and the danger of an uneducated minority (100-150 million) forming a frustrated hard core of resentment. China knows how to defend itself. It is prepared and therein lies the danger for
an ambitious U.S. eager to administer “a bloody nose” to the upstart nation that is China. As the U.S discovered in Geneva recently at the high level tariff meetings, China knows how to look after itself
GRAHAM PERRY
