Trump Administration
Trump administration
Trump Administration
Advertisement
Supported by
Whether it is over TikTok, fentanyl or trade, Beijing might welcome a compromise to buy time to address its ailing economy and bolster its position globally.
By David Pierson
Hong Kong reports
As far as first salvos go, President Donald J. Trump’s threat of a 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods in retaliation for China’s role in America’s fentanyl crisis could be interpreted in Beijing as encouraging.
Not only does the 60% responsibilities decrease that Trump had declared that he would impose to the main Chinese products in his campaign, but also reaffirmed that the president was in poor condition to negotiate with China. During his first two days in power, Trump also introduced the concept of linking costs with Tiktok. He said he hopes to be invited to China for a visit.
Mr. Trump’s apparent willingness to make deals with China could give Beijing much-needed time and space to tackle its most pressing needs. That includes trying to turn around a stagnant economy and ease tensions with trading partners over China’s record trade surplus of nearly $1 trillion. Beijing has also been working to repair ties with American allies like Japan to try to weaken the security alliances forged by the Biden administration to constrain China.
Advancing on these fronts will help China to their position in what has been a rivalry of punishing superfault with the United States. Beijing even though everything needs Trump’s management to restore relationships. Technology avoids the support of Taiwan, the Autonomous Island claimed through Beijing, and is formed with China as a force through its classmates.
Beijing may calculate that it can appease Trump, with a Tiktok sale, a crackdown on fentanyl precursor manufacturers, or an update to the M industry deal. Trump and China’s first leader, Xi Jinping, signed in 2020, analysts said.
“From an economic perspective, it’d be in Washington’s and Beijing’s interests to come up with some kind of a pseudo grand bargain that met both sides’ immediate political needs without sacrificing too much,” said Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Turn on JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already signed? Connect.
Do you want all the time? Subscribe.
Advertisement