China-US Agreement Is Hard Won, So Cherish It

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 16 January 2020
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Liza Roberts. Edited by Margaret McIntyre.
China and the United States have finally signed the first phase of an economic and trade agreement. The deal was not easy to agree upon and should be cherished by both sides.

This agreement was reached following 22 months of a trade war, during which both China and the U.S. suffered losses. However, both of these major economies are running smoothly, demonstrating a strong tolerance for the trade war. In other words, should the trade war continue for another 22 months, China and the U.S. both have the capital and resources to declare their ability to withstand it. Therefore, this agreement is not a one-sided win but rather is destined to be the result of both sides’ compromise.

This full-blown trade war, initiated by the U.S., at one time gave both sides angry red eyes. The conflict was brought to an end by the first phase of an agreement that was reached without fatal consequences for either party. This demonstrates that neither China nor the U.S. is acting with a clear head. Both sides believe that a long-term trade war will not assist in achieving the nations’ strategic objectives, not only increasing losses but also creating more severe risks.

The 22-month trade war and surrounding negotiations are closely intertwined; therefore, China and the U.S. should both express a better understanding of the other side’s abilities, willpower and bottom line. This will likely be beneficial to the prevention of future conflicts. If both sides can learn from the lessons of the past 22 months when raising the stakes in the future, then this trade war will not have been fought in vain.

The first-phase agreement signed by China and the U.S. certainly renders both sides slightly regretful, not entirely satisfying either side with the deal. This is precisely the repercussion that a relatively fair agreement will create. It must be said that to debate who won and who lost at this time, as well what was won and lost by whom as a result of the deal, is a shallow way of thinking. This sort of debate is often dramatized for political purposes.

The thing most worth pointing out is that this economic deal will further expand trade between China and the U.S. This result is entirely contrary to the overall state of Chinese-U.S. trade since the start of the trade war. This constitutes a strategic paradox: the result of the trade confrontation between China and the U.S. is that their markets are more tightly intertwined.

It is this paradox that causes many people to feel anxious: will a preliminary trade deal reached during a period of marked decline in Chinese-U.S. strategic relations really prove effective? Additionally, how long can it last? Will this agreement be followed by a new conflict or will the countries move forward with negotiations?

It is impossible to predict the future at this time, but what is very clear is that the Chinese, the United States and global markets all welcome this first-phase economic agreement. This positive reception is more authentic than the noise expressed in political circles and public forums, because votes cast using real gold and silver will not tolerate the slightest bit of hypocrisy or insistence on paranoia.

It may be more difficult for China and the U.S. to reach a comprehensive trade agreement in the future, but we hope that this initial deal will provide messaging that allows an environment for positive efforts to take shape. The past 22 months have seen great ups and downs, but the two sides have not abandoned communication and negotiations, nor have they abandoned the difficult task of reaching consensus. This is one of the greatest experiences to be gleaned from this process.

We hereby call upon those who will conduct future negotiations for China and the U.S. to exercise restraint in criticizing this preliminary trade deal for political purposes. Those who advocate for conflict as a priority alternative should similarly exercise restraint. The true harm of this Chinese-U.S. conflict is not nonsense. Repeatedly verifying this simple truth with increased losses is a senseless waste, and continuing to promote this sort of waste demonstrates a severe lack of morals.

If only this initial phase of a Chinese-U.S. trade agreement can be implemented smoothly, then it will encourage further receptiveness to economic consultations, as well as providing ideas and momentum to alleviate tensions between China and the U.S. Please remember, history presses forward. Exercise a force for its advancement that greatly benefits the future.


中美两国终于签署了第一阶段经贸协议。它来之不易,值得双方珍视。

这个协议是中美两大经济体进行了22个月贸易战之后达成的,双方都蒙受了一些损失,但两国的经济也都处于平稳运行中,显示出对贸易战很强的承受力。换句话说,如果贸易战再打22个月,中美都有资本宣示自己受得了。所以这个协议不可能是一个单赢的版本,它注定是相互妥协的结果。

这场美国发动的全面贸易战一度让双方“打红了眼”,它能够在没有给任何一方带来致命后果的情况下被最终达成的第一阶段协议拦住,并且倒过来走出一截,这表明中美两国都是清醒的。双方都认为把贸易战长期打下去除了会扩大损失、制造更严重的风险,无助于实现各自的战略目标。

22个月的贸易战与谈判相互交织,中美应当说都更加了解了对方的能力、意志,还有底线。这对抑制未来中美发生矛盾时的潜在冲动很可能是有利的。如果以后双方遇事想增加赌注时能够借鉴过去22个月的教训,那么这场贸易战也就算是没白打了。

中美签署的第一阶段协议肯定让双方都有遗憾,觉得不那么痛快,这恰恰是一个相对公平协议必将面对的反响。不能不说,在这个时候争论谁输了,谁赢了,以及输哪赢哪了,是一种浅薄的思维方式。这种争辩常常为了某个政治目的而得到渲染。

最值得指出的是,中美签的这个协议将进一步扩大两国的贸易,这与贸易战发生以来中美关系的整体态势是相反的。这构成了一种战略性悖论:中美贸易对抗的结果让两国市场更紧地扭在一起。

正是这种悖论让很多人不踏实:一个在中美战略关系明显下滑时期达成的初步经贸协议会真的起作用吗?以及它能延续多久,接续它的是新的冲突还是在谈判中继续前进?

无法在这个时候预测未来,但非常清楚的是,中美两国的市场和全球市场都在欢迎第一阶段经贸协议。这种欢迎比政坛和舆论场的很多声音更真实,因为用真金白银做的投票容不下半点虚伪和对偏执的坚持。

未来中美达成全面经贸协议的难度有可能更高,但我们希望这个初步协议对双方作出进一步努力形成积极的启示。过去22个月几度大起大落,但是双方没有放弃接触和谈判,没有放弃对共识的艰难接近,这是最大的经验之一。

我们在此呼吁中美两国出于政治目的对第一阶段协议横挑鼻子竖挑眼、对双方未来谈判形势极力唱衰的人和力量都能够有所克制。鼓吹把对抗作为优先选项的那些人同样应该克制。中美合则两利斗则俱伤决非空话,对这个朴素的道理反复用进一步的损失进行验证是无谓的消耗,继续推动这种消耗是严重缺少道德的表现。

但愿中美第一阶段经贸协议的执行过程能够顺利些,它能够激励接下来的双方经贸磋商,并且给缓和整体中美关系提供思路和动力。请记住,历史是往前走的,为它的前行使一把力,善莫大焉。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Venezuela: Charlie Kirk and the 2nd Amendment

Germany: Trump Declares War on Cities

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Topics

Turkey: Will the US Be a Liberal Country Again?

Singapore: TikTok Deal Would Be a Major Win for Trump, but Not in the Way You Might Expect

Pakistan: US Debt and Global Economy

Mexico: Qatar, Trump and Venezuela

Mexico: Nostalgia for the Invasions

Malaysia: The Tariff Trap: Why America’s Protectionist Gambit Only Tightens China’s Grip on Global Manufacturing

Singapore: Several US Trade ‘Deals’ Later, There Are Still More Questions than Answers

Related Articles

Singapore: TikTok Deal Would Be a Major Win for Trump, but Not in the Way You Might Expect

Pakistan: US Debt and Global Economy

Malaysia: The Tariff Trap: Why America’s Protectionist Gambit Only Tightens China’s Grip on Global Manufacturing

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Spain: State Capitalism in the US