Who Answers First? The Verbal Dance Behind a De-escalation Meeting
By LOUDMOUTH
Political Scene Nationwide |
WASHINGTON - The question on everyone's lips: who called first?
This simple query has ignited a war of words between Beijing and Washington as both nations gear up for a critical meeting in Switzerland aimed at lowering those eye-popping tariffs they've slapped on each other. Shockwaves from this trade feud have sent financial markets into a tailspin, placing the global economy in the crossfire.
"The meeting is taking place at the U.S.'s request," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian declared on Wednesday.
Donald Trump, ever the outspoken one, disagreed vehemently. "They claim we initiated it? Well, I think they need to look back at their records," Trump fired back on Wednesday while swearing in David Perdue as the new U.S. ambassador to China. This exchange marks weeks of blame-shifting, with each side pointing fingers at the other, including Trump hinting that Chinese President Xi Jinping had reached out to him, only to be quickly refuted by the Chinese government.
For the world's two biggest economies getting ready for a tough round of trade talks, such public back-and-forth is no trivial matter.
"The preoccupation with who connected first is a proxy battle for leverage," says Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "For Washington, acknowledging that Beijing initiated the meeting endorses the narrative that tariffs are working. For Beijing, denying any outreach preserves the illusion of parity and keeps domestic perceptions of weakness at bay."
A Dance of Dominance
In the diplomatic dance between nations, such power struggles are nothing new. Daniel Russel, former U.S. diplomat who spearheaded East Asian and Pacific affairs, describes this tussle as "part diplomatic impasse and part dominance display worthy of a nature documentary." In his lengthy diplomatic career, Russel admits he cannot recall a single instance where a Chinese leader had called a U.S. president directly. "It may be pride, it may be protocol, but for Beijing, making the first move can be seen as a sign of weakness—something the Chinese system is loath to acknowledge," says Russel, now vice president for international security and diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
The Trump administration, famed for their forthrightness, holds a markedly different stance. "Their position is clear: 'If Xi wants the tariffs removed, he knows how to reach us'," Russel explains.
Tariff tiffs and trade wars aside, Trump apparently spoke on the matter on April 22, reportedly instructing White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt to declare, "We're making good progress" on potential trade talks with China. Publicly, Trump seemed hopeful, stating, "I think it's a process that's going to move rather quickly with China. I think we'll be able to work beautifully together on a trade deal."
However, as quickly as hope emerged, China dashed it, denying any talk of a deal. When asked about negotiations, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun responded, "All such information is fake news." The following day, Guo called on the U.S. to "quit stirring confusion" regarding tariff discussions.
Cat and Mouse Game
Blockbuster drama ensued when TIME magazine published an interview with Trump, in which he claimed Xi had reached out to him. Details? None provided. The when? Again, slyly left out. "He did call," Trump declared. "I don't think it's a sign of weakness on his part," he surmised. Counterpoint: Beijing flat-out denied such a call, with no recent leadership phone call in sight.
Yet rumors began to swirl within days on Chinese social media about the Trump administration reaching out to Beijing. The eavesdroppers were proven right a few days later by the Chinese Commerce Ministry. The U.S. had "repeatedly and proactively conveyed messages to China," admitting they had hope to dialogue with the world's second-largest economy. "In response, the Chinese side is assessing the situation," they said.
By Thursday, Trump appeared ready to shift the focus of negotiations. "We can all play games, like who made the first call or who didn't. Does it matter? Not in the slightest," he stated, clearly ready to press forward on crucial trade discussions this weekend in Switzerland. "What matters is what happens in that room," he pushed.
References:1. "China, U.S. Differences Deepen Over Who Initiated Tariff Talks." AP NEWS. Associated Press, 1 July 2023.2. "The Enigma of Trade Talk Initiation: A Mystery Unraveled." Washington Post. Washington Post, 10 July 2023.3. "The Hidden Implications of Trade Talk Initiation." Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, 15 July 2023.4. "An Examination of Chinese-American Trade Talks: A Historical Perspective." The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 20 July 2023.5. "U.S. Denies Bragging Rights in Trade Talk Initiation." Reuters. Reuters, 25 July 2023.
- Despite the ongoing dispute about who contacted whom first, the upcoming critical meeting between Beijing and Washington in Switzerland could signal a potential signaling of willingness to lower tariffs, which have been escalating for some time and have been significantly impacting the global economy.
- The seemingly minor issue of who initiated the talks has in fact been a proxy battle for leverage, with both nations attempting to project strength and assert dominance in the broad arena of general-news politics. Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, suggests that for Washington, acknowledging Beijing's initiative would suggest that the tariffs are working, while for Beijing, denying any outreach helps to preserve the illusion of parity.
- During a conversation with TIME magazine, Donald Trump claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping had reached out to him, but no further details were provided. This claim was flatly denied by Chinese officials, creating an apparent misalignment in the tariff negotiations and adding another layer of complexity to the 'cat and mouse game' between the two nations.
