,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
After keeping quiet on "trade-war", China is upping the rhetoric w/ Xi speech this morning & now China foreign ministry. The tone from the Chinese side is MORALISTIC (as in I'm the victim here & a good guy) while the US is DIRECT.
Thread 👇🏻is on CULTURAL differences. Enjoy!
Thread 👇🏻is on CULTURAL differences. Enjoy!
American vs. Chinese negotiation:
1) American is direct (all cards on table - Trump wanting concessions on investment & trade) v. Chinese moderate & moralistic (protectionism bad etc/US the bully)
2) Both escalate/louder but Americans spell out what they want but China less so
1) American is direct (all cards on table - Trump wanting concessions on investment & trade) v. Chinese moderate & moralistic (protectionism bad etc/US the bully)
2) Both escalate/louder but Americans spell out what they want but China less so
Link to thread here 👇🏻. Consider: a) 🇨🇳China moralistic tone is its style & defo cares about this for cultural reasons & totally wants behind the scene vs transparency; b) Americans put all the cards on the table & like clarity & don't mind tension/fight🇺🇸
These 2 couldn't be more diff. China wants LAWS TO BE OPEN ENDED, as in don't want anything specific to amend as needed by the state. For the US, it wants CONTRACTS - things spelled out.
Can they come together? Lighthizer defo doesn't believe so & do u know wut he wants to do?🤔
Can they come together? Lighthizer defo doesn't believe so & do u know wut he wants to do?🤔
I ask this b/c to ask why China is upping the rhetoric, as in the moralistic tone. Is it for domestic consumption? If for external, as in Americans, we don't think that way.
For Americans, whether China is "good" immaterial as the Americans made up their mind when they escalated
For Americans, whether China is "good" immaterial as the Americans made up their mind when they escalated
As if u read the materials I recommended on how we got here (the 3 essays), the Americans in charge of talks made up their mind on China (Lighthizer, Trump, etc). As in the hawks are just trying to redefine the relationship as they gave China a deal it won't accept meaningfully.
I believe it was set up for China to fail. The Americans in charge decided that the US & China are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. By that I mean Lighthizer's version of the world & unfortunately he has a stronger argument than others so he prevails.
So we are here. China is redefined.
So we are here. China is redefined.
As in the G-20 meeting at the end of June is for Xi to fix. If the Fed holds or cuts, Trump doesn't have a problem b/c the USD is bigger than the tariffs on 250bn for the US. Xi has 2 choices. He can walk away. By doing that, Lighthizer rejoices & Xi'd have to accept a new normal
And in this new normal, Lighthizer's version of China is "confirmed" & Lighthizer's original suspicion of China is now mainstream by US elites (Republicans + Democrats).
Did you read what Lighthizer's recommendation on what to do w/ the US relationship w/ China?
U should read it
Did you read what Lighthizer's recommendation on what to do w/ the US relationship w/ China?
U should read it
Trade-war has already changed the world, no matter what happens b/c motivation is to redefine China (Lighthizer's)
"Failure of talks would prove no one can do it b/c China is fundamentally @ odds w/ the US That shift would set up a new dynamic w/ China."
"Failure of talks would prove no one can do it b/c China is fundamentally @ odds w/ the US That shift would set up a new dynamic w/ China."
