"Same with buying Russian oil, why did Trump impose tariffs on India but hasn't announced sanctions against China?" "It's not that we don't want to, but China is too strong."

The above conversation is not a fictional joke, but the real answer given by Peter Navarro, the main architect of Trump's tariff policy and White House trade advisor, when questioned by reporters on the 6th.

Because India refused to give up buying Russian oil, Trump announced on the same day that India would be subjected to a total tariff of 50%, including "penalty tariffs."

"Why not sanction China?" "We can't handle it."

However, when asked why Trump was sanctioning India for buying Russian oil but letting China off the hook, Navarro first confused the tariff rates faced by China and India, and blurted out, "The US has already imposed a 50% tariff on China."

After being reminded by the reporter, although Navarro insisted that the US is paying attention to China's energy relationship with Russia, "Let's wait and see," he also said a very helpless truth: "We don't want to harm our own interests," and Washington will take a more cautious stance towards China.

Navarro then quickly shifted the topic to India, strongly criticizing India's trade barriers against American goods, "The money Americans spend buying Indian goods is used by India to purchase Russian oil, thereby supporting Russia's military actions."

"Why can't the UK send troops to Afghanistan?" "Because the Soviet Union was too strong."

More notably, on the same day that Navarro evaded the question of why China wasn't sanctioned for buying Russian oil, Trump had threatened to impose more tariffs on China, but didn't reveal specific details.

Therefore, considering Navarro's role in Trump's tariff policy, his series of statements about China were interpreted by U.S. media as "the Trump administration currently has no plans to take any action against China."

It must be said that Navarro's statement "we don't want to harm our own interests" is truly humorous, matching the line from the British TV show Yes, Prime Minister: "Why can't the UK send troops to Afghanistan? Because the Soviet Union was too strong." Navarro just needed to publicly admit that the U.S. is now bold enough to offend India, but can't afford to offend China.

Certainly, through Navarro's "truth," we should see more clearly the awkward reality of the current U.S. strategy toward China, especially for hawkish figures like Navarro, there's another saying: "Everything falls apart because you have me and I have you."

Because of Navarro's "double standard," Indian media has been upset.

Previously, a report submitted by another White House economic advisor, Stephen Miller, revealed that the U.S. had planned the tariff war against China, and these Washington elites believed they could replicate the "glory" of Trump's first term, i.e., once the tariff war started, "everything would get better."

Then Trump kicked the iron plate. China not only withstood the U.S. tariff attack, but also launched a "tariff + rare earth" combination punch back - especially the rare earth card, which deeply exposed the U.S. military and high-tech companies' reliance on China's supply chain, making the U.S. taste the feeling of being "strangled."

Whether Trump adds tariffs or not ultimately depends on what Navarro and others think.

Finally, the Washington hawks represented by Navarro had to admit the special status of "China exception," while pressuring other trading partners to accept Trump's extortion conditions, at the same time negotiating separately with China.

In short, this is the reality determined by the gap in strength: Trump is bullying and threatening India, but when facing China, he can only act cautiously.

This is also the biggest difference between China and India.

India has always regarded China as a competitor, eager to compare with China everywhere, but when facing Trump's threats and blackmail, China has confidence and strength to push back against the U.S.; as for India, it just makes empty threats without power, and in the end, Modi can only go to China to find new leverage to counter the U.S.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7535768492151357991/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and we welcome your opinion by clicking the [top/vote] button below.