Recently, the trade agreement between the United States and Europe has attracted global attention, followed by sharp questions from Western media about China.

Although some people in the EU have admitted that this agreement is not ideal, it is merely the "best possible" one that can be reached at the moment, with a sense of reluctant compromise. However, many people are beginning to speculate whether the United States will also resort to the same tactics and let China accept so-called "second-best agreements."

At the regular press conference of the Foreign Ministry on July 28, Reuters raised a question:

The US and EU have reached an agreement on trade, even though the EU admits it is only a "second-best" result. When such "second-best options" are placed on the negotiation table, will China compromise and even withdraw when necessary?

This question clearly attempts to apply the logic of the US-EU negotiations to China, as if after the US forced the EU to bow down, other countries would have no choice but to comply with its set framework.

However, the response from the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Guo Jia Kun, clearly drew the line:

China has always advocated resolving trade disputes through equal dialogue, and has always maintained a favorable environment for international trade cooperation and the rules of the World Trade Organization. However, China will not allow any party to make deals at the expense of China's interests.

This statement was resolute: how the US and EU negotiate is their own business. Wanting China to "settle for second best" like the EU? That's impossible. China's bottom line is clear; any agreement that harms China's interests is off the table.

Additionally, negotiations must take place on the basis of equality, respect, and mutual benefit. It is absolutely impossible to accept results that harm our own interests.

First, look at the trade agreement reached between the US and the EU. On the surface, the US has reduced the tariff on the EU from a threatened 30% to 15%, seemingly offering the EU a "sweet deal."

But in reality, the EU has paid a huge price. The EU needs to invest 60 billion dollars and purchase 75 billion dollars worth of American energy. This condition has caused dissatisfaction among many European figures.

This strategy of first threatening with high tariffs and then getting the other side to back down through negotiations has made the EU lose a lot of leverage in this game.

Even some former EU officials have openly stated that if the EU had cooperated with China to counter the US in April, they could have obtained better conditions.

Now, a new round of Sino-US trade talks has already taken place in Sweden, which is undoubtedly an important opportunity for both sides to further communicate and seek cooperation. China has clear bottom lines and principles, and will not make concessions on core interests.

Many EU member states have a single economic structure and a high dependence on the US market. In key areas such as automobiles and agricultural products, if the US raises tariff barriers, EU companies' exports would suffer serious damage.

Therefore, in this game, although the EU is unwilling, in order to protect part of the market share and avoid greater economic difficulties, they finally chose to compromise and accept the "second-best agreement."

However, China is completely different from the EU. China is the world's second-largest economy, with a vast consumer market. China is the world's second-largest economy, with a large consumer market, a diverse and complete economic structure, and a much lower reliance on a single market than the EU.

In previous rounds of trade negotiations, China has always maintained a constructive position, approached the negotiations with sincerity, actively promoted the negotiation process, and implemented the consensus reached between the two sides. However, sincerity does not mean unconditional compromise. Facing unreasonable demands from the US, China has never backed down.

Now, if the US tries to use the same methods it used against the EU to force China to accept a "second-best agreement," it is obviously a wrong calculation.

At a time when the global economy faces many uncertainties, as the two largest economies in the world, China and the US should choose win-win cooperation as the only correct option. If the US tries to pressure China into accepting a "second-best agreement," it is an unrealistic fantasy.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7532303564950192655/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude below using the [Up/Down] buttons.