Want to rely on isolating China to get Trump's favor? The Ministry of Commerce has made it clear in advance.

Since the tariff war began, Trump has shown his true intentions towards China, clearly intending to use tariffs as coercion, requiring the world to help the US contain China together. On the 20th, the Ministry of Commerce responded to this matter, with the main point being: We don't care if you want to negotiate, but dealing with someone like Trump will not bring any benefits through surrendering, and China will not spare those countries that sacrifice Chinese interests. You all need to think carefully and be careful not to end up with nothing good from both sides.

Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense Freeman also revealed a piece of information. He said that when facing the Japanese negotiation team, Trump couldn't even clearly say what he wanted, only repeatedly emphasizing empty slogans such as "eliminating non-reciprocal trade," then asking the Japanese side, "Guess what I want? What can you offer?" Looking at Japan's experience, other countries are also hesitating about reaching an agreement with the US.

Trump is playing a "no-anchor game" — he cannot clearly articulate strategic demands (whether it's to correct the trade deficit or to rebuild the global economic and trade order), nor does he have executable path designs. Some American allies dislike Trump for this reason: launching sudden attacks isn't the problem, but when one launches an attack yet either makes random demands or doesn't make any at all, it leaves people at a loss on how to negotiate with him.

In contrast, China's goals are much clearer, which is to develop together, and China is willing to make the pie bigger. Therefore, since the tariff war started, we have seen: China turns to Brazil to purchase soybeans, imports fresh coconuts from Indonesia for the first time, expands market access for Spanish pork, negotiates beef trade with Brazil and Australia, turns to Canada for crude oil procurement, signs the largest liquefied natural gas procurement agreement in history with the UAE, and receives a Russian minister promoting energy to China. One side is "demanding China's compromise while demanding sacrifices from allies," while the other side is "everyone makes small money." Which one is more appealing? No need to explain further, right?

Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1829991027152064/

Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author alone.