[By Guancha Observer, Qi Qian] "Don't be intimidated by Trump's bluster, China has set an example for the world."

On May 12th, The Atlantic published an article with this title, stating that US President Donald Trump brandished the tariff stick globally and issued stern warnings: "No retaliation, there will be consequences." However, China ignored this warning but eventually reaped the rewards. Earlier on the same day, after high-level economic and trade talks between China and the US, both sides agreed to reduce tariffs within 90 days, cutting rates by 115%.

"This morning, Trump basically suspended the trade war, only receiving a commitment from China to continue negotiations," wrote Jonathan Chait, author of the special edition of The Atlantic. "Everyone who has been threatened by Trump, whether it's a country, company, or university, can learn a lesson from China."

On April 2nd, Trump announced his so-called "Liberation Day" tariff policy, imposing high "reciprocal tariffs" on the entire world.

The article stated that while Trump announced the tariff policy, he also staged a unique display of hegemonism. Trump and his "gang members" assured their targets: if they complied, they would receive rewards; those who dared to defy would suffer great losses.

On April 3rd, Eric Trump, Trump's second son, posted a threatening message on the X platform, saying: "I don’t want to be the last country to negotiate a trade deal with Trump. The first ones to negotiate will win, and the last ones will definitely lose. I’ve seen this kind of drama my whole life."

Screenshot of the tweet

The article stated that most countries in the world accepted this suggestion, but later found it very difficult to reach a global trade agreement with a president who seemed not to understand how trade works. Diplomats were extremely frustrated because they couldn’t even determine what Trump wanted from them, let alone what rewards he might offer. So far, only the UK has reached an agreement with the US through concessions.

In contrast, China adopted countermeasures against the US, imposing high tariffs on American imports and restricting rare earth exports to the US.

"Therefore, Trump once decided to use China as an example," the article mentioned. Trump repeatedly raised tariffs on China, increasing them from 20% at the start to 54%, then 104%, 125%, and finally to 145%.

However, after standing firm for a month, Trump finally backed down. High-level economic and trade talks between China and the US were held in Geneva from May 10th to 11th, and both sides agreed to reduce tariffs within 90 days, cutting rates by 115%. Trump himself said on the 12th: "The talks in Geneva were very friendly, relations between the two countries are very, very good."

It is worth noting that after the economic and trade talks between China and the US achieved results, Trump immediately turned his gun on the EU, blasting the EU on the 12th for being "very unfair" to the US and pressuring the EU to make "major concessions."

US Treasury Secretary Besten and US Trade Representative Griller held a press conference after the high-level economic and trade talks between China and the US on May 12th. IC Photo

"It seems like everything was a huge misunderstanding," the article stated. The accusations Trump and his administration had repeatedly made against China, such as "China plundering America" and "America should reduce its dependence on China," "seemed to have been forgotten overnight." The US didn't even try to disguise anything; it was simply focused on moving forward, as if the purpose of all this had always been to get along better with China.

The article argued that all these measures taken by the Trump administration, viewed as a practice of trade policy, made no sense. Therefore, one should not narrowly interpret Trump's actions as aiming to reshape the global trade order while ignoring its symbolic significance. "Trump is playing a role, a presidential version of a boss sitting in a luxurious leather chair, dispensing justice to trembling petitioners."

The article stated that Trump threatened to conquer Canada, Greenland, and Panama, and unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico. These actions did not achieve any practical results but instead aroused public resentment, weakening America's influence over these countries and regions. The purpose of these tactics seemed to be to portray Trump as a boss issuing orders to vulnerable targets.

At the beginning, Trump used this tactic on Mexico, repeatedly declaring during his first term that he would build a "border wall." But no one believed that Trump really intended to build a higher wall. This was done to demonstrate that Trump was the ruler, and anyone who dared to defy him would face punishment.

The article pointed out that Trump's governing style often left even his supporters confused. However, past evidence showed that if Trump's targets submitted to his wishes as he desired, they would only receive more humiliation and abuse.

Subsequently, the article gave examples: Columbia University agreed to Trump's provocative demands but was then asked for more; the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group decided not to oppose Trump's nomination of Robert Kennedy Jr. as Health Secretary, but after taking office, Kennedy refused to abandon his extreme positions and took suppressive measures such as cutting research funding.

Compared to this, Harvard University refused Trump and resorted to court, where Trump's chances of winning were slim. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney insisted that his country would never be bought or taken away but received a friendly reception from Trump in the Oval Office of the White House.

The article concluded that it was almost impossible to negotiate with Trump and "win." Trump seemed unaware of the possibility of positive-sum games; he tried to turn a productive relationship into an exploitative one, resulting in mutual losses. This was most evident in the trade sector, where Trump's protectionist instincts spread pain globally without bringing any benefits to the US, only expanding Trump's own power.

"Trump is a typical bully, eager for submission and afraid of conflict," the article described. "His fervent supporters hope he becomes Michael Corleone (the American mafia leader in the movie 'The Godfather'), but he is more like Biff Tannen (the antagonist in the movie 'Back to the Future,' a big, aggressive, and stupid bully)."

The article finally appealed to the world, "Standing up to Trump doesn't mean you'll win, but submitting is bound to result in defeat."

This article is an exclusive piece by Guancha Observer and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7503948631431578153/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Welcome to express your attitude in the button below [Like/Dislike].