Ball in US court to prove it is not just talking for the sake of talk

China and the United States have held trade talks in Geneva, London, Stockholm and Madrid since May. Each round of talks has served to implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state that the world's two largest economies must manage their differences through dialogue and cooperation, not confrontation and coercion.

The Geneva talks helped reopen stalled working channels; the London and Stockholm discussions saw both sides exchange lists of practical cooperation areas; and the Madrid meeting, despite tensions, helped preserve communication at a critical juncture, producing a tariff truce that brought duties down from triple-digit levels for each country. However, the Madrid agreement expires on Nov 10.

To maintain the momentum, Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng had a video call on Saturday with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in which the two sides agreed to hold a new round of consultations "as soon as possible".

It is widely presumed that these forthcoming talks will focus on core differences such as export controls as well as tariff measures. The meeting is also being widely interpreted as a buffer against the recent escalation of trade frictions and aimed at creating conditions conducive to higher-level talks.

Unfortunately, the US administration's recent actions risk fouling the nest for talks. In the short span of weeks since the Madrid consultations, the US has rolled out a string of new restrictive measures targeting China — from adding Chinese entities to its Entity List and threatening to impose 100 percent tariffs on Chinese goods, to introducing unilateral port fees on Chinese vessels. These actions have not only undermined the good-faith foundation for dialogue but also violated basic principles of the World Trade Organization and bilateral agreements.

China's counteractions, such as its newly refined export control measures on rare earths and related items, are a legitimate response. It is disingenuous for some in Washington to describe China's actions as "China versus the world". What truly goes against the global good is the US' abuse of export controls and tariffs, as well as its scrapping of the "de minimis" rules that extend its unilateral jurisdiction far beyond its borders. The US Commerce Control List covers more than 3,000 items, over three times that of China's. Such measures not only distort markets but also destabilize the global supply chains that all countries rely on.

China remains ready and willing to manage the trade and economic differences that have come to the fore through equal-footed consultations. The US, however, must abandon its wishful thinking that China will yield to its trade bullying. Constructive engagement will only be possible when Washington respects China's right to development and treats bilateral trade as a two-way street rather than a geopolitical tool of coercion.

That requires the US to meet China halfway. Bilateral economic ties over the past months indicate whenever the US side reverts to threats, sanctions, or tariff blackmail, the atmosphere for dialogue quickly deteriorates, even jeopardizing previously achieved results.

The planned talks will take place at an important moment. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Communist Party of China Central Committee, to be held in Beijing from Monday to Thursday, will draft the framework of China's next five-year plan — a road map that will further enhance the country's high-quality development and governance capacity.

That China's total goods imports and exports in the first nine months of 2025 are up 4 percent year-on-year, with goods exports leading the overall expansion during the period, surging 7.1 percent year-on-year, demonstrates the vitality of the Chinese economy.

The resilience of the economy means China has both the capacity and the confidence to engage in calm and principled dialogue. If the US is able and willing to do the same and genuinely work with China to address the differences between the two sides — refraining from imposing unilateral pressure — real progress can be expected. If not, even the process of dialogue itself will meet obstacles, and the fruits of past progress may easily be undone.

Cooperation serves both sides' interests and global stability. Only when the US walks its talk in the same direction as China can the two largest economies in the world truly turn dialogue into durable progress, preventing their otherwise cooperative economic ties being downgraded to a who-blinks-first game.