It's been almost a month since the Trump trade war. The world is holding its breath for what May will bring. As container ships park around ports in China, and American ports see a precipitous drop in shipment arrivals, between producers in China who are considering closing their shops and consumers in America facing an imminent shortage of various products, who will buckle first?
There are now subtle signs that both sides are open to talking to each other to find a way out.
You may well remember that a week ago, Trump kept saying that China was talking to his administration, only to be rebuffed by China’s MFA and MOFCOM multiple times.
Why was Trump doing this? In hindsight, it seemed like a way for him to make a subtle suggestion that he is willing to talk, without sounding weak.
And today, it seems the Chinese side is also releasing its own version of “they are talking to us” messaging.
It first started with two “influencer” accounts. One is Chairman Rabbit, an influential blogger and also the grandson of an important early party leader. The other was Yu Yuan Tan Tian, an account operated by CGTN, China’s state television, whose boss once worked closely with President Xi for many years when he was the Party secretary of Zhejiang and later Shanghai.
The stories they released this morning shared almost the same title: “The US is 主动actively approaching China from multiple channels to talk about tariffs”.
of , one of the most perceptive China analysts in the street, has just done a quick assessment of these two independently published stories and concluded that this is a way for the Chinese side to signal its openness to talk. And I agree with him.You may ask, what about the cringeworthy “never kneel” video that was making rounds a day ago? My understanding is that this is more likely to be a departmental attempt by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to try to show they are doing good work for a domestic audience, including the top leadership, to see. That is why the video has been shared by the social media accounts of Chinese embassies and diplomats, but only very few people from other “systems” are joining the chorus.
In fact, all the state-linked people that I personally know are unanimous in agreeing that this video was not necessary at all and may even be counter-productive. The world has already come to understand that China “would not kneel,” and agreed that China is in the right. Making such a provocative video steeped in domestic discourse elements could only serve to antagonize and alienate the wrong people.
I have even overheard that some senior leaders have realized by now that this video was not appropriate.
It’s not helpful that the video was also a low-quality production. When the video was first published, it was actually deleted before being reposted.
The likely reason was, I believe, because of a typo in that scene about “paper tigers”.
Now, time to test your Chinese language skills!
This is before:
And this is after:
Can you see the difference?
In the original version, the Chinese language basically reads “All 反对派opposition are paper tigers”, while the correct version, per Chairman Mao, should be “All 反动派reactionaries are paper tigers”.
This is a small change in one Chinese character, but it can have hugely different implications.
Made by an intern, I guess.
By the way, this past week I have published at Baiguan an analysis about the econ-focused Politburo meeting of last week:
Please note again that if you are a paying subscriber of Baiguan, you also enjoy free access to the paid content here at China Translated. Please DM me if you haven’t got this access or have double-spent.
I think the trade war is the realization by many in the US that the goal of a more unipolar world with legal agreements hoping to ensure fair and open competition to benefit all parties has failed. Tariffs and more importantly rules are used to advantage one trading partner over another. It was always easier for the US to overlook smaller economies that used the US market to fund their economic growth. It is obvious that this approach or laissez faire does not make sense with larger economies or between economies that use trade in a win-lose strategy. The break up of globalism and it's institutions developed since the end of WWII is inevitable as populations, governments, and economies change. The swift and dramatic change advocated by the new US administration may have caught many by surprise, but history will likely be surprised that change did not occur sooner. Saving face, appealing to domestic populations, and negotiating in quiet is preferable to bombastic media releases that emphasize who wins and loses. The world can still remain a better and safer place with countries that share win-win commerce.
The “cringeworthy” video is nationalistic, but I wonder why you feel it is cringeworthy. In Australia, “cultural cringe” refers to the tendency to look up to British-American culture, while feeling embarrassed about Australian culture.
Might you be suffering from “cultural cringe”?😬