For all the noisy saber-rattling that has characterized Washington’s approach to Beijing in recent years – tariff tantrums, tech blockades, and rhetorical overkill – the recent economic and trade consultation between the two superpowers in London offered a modest, but necessary, corrective. The talks were not couched in triumphalist slogans or vague promises. Instead, they represented something more meaningful: the reassertion of dialogue over diatribe.
Held under the banner of the newly launched China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism, the London talks featured in-depth exchanges between Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and top US officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The meeting itself was framed as an extension of the consensus reached just days earlier during a phone call between the two heads of state – a timely reminder that diplomacy, like trade, relies on continuity.
Beijing, for its part, arrived with a clear and consistent position: cooperation is not only preferable to confrontation – it is indispensable. Vice Premier He reiterated that mutual benefit remains the essence of China-US economic ties. This wasn’t mere boilerplate. In a global landscape riven by trade wars and geopolitical one-upmanship, China’s insistence on economic pragmatism is a stabilizing force.
Rather than grandstanding, the Chinese delegation emphasized professionalism, rationality, and the need for sustainable implementation. The London meeting, in this light, was not performative, but constructive – a forum for realignment rather than recrimination. At stake is more than just the economic fortunes of the world’s two largest economies. The steady normalization of China-US trade relations sends much-needed signals to jittery global markets.
But more than anchoring, the mechanism created in London also carves out a forward-looking path. Establishing a permanent consultation framework allows both sides to address their grievances through structured dialogue, rather than relying on the erratic lurches of unilateralism. It acknowledges, tacitly but importantly, that friction is better managed than amplified – and that the global economy cannot be held hostage to political whim.
This is where China’s role stands out, not as a reactive power but as a constructive one. In contrast to narratives that caricature Beijing as an economic aggressor, the talks revealed a China eager to preserve multilateral trade norms, respect international market rules, and promote win-win outcomes.
For progress to translate into policy, the United States must honor its word. The US must avoid ‘saying one thing while doing another.’ Trust, once eroded, is hard to recover. If the US seeks credibility in global markets, it must approach future talks not as performances for domestic audiences, but as platforms for equitable negotiation.
To that end, the American side’s willingness – at least rhetorically – to “walk in the same direction” is encouraging. Whether Washington can resist the tug of short-term political opportunism remains to be seen. But the London meeting has made clear that a cooperative approach is not only viable but necessary.
Indeed, for the many US businesses operating in China, the message is unambiguous. Despite rising tariff pressures, most are not fleeing the Chinese market. According to a recent survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, none are shifting production back to the US. This isn’t ideological loyalty – it’s market logic. China’s manufacturing ecosystem, infrastructure, and labor efficiencies remain unmatched, and no amount of political pressure can easily replicate that elsewhere.
Moreover, Beijing’s posture toward these firms has been anything but hostile. Rather than weaponizing market access, China continues to prioritize transparency and reform. Of course, structural differences remain. Strategic patience, as some Chinese scholars noted, will be required. But patience is not passivity. The London meeting, in many ways, reflects a China that is simultaneously principled but pragmatic – ready to engage, but on equal terms.
In a world where many countries are turning inward, embracing protectionism and populist economics, China’s willingness to commit to a multilateral vision is significant. It signals that engagement, not disengagement, is the route to stability. And it underscores China’s broader commitment to global economic governance – not as a disruptor, but as a stakeholder.
The London dialogue is not a breakthrough in the dramatic sense. It was a sober affirmation that diplomacy still matters. And in these uncertain times, that is no small achievement. If both sides can resist the urge to turn economic ties into ideological battlegrounds, then the London mechanism could evolve into more than just a consultative forum – it could become a much-needed pillar of predictability in an unpredictable world. For now, the burden of sincerity lies with Washington. But the groundwork – thanks in no small part to China’s steady hand – has been laid.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
