‘Too strategic': Australia must regain ownership of the Port of Darwin
Mr McCormack said 'the bottom line' is that Australia must regain ownership of the port.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have held their highly anticipated meeting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
4 hours ago
- 9 News
Australia's nervous Trump tariff wait almost over
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here The so-called "reciprocal" tariffs were paused for 90 days, and the White House has recently announced deals with a slew of partners, including the UK , China , Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and, as of this morning, the European Union. However, an Australian deal is yet to be announced ahead of the pause expiring on Friday. Donald Trump's tariffs have caused uncertainty in financial markets. (Getty) Australia is currently subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff, but what that figure will be as of Friday is unclear. Trump said last week he would be sending out letters to roughly 200 countries this week unilaterally setting a range of tariff rates. "It's basically going to say, you're going to pay 10 per cent, you're going to pay 15 per cent, you're going to pay maybe less, I don't know," Trump told reporters. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese criticised Trump's tariffs when they were first imposed. (Dominic Lorrimer) Trump reacted positively to the news, saying on his Truth Social account: "Now, we are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World." Albanese and China's President Xi Jinping in Beijing earlir this month. (Huang Jingwen/Xinhua via A) Meanwhile, talks between the United States and China are still ongoing, with officials from both nations set to meet this week. Trump slapped a 145 per cent tariff on imports from China in April, prompting Beijing to respond with a 125 per cent duty on the United States. In the aftermath of Trump's tariffs, China called for greater trade cooperation with Australia, which was reiterated when Prime Minister Albanese undertook a state visit to China earlier this month. "Protectionist measures are on the rise in the world, and China and Australia are committed to advancing trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation," Chinese Premier Li Qiang said after meeting with Albanese. CONTACT US
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Barnaby Joyce wants Australia to abandon net zero - but his 4 central claims don't stack up
One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- The Advertiser
US, China to launch new talks on tariff truce extension
Top US and Chinese economic officials will resume talks in Stockholm to try to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce by three months and keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from US duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo. The Stockholm talks come hot on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet with the European Union on Sunday for a 15 per cent tariff on most EU goods exports to the US, including autos. The bloc will also buy $US750 billion worth of American energy and make $US600 billion worth of US investments in coming years. No similar breakthrough is expected in the US-China talks but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and facilitate planning for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. A US Treasury spokesperson declined comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China within weeks, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck their tariff deal. Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I'd be surprised if there is an early harvest on some of these things but an extension of the ceasefire for another 90 days seems to be the most likely outcome." US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will lead the delegations in Stockholm. Bessent has already flagged a deadline extension and has said he wants China to rebalance its economy away from exports to more domestic consumption - a decades-long goal for US policymakers. In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon on a landmark trip to China, and a new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail planning. Top US and Chinese economic officials will resume talks in Stockholm to try to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce by three months and keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from US duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo. The Stockholm talks come hot on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet with the European Union on Sunday for a 15 per cent tariff on most EU goods exports to the US, including autos. The bloc will also buy $US750 billion worth of American energy and make $US600 billion worth of US investments in coming years. No similar breakthrough is expected in the US-China talks but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and facilitate planning for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. A US Treasury spokesperson declined comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China within weeks, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck their tariff deal. Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I'd be surprised if there is an early harvest on some of these things but an extension of the ceasefire for another 90 days seems to be the most likely outcome." US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will lead the delegations in Stockholm. Bessent has already flagged a deadline extension and has said he wants China to rebalance its economy away from exports to more domestic consumption - a decades-long goal for US policymakers. In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon on a landmark trip to China, and a new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail planning. Top US and Chinese economic officials will resume talks in Stockholm to try to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce by three months and keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from US duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo. The Stockholm talks come hot on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet with the European Union on Sunday for a 15 per cent tariff on most EU goods exports to the US, including autos. The bloc will also buy $US750 billion worth of American energy and make $US600 billion worth of US investments in coming years. No similar breakthrough is expected in the US-China talks but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and facilitate planning for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. A US Treasury spokesperson declined comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China within weeks, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck their tariff deal. Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I'd be surprised if there is an early harvest on some of these things but an extension of the ceasefire for another 90 days seems to be the most likely outcome." US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will lead the delegations in Stockholm. Bessent has already flagged a deadline extension and has said he wants China to rebalance its economy away from exports to more domestic consumption - a decades-long goal for US policymakers. In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon on a landmark trip to China, and a new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail planning. Top US and Chinese economic officials will resume talks in Stockholm to try to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce by three months and keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from US duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo. The Stockholm talks come hot on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet with the European Union on Sunday for a 15 per cent tariff on most EU goods exports to the US, including autos. The bloc will also buy $US750 billion worth of American energy and make $US600 billion worth of US investments in coming years. No similar breakthrough is expected in the US-China talks but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and facilitate planning for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. A US Treasury spokesperson declined comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China within weeks, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck their tariff deal. Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I'd be surprised if there is an early harvest on some of these things but an extension of the ceasefire for another 90 days seems to be the most likely outcome." US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will lead the delegations in Stockholm. Bessent has already flagged a deadline extension and has said he wants China to rebalance its economy away from exports to more domestic consumption - a decades-long goal for US policymakers. In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon on a landmark trip to China, and a new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail planning.
