US, China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce
STOCKHOLM : Senior US and Chinese negotiators meet in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay.
China is facing an Aug 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with president Donald Trump's administration after Beijing and Washington reached a preliminary deal in June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs.
Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from duties exceeding 100%.
The Stockholm talks, led by US treasury secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese vice premier He Lifeng, come right on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet, with the EU accepting a 15% tariff on its goods exports to the US and agreeing to make significant EU purchases of US energy and military equipment.
That deal struck with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday in Scotland also calls for US$600 billion in investments in the US by the EU, Trump told reporters.
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 help create conditions for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November.
Spokespersons for the White House and US trade representative's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or take 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, 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 his meeting with von der Leyen, providing no further details.
Deeper issues
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 US.
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.
'Stockholm will be the first meaningful round of US-China trade talks,' said Bo Zhengyuan, Shanghai-based partner at China consultancy firm Plenum.
Trump has been successful in pressuring some other trading partners, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, into deals accepting higher US tariffs of 15% to 20%.
Analysts say the US-China negotiations are far more complex and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on US industries.
Trump-Xi meeting?
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 whether to visit China in a landmark trip to address trade and security tensions. A new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail any plans for a meeting with Xi.
'The Stockholm meeting is an opportunity to start laying the groundwork for a Trump visit to China,' said Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
Bessent has already said he wants to work out an extension of the Aug 12 deadline to prevent tariffs snapping back to 145% on the US side and 125% on the Chinese side.
Still, China will likely request a reduction of multi-layered US tariffs totalling 55% on most goods and further easing of US high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the US trade deficit with China, which reached US$295.5 billion in 2024.
China is currently facing a 20% tariff related to the US fentanyl crisis, a 10% reciprocal tariff, and 25% duties on most industrial goods imposed during Trump's first term.
Bessent has also said he would discuss with He the need for China to rebalance its economy away from exports toward domestic consumer demand. The shift would require China to put an end to a protracted property crisis and boost social safety nets to encourage household spending.
Michael Froman, a former US trade representative during Barack Obama's administration, said such a shift has been a goal of US policymakers for two decades.
'Can we effectively use tariffs to get China to fundamentally change their economic strategy? That remains to be seen,' said Froman, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
35 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
WASHINGTON, Aug 5 — A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared sceptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centres around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the Supreme Court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbours, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. — Reuters
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
BP returns to profit in second quarter
Shares in BP gained 1.7% in early London deals following today's update. (EPA Images pic) LONDON : British energy group BP today posted a net profit for the second quarter, in contrast to weaker results from energy rivals, as lower exceptional charges offset falling oil prices. Profit after tax came in at US$1.63 billion in the April-June period, compared with a net loss of US$129 million in the second quarter of 2024, BP said in an earnings statement. Stripping out exceptional items, underlying net profit was down nearly 15%. 'This has been another strong quarter for BP operationally and strategically,' chief executive Murray Auchincloss said in the earnings statement. BP yesterday said it made its biggest oil and gas discovery in 25 years off the coast of Brazil. In February, BP launched a major pivot back to its more profitable oil and gas business, shelving its once industry-leading targets on reducing carbon emissions and slashing clean energy investment. However, energy prices have come under pressure in recent months on concerns that US President Donald Trump's tariffs will hurt economic growth, while Opec+ nations have produced more oil. BP managed to post a profit for the second quarter thanks to impairments which were lower than one year earlier, along with a revaluation of assets – notably in relation to liquefied natural gas (LNG) – and divestments. Sector woes By contrast, French rival TotalEnergies and US groups ExxonMobil and Chevron posted heavy falls to their net profit in the second quarter. British rival Shell posted a slight increase to its profit after tax for the latest reporting period. Shares in BP gained 1.7% in early London deals following its update. Auchincloss added that the company was launching 'a further cost review and, whilst we will not compromise on safety, we are doing this with a view to being best in class in our industry'. BP already announced plans this year to cut cleaner energy investment by more than US$5 billion annually and offload assets worth a total of US$20 billion by 2027. It recently agreed to sell its onshore wind energy business in the US, while Shell has also scaled back its climate objectives. BP last month named Albert Manifold as its new chairman, replacing Helge Lund, whose departure was announced amid the strategy reset. The group's net profit plunged 70% in its first quarter, hit by weaker oil prices.
Rakyat Post
6 hours ago
- Rakyat Post
Rafizi Proposes Students To Complete High School By 16 So They Can Enter Workforce By 21
Subscribe to our FREE Former Minister of Economy Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli suggested that Malaysia should consider having students complete secondary school by the age of 16 to allow them to start working a job by age 21. According to a 'We must rethink the structure. If our children finish school at 16, by the time they complete tertiary education or skills training, they can start working at 21. 'That gives us a more productive population while buying is time to manage ageing-related challenges,' he said during the debate on the 13th Malaysia Plan (RMK13). Investing early in education Rafizi highlighted that structural reforms in education are being prioritised under RMK13, specifically through investments in early childhood education. He said universal preschool from the age of 5 is crucial due to the 'garbage in, garbage out' principle, which in the context of educations means that the quality of student learning is directly affected by the quality of the input they recieve. If children's development is not optimised between the ages of five and nine, they risk falling behind by Standard Four or Five, according to Rafizi. He added that countries with strong education systems focus their resources on early years instead of waiting until upper secondary or university. Universal preschool to ease financial burdens Rafizi argued that universal preschool — which is essentially publicly funded preschool education — would ease financial burdens of young families, as current costs are often prohibitive. 'This will ease the burden on young families who currently struggle with the high cost of preschool. By ensuring every school in the country can offer preschool, we'll be saving thousands of families over the coming years. 'This is about building long-term foundations. If we want reforms, education is the place to start — and it must begin early,' he said. Earlier, Prime Minsiter Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced that the government will make preschool education compulsory from the age of 5 to improve educational outcomes. Malaysia's retirement age may be raised As part of RMK13, Anwar recently announced Malaysia's mandatory retirement age of 60 will be reviewed with the possibility of being raised. According to a separate Malay Mail 'The mandatory retirement age will also be reviewed to align with the transition to an ageing nation,' he said. Malaysia's retirement age was last increased in 2012, from 55 to 60. Recent proposals seek to raise this further to 65 years old. Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, minister in the Prime Ministers Department (Law and Institutional Reform), previously suggested that such a move would better reflect current realities, such as increased life expectancy and better health outcomes. In spite of that, the proposal has faced opposition from groups such as the Malaysian Youth Council who have argued that the policy is not suitable for Malaysia's current labour market dynamics. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
