When the US starts talking seriously: a belated reckoning with reality

Editor's note: Lin G. is a CGTN economic commentator. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of CGTN.

Chinese and US delegations have reached a basic consensus on arrangements to address respective trade concerns after two days of talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Unlike earlier sessions, which focused on specific aspects of trade or incremental progress, such as the mutual suspension of additional tariffs, the latest economic and trade talks were notable for the breadth and comprehensiveness of their agenda. It covered nearly all major topics in the China-US economic relationship, ranging from maritime logistics and shipbuilding to the suspension of reciprocal tariffs, fentanyl-related tariffs, agricultural trade, and export controls on rare earths, semiconductors, and related items.

This broader and more structured dialogue illustrated a gradual transformation in Washington's perception: from viewing trade with China primarily as a competitive tool to understanding it as a central factor affecting the resilience and performance of its own economy.

Washington's shift: from tactical pressure to strategic realization

The fundamental reason why the US is now able to sit down and talk seriously lies in China's economic and industrial strength. For years, Washington underestimated not only the resilience and self-sufficiency of China's supply chains, but also the degree of US dependence on those chains and the potential vulnerability of its own economy should China take decisive countermeasures.

But as developments in China's rare earths export controls have shown, the US has had to acknowledge that China now possesses the capacity to act decisively at critical junctures – and that if it truly "plays hardball," the lifeline of the US economy could be disrupted.

This renewed recognition of reality has made the US aware that if it continues to approach China with a "poker game" mentality, not only will China refuse to yield, but the resulting shocks could backfire on the US itself and on its allies' economies. As a result, Washington's strategy is shifting: from "showing toughness toward China" to "demonstrating governing capacity through seeking a stable framework."

Revisiting all past issues suggests an implicit US admission of past mistakes

This is also a reflection of American domestic political reality. At its core, the US political system must navigate a tension between the interests of capital and the short-term imperatives of electoral politics. Domestic industries, particularly in high-end manufacturing, have increasingly recognized their dependency on global supply chains, many of which are anchored in China. These sectors have lobbied for more predictable, stable trade relations

However, US political leaders continue to navigate a landscape in which public perception remains misaligned with economic realities. Many still believe that confronting China constitutes the defense of American interests, when in fact such confrontation risks harming those very interests. The broader recognition that stable and cooperative engagement with China better serves the US economy has yet to gain widespread acceptance, leaving policymakers caught between popular expectations and the imperatives of practical governance.

In this sense, the evolving US posture in Kuala Lumpur reflects an uneasy compromise by the US: While the administration may still publicly project toughness to satisfy domestic expectations, the very scope and depth of the discussions – bringing all longstanding issues in the China-US economic relationship back onto the table – constitute an implicit acknowledgment that past judgments were mistaken, and demonstrate a willingness to engage in a fundamentally more constructive approach toward China.

Toward more rational engagement

After numerous rounds of dialogue, each marked by careful, pragmatic participation from China, it has become increasingly evident that Washington's earlier strategy of tactical maneuvering yields little substance. The constant adjustments, threats, and posturing that once defined the US approach have been exposed as ultimately ineffective.

The Kuala Lumpur consultations could illustrate a turning point: genuine progress may emerge when the US recognizes that past strategies based on superficial pressure cannot substitute for strategic comprehension, and allows all past issues to be revisited at the negotiating table.

(Cover via VCG)