On June 5th, US President Trump announced that he had a phone call with Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping regarding trade issues, and both sides’ teams are set to meet soon. Just a day earlier, Trump had expressed difficulty in reaching an agreement with Xi. While the trade negotiations between the US and China seem to have a turning point, analysts believe that the Chinese Communist Party lacks sincerity and has been using tactics of strategic delay and selective fulfillment.
Trump, on June 5th, took to his social media platform Truth Social to post both written and video updates about his phone call with Xi Jinping, lasting about an hour and a half and primarily focusing on trade, with no mention of the Russia-Ukraine war or Iran issues. In both posts, Trump referred to rare earths, stating that “there should be no doubt about the complexity of rare earth products anymore.”
Rare earths have been a focal point of the US-China trade war. On April 15th, Trump signed an executive order initiating a national security investigation into imports of critical minerals and their derivatives to assess whether America’s reliance on foreign sources poses a strategic risk.
The White House released a statement pointing out that China restricts rare earth exports to limit the US. They highlighted that China had recently suspended the exports of six heavy rare earth metals and rare earth permanent magnet materials, disrupting the supply of vital components for global automotive manufacturers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies, and military contractors.
Earlier on May 12th, the US and China released a joint statement in Geneva, agreeing to significantly reduce tariffs, with the US reducing tariffs from 145% to 30% and China from 125% to 10%, initiating an ongoing negotiation mechanism. However, since then, there has been no progress in the negotiations between the two sides.
Trump is well aware of China’s lack of credibility in fulfilling agreements. In a social media post on May 30th, Trump criticized China for “completely violating” the agreements signed with the US, mentioning that it may not come as a surprise to some.
Regarding China’s delay in implementing the agreement with the US after reaching it in May, Sun Guoxiang, a professor at Nanhua University’s Department of International Affairs and Business, stated that this is not a technical issue but a typical tactic of strategic delay and selective fulfillment.
Sun believes China’s purpose in doing so is to influence US policy towards China, create internal pressure, pressurize US companies to pressure the Trump administration, regain control of the negotiations and retaliate against US sanctions. The leverage of delaying implementation in exchange for more concessions or prolongation.
American economist David Huang told Epoch Times on the same day that Beijing’s so-called agreements are not commitments, but a prelude to delaying tactics.
Huang stated, “China has continuously pursued a strategy of nodding first, acquiescing first, setting obstacles next, and finally delaying in the past years. The aim is not a simple matter of face, but to try to create a time advantage and a cognitive haze in the US-China confrontation chessboard.”
Specifically, Huang pointed out that Beijing understood Trump’s term was limited to four years, allowing Beijing to continue to delay, progress slowly with the tactic of procrastination. This tactic is not for short-term gains but a delay strategy for the long term.
China’s lack of credibility and failure to fulfill commitments have been longstanding issues. The delay in implementing commitments by Beijing is not a random event but a highly strategic choice.
At the annual Asia-Pacific Security Summit on May 31st, Philippines Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro openly stated that friction commonly arises between China and trading partners due to Beijing’s lack of commitment.
Teodoro bluntly stated, “China has a deficit of trust and credibility,” which is not only a major cause of regional tension but also a main reason for friction between the US and China. The Asia-Pacific Security Summit, also known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, is an annual forum organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in the UK in collaboration with the Asia Security Summit office of the Singapore Ministry of Defense.
Additionally, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. The US Trade Representative’s Office (USTR) ‘s 2023 China WTO Compliance Report, released in February 2024, is the latest assessment of China’s status as a WTO member by the US.
The report pointed out that “China has repeatedly made broad commitments to the US to fundamentally change its policies and practices, but China has failed to fulfill these commitments. Over time, it has become increasingly challenging to ensure China’s commitments.”
When China joined the WTO, it agreed to accept the WTO’s open and market-oriented trade principles and integrate them into its economic and trade systems and institutions. It not only promised to fulfill existing WTO obligations but also made various unique commitments.
However, the report stated, “The US has shown sincerity and put in significant effort in bilateral dialogues with Beijing. These dialogues have aimed to encourage Beijing to comply with and internalize WTO rules and principles and make necessary market changes. However, these dialogues have only achieved sporadic and non-systemic effects, with minor improvements.”
After the call between Trump and Xi, will Beijing once again employ a strategy of “agree first, delay next, and even renege”? Sun Guoxiang suggested that if this pattern continues, it will erode China’s legitimacy as a global governance participant. If this becomes the norm, it will shake the predictability of multilateral cooperation.
He stated, “If China dominates the world order, there may be a scenario where the rules are constructed by obeying strong powers rather than consensus, agreement implementation becomes selective and instrumentalized. Political loyalty may override the rule of law principles, and international markets will be shrouded in greater geopolitical risks premiums, with nations needing value alignment to enter the Chinese market. In summary, the criticisms of the Philippine Defense Minister are not isolated but a broad response from the international community to the widespread decline in China’s commitment.”
He believes that if Beijing continues to violate the logic of trust, it will lose its international discourse power and institutional influence matching its economic strength. The responses from Europe and the US can be seen as institutionalized management and long-term arrangement of risks associated with China.
Recently, the EU announced the launch of 13 new overseas critical raw material extraction supply projects to supplement the supply chain of strategic resources such as rare earths, lithium, and cobalt, showing that Europe is unwilling to be dependent on China in the green industry transition. Furthermore, US legislations and industrial policies, such as the anti-inflation bill, chip and science bills, provide substantial subsidies to help companies rebuild their local supply chains.
Sun Guoxiang also added that although risk reduction is not completely detached, the West is mainly opting for a selective approach to risk reduction, implementing control measures in highly sensitive areas like semiconductors, batteries, and strategic resources rather than a complete breakdown of economic and trade relations.
In conclusion, he noted, “Western countries’ reliance on China is undergoing a qualitative change, shifting from efficiency-oriented to security-oriented. Although complete disengagement may not be feasible in the short term, strategic dependencies are being systematically rebuilt.”
Huang also pointed out that from the Biden administration to the Trump administration, many laws were pushed to establish an economic protection zone detached from Beijing.