Review of Previous Rounds of China-US Negociation
This is my summary of the outcomes from the four rounds of China-US negotiations, aimed to update on our current status. So it will only publish it on the website rather than distributing it via email.
First Round: Geneva Talks — Achieving “Crisis Containment” and “Mechanism Rebuilding”
These negotiations were breakthrough in nature, with the core outcome being the establishment of a “reciprocal tariff elimination” framework. The specifics are as follows:
“Large-Scale Reciprocal Reduction” of Tariffs:
Clearly Defined Scope: The “91% of tariffs” mentioned here does not refer to all historical tariffs, but specifically denotes the new round of tariffs unilaterally imposed by the U.S. on China since April 2025, and the reciprocal counter-tariffs subsequently introduced by China.
Principle of Reciprocity: China insisted on and achieved the reciprocal principle of “you cancel how much, we cancel how much.” This changed the previous pattern of unilateral U.S. pressure.
Establishment of a “Tariff Suspension Period” to Address Thorny Issues:
Creating a Buffer Zone: For the additional 34% of tariffs (Note: this percentage is based on a different calculation of the total U.S. tariff hikes and is not simply additive with the aforementioned 91%), the parties agreed to suspend the application of 24% of them for 90 days.
Creating a Negotiation Window: This functioned as a de facto “cease-fire” extension, establishing a clear timeline for follow-up negotiations to resolve disputes in more complex and sensitive areas (e.g., high-tech industries, data security), thereby preventing a breakdown in talks.
Establishment of the “U.S.-China Economic and Trade Consultation Mechanism”:
A fixed, high-level communication channel was re-established between the U.S. and China, aimed at regularly assessing bilateral economic relations, promptly addressing frictions, and preventing escalation. This provided the platform for subsequent talks in London and Stockholm.
Second Round: London Talks — Promoting “Easing of Measures” and “Implementation of Consensus”
These consultations were more of a follow-up to the earlier truce, focusing on translating the Geneva framework consensus into concrete actions. The outcomes can be detailed as:
Mutual Easing of Restrictive Measures:
U.S. Measures: Likely included easing import licensing restrictions on some specific Chinese goods (e.g., machinery, light industrial products); regarding the “Entity List,” potentially case-by-case reviews or providing clearer compliance guidance for a small number of Chinese entities not involved in the most sensitive national security areas.
Chinese Measures: Likely correspondingly eased non-tariff barriers on some U.S. agricultural products, automobiles, and chemical products, or expedited the quarantine approval process for relevant products.
Confirmation of Framework Implementation:
The talks sent a positive signal to the outside world that the “Geneva consensus was being effectively implemented,” which boosted market confidence, consolidated the achievements of the previous stage, and prevented the agreement from being undermined.
Third Round: Stockholm Talks — Focusing on “Consolidating Gains” and “Extending the Window”
These negotiations were a tactical continuation, with relatively specific outcomes:
Renewed Extension of the Tariff Suspension Period:
Maintaining Momentum: The 90-day suspension period for the 24% of tariffs established in the first round was extended for another 90 days. This indicated that the parties had still not reached a final agreement on the remaining most difficult issues, but both had a strong willingness to maintain negotiation momentum and avoid returning to confrontation.
Signaling Sustained Dialogue: The action itself was more important than the specific content. It signaled to the world that U.S.-China economic dialogue had not stalled but was ongoing, avoiding the uncertainty that would arise from the automatic triggering of tariffs at the end of the “suspension period.”
Fourth Round: Madrid Talks — Reaching Consensus on TikTok
These negotiations were more pragmatic and substantive. In my comment published on ChinaFile, I said both sides choose a “low-hanging fruit first” strategy.
Basic Framework Consensus Reached on the TikTok Issue, proposing resolution through methods like entrusting operations and algorithm licensing.
Specific Methods: Involves the entrustment of operations related to TikTok U.S. user data and content security business, as well as the licensing of intellectual property usage rights such as algorithms.
China’s Stance: The Chinese government emphasized that it would conduct technology export approvals according to the law, while respecting corporate will and supporting enterprises in conducting commercial negotiations based on market principles.
Bilateral Economic Relations: Agreement to reduce investment barriers and promote relevant economic and trade cooperation.
China also firmly opposed the U.S. practice of broadly defining national security and abusing long-arm jurisdiction.