The Trade Dispute: Employing Strategy or Playing Games?

By

Mu Zhiqian

C hina and the US have held more than a dozen rounds of consultations on their simmering trade dispute. So far, resolution has eluded the two sides. There have been areas of agreement and even more points of difference. Amid the twists and turns of this prolonged dispute, there have been soaring hopes followed by crashing disappointments.

What is lacking is an effective strategy. What we have seen so far is a lot of short-term point- scoring. This is more playing games than solving problems.

Applying strategy requires wisdom; negotiations represent wisdom. One must be wise enough to see the value of discussion.

Examining differing points of view and making effective use of communication require wisdom. And wisdom is needed to move discussions in a positive direction.

Sincerity is also essential. The parties involved in any dispute need to try to understand each other and achieve their goals through communication. However, communication must be based on sincerity and decency. The goal should not be inflicting pain on the other side. Strongarm tactics, head bashing, and “containment” of the other party should be avoided at all cost. Only if you do not intend harm to the other party can you establish a foundation of trust. And only then are frank discussions worthwhile.

A sovereign state, big or small, rich or poor, is part of the global community. Equality is the foundation of relations among nations. The big should not bully the small, the strong should not tread on the weak, and the rich should not look down on the poor. There are no omnipotent nation states, and each state has an equal right to exist. The sage once said: The world is ours, and we should work together to build it.

Equality means we take into account the interests of others. We need to find solutions to solve problems and benefit both sides in any dispute. Focusing exclusively on the demands of one side is not a path to solving problems.

Dreams chase perfection, but cruel reality often gets in the way. Objective facts cannot be ignored. It is an objective fact that a strong US and a rising China can co-exist. Another objective fact is that trade wars come at great cost. It is unrealistic to tally gains when losses are the primary result of a dispute such as the trade standoff that confronts us today. And it is meaningless to measure whose losses are greater. It is essential that both sides take a broader and longer-term view based on realistic and objective constraints. Trying to change objective reality by squeezing the other party and making empty threats is a waste of time.

Negotiating skills are critical, but alone they cannot determine outcomes. The decisive factors are sincerity, the concept of equality and the recognition of realistic outcomes. Applying decency trumps playing games. Ultimately, decency will prevail.