Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent tensions between the U.S. and China following a meeting in South Korea, highlighting China's willingness to make concessions while the U.S. responds with threats, indicating a lack of understanding and respect for diplomatic relations [1][3][4]. Group 1: U.S.-China Relations - The U.S. Treasury Secretary's threats against China after receiving concessions reflect a short-sighted tactical approach, undermining the potential for cooperation [3][4]. - The U.S. has labeled China as an "unreliable partner," revealing its own insecurities and lack of confidence in the negotiation process [3][6]. - The U.S. approach of issuing threats while receiving concessions creates discomfort and raises questions about China's commitment to fulfilling agreements [4][6]. Group 2: Economic Leverage - Traditional economic leverage, such as tariffs, is losing effectiveness as China's export markets diversify and U.S. industries become increasingly reliant on Chinese materials [6][9]. - The lack of a clear framework for what constitutes "fulfilling commitments" complicates trust-building and adds uncertainty to the execution of agreements [7][12]. - The U.S. dollar's dominance is facing challenges due to domestic economic pressures and a global trend towards "de-dollarization," with increasing use of the Chinese yuan [9][10]. Group 3: Technological and Financial Tools - U.S. attempts to block Chinese access to advanced technologies have inadvertently strengthened China's domestic industries, showcasing resilience and self-sufficiency [10][11]. - The U.S. has employed all available leverage tools against China's rare earth policies, indicating a shift in the balance of power in the ongoing competition [11][12]. Group 4: Historical Context and Future Outlook - China's consistent record of fulfilling commitments since joining the WTO contrasts with the U.S.'s recent history of withdrawing from agreements, highlighting a credibility gap [12][13]. - The article suggests that future negotiations will depend more on stability and trust rather than coercive tactics, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to achieve mutual understanding [13].

Core Viewpoint - India attempted to adopt a hardline approach similar to China's in trade negotiations with the U.S., but faced a swift and humiliating reversal, highlighting the strategic miscalculations and vulnerabilities of developing countries in confronting Western hegemony [3][9]. Group 1: Trade Relations and Strategic Miscalculations - India filed a complaint against U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs at the WTO, but just two days later, the U.S. announced a zero-tariff agreement proposed by India, indicating a rapid shift in negotiations [3][4]. - The Indian government misjudged the situation, believing it could replicate China's success in trade negotiations through a hardline stance, as expressed by political elites [3][5]. - The U.S. retaliated with significant pressure tactics, including a potential increase in motorcycle tariffs from 50% to 500% and a national security review of India's IT outsourcing industry, threatening $190 billion in service trade exports [4][9]. Group 2: Economic Vulnerabilities - India's export dependency on the U.S. is notably high at 32%, compared to China's 18%, with 76% of India's steel and aluminum exports reliant on the U.S. market [7][11]. - The economic data reveals India's limited maneuverability in trade negotiations, as its foreign exchange reserves are only $480 billion, significantly less than China's $3.2 trillion [7][11]. - The U.S. holds substantial leverage over India, with over 60% of India's IT industry revenue dependent on the U.S. market and a military trade volume of $18 billion, contrasting with India's limited retaliatory options [9][13]. Group 3: Structural and Strategic Disparities - India's manufacturing strategy is hampered by a high reliance on imported components, with 80% of mobile phone parts still imported, and a defense equipment localization rate below 50% [11][13]. - The economic structure of India, with 63% of its exports to the U.S. being primary processed goods, makes it vulnerable to competition from countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh [11][13]. - The lack of a comprehensive industrial system and technological autonomy in India was starkly highlighted during the trade negotiations, emphasizing the need for a balanced power dynamic in international trade [13].