CNBC: Beijing is worried that Trump may walk away from the table, like he did with North Korea
* Nuclear talks between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un were cut short after the two sides failed to reach an agreement.
* That diplomatic snafu led Chinese officials to grow worried Trump could do the same in trade talks, a senior administration official told CNBC on Friday.
* “You don’t want to send Xi to Mar-a-Lago and have Trump walk away. That would be a diplomatic catastrophe,” the official said.
After last week’s fumbled nuclear summit in Vietnam, Beijing is worried President Donald Trump might walk away from the negotiating table.
Nuclear talks between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un were cut short after the two sides failed to reach an agreement. The collapse of the Hanoi summit came as a surprise as many experts had predicted that both leaders would try to reach a deal on smaller items.
That diplomatic snafu led Chinese officials to grow worried Trump could do the same in trade talks, a senior administration official told CNBC on Friday.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The Chinese have always underestimated President Trump .... until now. So when both leaders do meet, the Chinese are going to make sure that all the details have been agreed upon. My prediction .... both sides are still far apart on the major issues, and they only way they are going to be resolved is if both leaders and their entourages meet. The Chinese have a decision to make, and I know from my contacts in China that they are not happy with their options.
11 comments:
Often people of just about any country think they get screwed by people of other countries.
The American people can look at trade deficits combined with business laws of other countries like China and know for a fact they are getting screwed.
People can look at technology transfer as the price of doing business and as a common good bringing every people and every country up to date and making wage levels across the world the same sooner rather than later.
But when a country manipulates their currency and this manipulation accounts for a 1/3rd of the total trade imbalance since the 1990s. When their is rampant piracy on top of the tech transfer, when wall board and dog food from China is poisoned and when China is actively hostile, it is too much to expect the American people to be happy with the status quo, but many politicians expect just that and cannot move themselves to do anything. Why should they. They are fat dumb and happy.
If Trump walks away from a bad deal, it is a yuge win. If his critics criticize him for walking away, it makes us all feel better; they have just virtue signaled what bastards they are.
If the Chinese try to make Trump knuckle under because the Democrats are putting a dog and pony show with Cohen (or something like that) and think him weak, I expect Trump to walk.
The show: Behind close doors because Cohen's testimony was top secret SCI, because ...? Or was it theater meant to embarrass Trump and screw the voter!
It is often said that when both sides are dissatisfied the deal is a good one.
They need to tell Trump if he walks away exception for Ivanka will disappear. Still he needs to do something to counter his loss with Kim so China and Ivanka may get tossed.
O! the Dems again...all our bad weather and gardening troubles the fault of the Dems...Trump and the GOP can and never do wrong.
Walk away too hell with China government
I had ramen for lunch. Am I supporting China?
Bob,
If both sides are dissatisfied the deal by definition cannot be a good one for either side. Your statement makes no sense. Of course I could be missing something.
If the deal is a bad one, I am not sure how "walking away" is a loss. It would seem to me that agreeing to a bad deal would be far worse. It makes little sense to coerce POTUS against walking away if the deal is a bad one. The idea is not to get any deal but a good one. As such, we should be encouraging him to indeed walk away if the deal is not a good one.
Why does he need to "counter his loss" to Kim. We've had two summits and a massive reduction in tensions. The act of having the summits puts Trump and to an extent the US on an equal footing to North Korea. By agreeing to these summits Kim and China have extended a level of prestige to America that did not exist before this. I would consider this to be a victory in and of itself. By walking away from an undesirable deal it seems to me that Trump solidifies his position as someone who needs to be respected. By granting America and Trump the respect and prestige that is associated with a summit our position is improved than it was prior to this.
So you want Ivanka tossed. I'm not sure what the basis the animosity you seem to have toward POTUS's daughter is. Perhaps you would prefer the counsel of the so called "experts" who screwed everything up that Trump is in the process of fixing.
Poster
You read very much like Anon. I never said a bad deal.
Read it again and try to understand it from a broader perspective.
Anon
No, it was Ramon and he was really pissed he had to pay for the room.
Bob,
Thank you for the reply, at least I think!! I reread your post. I am going to repeat it here verbatim along with my interpretation of what I think you meant. As I was careful to point out in the previous post, I may have missed something. If so, you can point it out.
"It is often said that when both sides are dissatisfied the deal is a good one." Very respectfully the statement makes no sense whether often said or not. If both sides are dissatisfied, the deal is a bad deal for both sides. I have heard it said, to roughly paraphrase, "while both parties did not get everything they wanted, each party got enough of what they wanted and both sides were able to reach compromises on the 'big ticket' items for each of them that we were able to reach a deal that is workable for all involved." In other words, the deal is satisfactory to both sides. A deal that is not satisfactory to either side cannot possibly be a "good one."
"They need to tell Trump if he walks away exception for Ivanka will disappear. Still he needs to do something to counter his loss with Kim so China and Ivanka may get tossed."
Here you seem to be implying that Trump should be coerced into a deal, any deal, and if does not dutifully comply he or his family members should be harmed or otherwise threatened and harassed. Very respectfully this would be the exact wrong approach to this. If a bad deal is reached, this is only going to lead to problems later. The best case scenario, in such a situation, is the deal is going to have to be renegotiated very soon and relations between the US and China could be further strained. POTUS should not be coerced or otherwise threatened into agreeing to a bad deal. If the deal is not equitable to America, he should be encouraged to "walk away."
Furthermore I disagree with the notion that the meeting with Kim is a "loss." By agreeing to the summit format Kim, North Korea, and China have elevated America's position and extended a level of prestige and respect to America, Trump, and our position that had not been present before. As such, I do not view this as a loss. I would be more inclined to view it as a victory for America. On some level, I think Trump's opponents may view it this way as well hence they have to distract and obfuscate.
Poster
"It is often said that when both sides are dissatisfied the deal is a good one."
Applying that to the latest US vs NK attempt at a deal
Trump went in believing the BS he had been preaching and had no thoughts about compromising on anything and got nothing. He might have gotten a deal with some progress but he wanted all.
Kim, the leader of a country that knows clearly that the US is not to be trusted, probably would have given up something, perhaps a bit more then he wanted but he hit a stone wall.
Had they compromised a bit on both sides they might have arrived at a deal. Not the best deal, not a deal that resolves all issues but a deal with some progress, not even a deal they both liked but a good deal that might have lead to a better deal later.
Poster I get the feeling you think black and white and seem to have no room for abstract thinking. In that you are much like Anon.
On Ivanka, again with the black and white thinking.
"I said the exception for Ivanks will disappear" You to the elimination of exceptionf or her into "harmed or otherwise threatened and harassed". All I was suggesting that the preferences given to Ivanka, some of which may well be illegal in both countries could be ended and you turned it around.
Forget the "you are much like Anon". I now consider you to be Anon.
Bob,
If you change the word "Trump" in your third sentence to the word "Kim, IMHO you are spot on as to what happened.
Very respectfully in the fourth sentence change the word "Kim" to "Trump" and "US" to "NK" and your are spot on. Kim did not think he needed to compromise. He believed his own BS. With allies like China and probably Russia they probably believed the US could be coerced or otherwise strong armed into a deal that wasn't/isn't good for America.
Now I think NK and their allies reassess the situation. I simply don't see this as a failure for Trump. In fact, quite the opposite.
As for Ivanka, all we have at this point is the breathless reporting of Trump's critics. Even if there are some improprieties, given how much Trump has accomplished, some sort of proper compensation for Trump and his family members would not be unreasonable IMHO. For the Chinese to do anything illegal under their laws to benefit a Trump family member, extraordinary value would need to be added from the deal. I'm cautiously optimistic that this is going to get done. After all North Korea's main allies of China and Russia respect and even fear Trump. As for other US leaders not so much.
Post a Comment