On July 23rd, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce officially confirmed that high-level Chinese officials would travel to Sweden from July 27th to 30th to engage in the latest round of economic and trade talks with the United States. This round of talks is seen as a continuation of the discussions held in London earlier in June, during which both sides agreed on the so-called “London Framework.” With the framework now transitioning into its practical implementation phase, it signifies the shift of the China-U.S. trade negotiations from a phase of tentative talks to one of active execution.
One noteworthy point about this development is that the U.S. side was the first to publicly announce the upcoming negotiations, making a public statement on July 21st—well before China’s official release. The U.S. also confirmed that the negotiations would take place on “Monday or Tuesday of next week,” specifying Stockholm, Sweden, as the venue. This suggests the U.S. is eager to finalize a concrete deal before the expiration of the “90-day tariff truce” deadline. The urgency reflects Washington’s desire to reach an agreement and avoid economic volatility before this critical period concludes.
The timing of this announcement also carries additional implications. On July 9th, President Trump had extended the tariff delay for certain countries until August 1st, and the upcoming talks are scheduled precisely around this deadline. The negotiations are strategically placed just before this “final warning” deadline, highlighting the Trump administration’s intention to secure positive outcomes from the talks to mitigate any market uncertainties that might arise around the August 1st cutoff. In essence, the Trump team appears to be using these talks as a diplomatic tool to cushion the economic risks surrounding this period.
Beyond trade, President Trump has also expressed a strong desire to visit China. On July 22nd, during a meeting with Philippine President Marcos at the White House, he was asked by reporters about his views on China. He responded candidly, stating that he had no objections to Marcos improving relations with China and emphasized that the U.S. itself had excellent ties with China. Trump even mentioned that he was planning a visit to China soon, though without giving specific dates. His comments indicate an effort to build a narrative of “stable development” in U.S.-China relations, while subtly preparing the public for a potential visit to China. Even without an official announcement, his remarks signal that the trip is in the works and could happen sooner rather than later.
However, this does not necessarily mean that all core issues between the two countries have been resolved. For example, while trade talks are underway and Trump is setting the stage for his visit to China, the U.S. continues to press on certain contentious matters. U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, for instance, recently expressed concerns about China’s oil imports from Russia and Iran, stating that it would be a key topic in the upcoming negotiations. This reflects the ongoing complexity of U.S.-China relations, where trade issues often overlap with broader geopolitical concerns.
The underlying logic behind the U.S. stance on this matter is clear: on the one hand, Washington seeks to weaken Russia’s economic backbone by reducing its oil exports, thereby limiting its financial capabilities. On the other hand, the U.S. itself faces growing pressure to find buyers for its own energy exports, especially as shale oil production has surged in recent years. Consequently, China has emerged as a potentially lucrative market for American energy. Essentially, the U.S. is trying to use trade talks as leverage in geopolitical matters, aiming to force China to take sides on issues related to Russia and Iran.
But this raises a critical question: why should China stop purchasing cheaper oil from Russia and Iran to instead buy more expensive American oil? Furthermore, if this deal involves China shouldering the political costs of complying with U.S. pressure on Russia and Iran, the financial benefit appears dubious. In simple terms, this deal does not seem worth it for China.
Even if China were willing to purchase more American oil, it would need to be an equitable exchange. If the U.S. wants China to import more of its oil, China would expect concessions in other areas, such as reduced tariffs in other sectors or eased restrictions on technology and financial products. Without these kinds of trade-offs, mere demands will not shift China’s position. However, the U.S. continues to use a heavy-handed approach, pushing for additional tariffs and pressuring the EU to join in sanctions. This approach only exacerbates tensions and complicates the negotiation atmosphere.
In response, China has been very clear about its stance. According to the Ministry of Commerce, the upcoming discussions will be based on the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation. This framework will address a wide range of issues, including tariffs, supply chains, and energy concerns. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also echoed this sentiment, underscoring that the focus should remain on implementing the consensus reached by the leaders of both countries. The goal, according to official statements, is to use dialogue to strengthen cooperation and reduce misunderstandings. The underlying message is unmistakable—let's focus on what can be discussed and avoid unnecessary provocations.
At the same time, China has specific expectations for the talks. These include requests for the U.S. to cease its attacks on Chinese new energy products, such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and energy storage devices, by lifting high tariffs. Another significant issue for China is the lifting of restrictions on semiconductor exports to China and loosening controls on high-tech products. While these requests are substantial, it is clear that the negotiations will be ongoing and that solutions will not come easily or quickly. This means the negotiation process is likely to remain a long-term endeavor. Nonetheless, maintaining the continuity of the dialogue itself is a positive step, even if immediate solutions are not achieved.
Regarding Trump’s potential visit to China, it is evident that he is trying to cultivate an image of diplomatic success and rapprochement with China as part of his preparations for the midterm elections. In the context of the U.S. election cycle, whoever can effectively manage U.S.-China relations will be in a stronger position to claim credit for stabilizing the global situation. From China’s perspective, while it does not oppose Trump’s visit, it places greater emphasis on the substance of the talks—namely, the tangible outcomes—rather than symbolic gestures like photo ops and press releases.
Looking ahead, the upcoming talks between the U.S. and China in Sweden will be the key event. If the discussions go well, Trump could announce his visit to China in August, potentially even arranging a meeting with Russian President Putin. However, if the talks falter, particularly if the U.S. continues to push China on issues like oil imports without offering sufficient concessions, China may choose to slow the process and wait for more favorable conditions, possibly after President Putin’s visit to China in September. In any case, the negotiations are set to proceed, the timetable is confirmed, and while the situation is complicated, there are opportunities for progress. Ultimately, the success of these talks will depend on how the U.S. chooses to approach the negotiations in the coming days.
