94Ha ViewpointAccording to the information disclosed by China and the United States after the London talks, the negotiations mainly revolved around the implementation of the call between the two heads of state and the Geneva consensus, and the core content included the following aspects:
1. Framework of core issues
Extension of tariff suspension period
Both sides agreed to maintain the “90-day tariff deferral period” of the Geneva Agreement, with the United States retaining a 10% benchmark tariff on China (originally 145%) and China maintaining a 10% counter-tariff (originally 125%); if the United States does not cancel the remaining tariffs before December, China intends to restart rare earth countermeasures.
Rare earth and chip linkage mechanism
China’s position: Adhere to the “one batch, one certificate” approval system for rare earths, and use it as a strategic bargaining chip (China controls 92% of the world’s rare earth refining capacity). If the United States makes concessions, the approval will be accelerated to ease the pressure on the global supply chain.
US concessions: Promise to relax export restrictions on low-end chip equipment of 14 nanometers and below in a “balanced manner”, but refuse to lift the ban on high-end AI chips (such as Nvidia H20) and aviation engine technology.
New controversial issues
The US side requires China to stabilize the RMB exchange rate and increase its holdings of US debt;
China requires the US side to implement its commitment to reduce fentanyl tariffs and abide by the “one China” principle.
2. Negotiation focus and game strategy
The core role of rare earths
The US industry relies on China’s rare earths for more than 80%, and its inventory is generally less than 3 months. China has precisely countered the US technology blockade through export controls, forcing the US to make concessions in the chip field.
Internal contradictions on the US side
US Secretary of Commerce Lutnick is in a dilemma: he must maintain technological hegemony (restrict high-end technology exports) and meet corporate demands (expand market access to China). During the negotiations, the US tried to relax some technologies (such as chip design software and aviation components) in exchange for the lifting of the rare earth ban, but did not touch the core restrictions.
China’s strategy upgrade
The new negotiator Li Chenggang (legal and economic background) led the shift to “rule-based cultivation”, using legal loopholes to exert pressure, and promoting the negotiations from “macro confrontation” to “precise interest replacement”.
3. Innovation in the implementation mechanism
The two sides have established a “framework-implementation” path for the first time:
Layered advancement: first confirm the principle framework, and negotiate the details within 60 days;
Dynamic assessment: establish a “department-level-ministerial level” two-way verification channel to ensure the implementation of commitments;
Time pressure: use the 90-day tariff suspension window as the deadline to force substantive progress.
4. Unresolved risk points
Technology loosening scale: The US “balanced approach” may attach strict end-use review;
Third-party intervention: lobbying by companies such as ASML in the Netherlands and Samsung in South Korea may affect the scope of chip control;
Domestic political resistance: Trump needs to balance the interests of congressional hawks (technology suppression) and agricultural states (tariff reduction).
In summary, the core breakthrough of the London negotiations lies in replacing the loosening of mid- and low-end chip controls with rare earth export approvals, and establishing a traceable implementation mechanism, but the specific terms still need to be determined through subsequent consultations.
