The world keeps turning, but Trump's art of the deal can't keep up with the spin. Do you think you're the smartest of them all?
Following the recent announcement that China and the US reached a framework agreement in London, Trump claimed that Beijing would resume rare earth exports, and in exchange, the US promised to open American university doors to Chinese students. The self-proclaimed master dealmaker declared that "US-China relations are now very good," scrambling to seize the initiative and steer future developments. But here's the thing – the Chinese narrative runs much deeper, and it's worth paying attention to. It can be asserted that rare earths remain scarce, and they have no intention of becoming a gift for Trump's 79th birthday. If there's anything to offer, it's just a birthday greeting: There is no king in this world!
Framework Fumbles
France's Le Monde yesterday described the US-China‘s London framework agreement as vague in content, with uncertain rare earth details. US Commerce Secretary Lutnick's statement on CNBC Wednesday that "China will approve all magnet applications from US companies as quickly as possible" either misunderstands China's position or misleads the international community.
Le Monde reported that there are doubts about whether Beijing will fully lift the licensing blockade on rare earth and magnet exports. According to The Wall Street Journal's reporting, China has only committed to licenses valid for six months – if this is accurate, there may be renewed blockades on rare earth and magnet exports in the future. The publication emphasized that China's narrative about the London agreement is currently lacking in details. While Chinese Deputy Commerce Minister Li Chenggang praised the London negotiations as highly professional, rational, in-depth, and candid, he did not specifically explain what commitments China made or what benefits it received.
Since the rare earth issue remains shrouded in secrecy, there's no point in further speculation. Let me tell a story as an example – because sometimes history has a funny way of rhyming.
When the West Played Gatekeeper
After World War II, Western developed industrial nations banded together, attempting to restrict socialist bloc countries by creating embargo lists covering three major categories: military equipment, cutting-edge technology, and rare materials – encompassing tens of thousands of products.
In November 1949, the US led the establishment of an organization called the "Paris Coordinating Committee," officially known as the "Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls." COCOM had 17 member countries: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Canada, Greece, Turkey, Japan, and Australia – all Western bloc nations. "Those blacklisted by COCOM included not only socialist countries but also some nationalist countries, affecting approximately 30 nations," aiming for complete coverage.
The world progresses, and Western embargoes are double-edged swords – a lesson that seems to have been forgotten by some. In November 1993, COCOM held a meeting in the Netherlands, concluding that COCOM "had lost its reason for continued existence." In 1994, COCOM was officially dissolved. However, the West retained its restrictive measures, merely trimming the list items, with the responsibility inherited by the "Wassenaar Arrangement" established in 1996. By 2021, the organization had expanded to 42 countries, including Russia, with the rest being European nations and US-friendly Asia-Pacific countries. China is not on the Wassenaar Arrangement's participant list. China is a country monitored by this organization, which is why Europe and America have been aggressively restricting China's access to semiconductor chips, supercomputers, space programs, and lithography machines in recent years – appearing reasonable and measured.
As a side note, COCOM's establishment coincidentally coincided with the founding of New China. The US assembled 17 countries to implement high-tech blockades against socialist China, even establishing a special "China Committee" to formulate 500 prohibited items.
Conclusion: The Tables Have Turned
For all these years, China has stood alone against the pack, consistently respecting your rules and spirit. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now, you need to understand the logic of rare earths – and perhaps accept that the shoe is on the other foot.
Deep Blue
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Responding to reporters at the White House, Donald Trump has made it crystal clear that if he deems the protests in Los Angeles an "insurrection," he won't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act to crush the L.A. "rebellion." He's even warned off any would-be demonstrators at the US Army's 250th-anniversary parade in Washington D.C., promising they "will be met with a very powerful force." The message couldn't be plainer.
Where’s the egg-and-wall metaphor now?
Upping the ante, Trump told soldiers at Fort Bragg that Los Angeles is being invaded by a "foreign enemy." After lambasting California Governor Gavin Newsom, he vowed he would not tolerate "this anarchy" or "allow federal personnel to be attacked," especially after seeing “rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion” in Los Angeles. In his view, this is an all-out assault on American sovereignty, and for that reason, he needs to "liberate" the city. It’s quite the rhetorical escalation, isn't it?
Trump Flips the Script
Make no mistake, the White House's move to rebrand this as a "June Riot" is a game-changer. Those on the streets are no longer mere "illegal immigrants"; they're now participants in a "foreign invasion." As The New York Times notes, the Insurrection Act gives the military carte blanche to "suppress an insurrection." Suddenly, the playbook used for decades in other countries is being read aloud in the heart of the empire.
To put it bluntly, Trump is done with half-measures. He's not the one who will be shedding any tears; he's leaving that for the rebels. Given the context, it’s highly likely we'll see bloodshed on American streets this weekend. This is a confrontation between the egg and the high wall, and it's never pretty. Let's call it what it is: the brink of civil war.
Of course, the usual suspects online are piling on Trump, claiming the protests were perfectly manageable until he decided to bring in the military. But that fundamentally misunderstands his strategy. Trump is a devotee of "maximum pressure." Anyone who wrote him off as a paper tiger and called him TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) is the real source of the trouble. Now the Democratic Party and the "anti-Trump" camp are forced into a high-stakes "Game of Chicken." The question is, are they willing to call his bluff?
Cutting Off the Head of the Snake
Here's the thing: Trump is holding a strong hand and has little to fear. While the United States is now bogged down in its very own "colour revolution," Trump had the foresight to dispatch Elon Musk to dismantle the "Global Colour Revolution Development Bureau"—what you and I know as USAID—the moment he took office. It's the ultimate irony.
As a result, while "rebellions" have flared up across American cities, there isn't a single US consulate on the ground to "pump in money," "coordinate" efforts, or "handle propaganda." Their impact has been severely blunted. The professional, black-clad activists on the front lines might be well-drilled, but once the Insurrection Act is triggered, the Marines won't be handing out flowers. The only outcome will be a panicked, disorderly retreat.
So long as the White House successfully quells this "rebellion," the so-called "civil war" everyone's panicking about will fizzle out. There's no role here for a latter-day Abraham Lincoln. So, relax. And here's another prediction: you'll see a lot of opportunists in America, much like Musk, rush to admit their mistakes and get back in line. I reckon America will be great again before you know it.
As for whether Sweden can bring itself to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize this year – well, that’s story for another day.
The Politics of Eggs and Walls
On that note, have you ever wondered why the Japanese author Haruki Murakami seems destined never to win the Nobel Prize? My guess—and it's only a guess—is that the problem traces back to his 2009 speech in Jerusalem. With Gaza under relentless bombardment, he took a trip to Isreal, against the wish of many in Japan, to accept the Jerusalem Prize, a prestigious literary award. At the prize presentation ceremony, he gave his now-famous speech, declaring he would "always stand on the side of the egg" against the wall.
This is a lesson for the people of Hong Kong. Backed by our motherland, the city spent three years using its wisdom and courage to defeat a "colour revolution" of its own, moving from chaos to prosperity. But that's not enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize, because the primary currency for that award is a very specific brand of Western-approved "democracy and freedom." At the end of the day, both Murakami's egg and China's Hong Kong are standing on the wrong side of the wrong wall.
Perhaps the only sensible path forward for Hong Kong, then, is to simply double down on national and patriotic education.
