Nikkei - "Elon Musk-led SpaceX has sent teams to audit existing and prospective suppliers and is instructing partners across its vast global supply chain not to assign or employ Chinese nationals at facilities producing products for SpaceX, or to use systems or equipment made by Chinese companies, the people said."

"Its national identity remains as troubled as it was when the first Chinese nation-state was founded. This presents the world with a worrying question: whether a country that is so uncomfortable in its own skin can be a pillar of stability as so many hope, or whether it is more likely to become a source of global instability, projecting its anxieties and neuroses onto the rest of the world. Beijing claims to aspire to the former, but its actions at home and, increasingly, abroad suggest it may be headed toward the latter."

"The conventional wisdom among policymakers and industry executives is that America and China are running different AI races: China cares about translating AI advances into economic and military power (diffusion), while America cares about developing the most advanced AI models at the frontier (innovation). But this narrative is misleading and overstates the differences between the two countries." Bingo

nicely timed leak ahead of Putin's arrival in Beijing - Xi Jinping told Donald Trump that Putin might ‘regret’ invasion of Ukraine via @ft "According to several people familiar with the US assessment of last week’s summit in Beijing, the Chinese president made the comments during wide-ranging talks that touched on Ukraine and included Trump suggesting the three leaders should co-operate against the International Criminal Court"

Having spent the past few weeks in Beijing giving talks and attending meetings, here are some quick observations as I wait for my flight to NYC to board: 1. The talk of the town has, of course, been the Xi-Trump meeting, but no one (not even usually well informed elite circle insiders) seems to know what it actually accomplished, other than a continuation of the detente that’s been in place for the past several months. That’s about as good an outcome as one could realistically expect, I suppose, but clearly a real “grand bargain” is not in the cards anytime soon. 2. The Chinese economy seems to be in a steady state, neither improving much nor visibly deteriorating like it was in 24-25. In that sense the government’s stimulus policies have had a positive effect, but the vast majority of industry people I talked to remain very pessimistic about domestic profits and consumption. The dominant sentiment is that the only way for major firms to generate profit growth is through direct overseas expansion. 3. That said, technological advancement is of course very real and quite impressive (although it’s not quite as visible in Beijing as it is in, say, Shenzhen). One interesting and very pleasant side effect of the EV revolution (paired with infrastructure investment) has been that Beijing is now a bike-able city again, given the sharp reduction in exhaust fumes on city streets and the expansion of bike lanes. Armed with a new bike, I could almost explore the city like I used to back in 2000. Hugely nostalgic feeling. 4. Academia is, in general, in a pretty dour mood. STEM subjects and the social sciences/humanities alike have seen very significant funding reductions over the past 2 years, but the latter have of course gotten the worst end of the deal. Political censorship also seems to be visibly ramping up again, with the sheer scale of perceived “red lines” snowballing to levels unprecedented since the early 1990s. As the recent Yang Nianqun incident suggests, administrative regulation of faculty members’ personal affairs has also expanded (i.e., consensual extramarital relationships between adults who were not in a direct teacher-student relationship would almost certainly have gone unpunished as recently as 5 years ago). 5. In general, it’s hard not to notice the steady increase in government presence in everyday life—in both positive and negative ways. The city feels safer and cleaner than it ever has been, and yet the layers of administrative review needed for just about any kind of professional activity have clearly proliferated on a vast scale (made less painful by the digitization of most government services and more uniform law abidance, but still more onerous than it used to be despite all that). 6. The most alarming thing, I suppose, is that general optimism (personal or socioeconomic) seems to be in particularly short supply among the younger generations. This is obvious even among the most intellectually gifted kids at Tsinghua and PKU, where the level of career anxiety seems to be at a level that I have never encountered before. Unsurprisingly, willingness to form families or plan ahead in general at the personal level is very low. All in all, it was, as always, a very informative couple of weeks. The stay was also made much more pleasant by the fact that I managed to do it before Beijing becomes brutally hot. I look forward to being back more often in the near future.

“Given the current price for soybeans total purchases would reach between $27 billion to $28 billion a year. The 4 year baseline prior to the current #trade# war was ~$31 billion/year and for the year 2025 was ~$16 billion.”

The Mofcom statement about initial outcomes ( makes no mention of rare earths, the White house fact sheet makes no mention of "US guarantees of supply of aircraft engines and parts to China". I had claude make a nice comparison table of the econ and trade areas. but maybe the board of trade will get it all sorted

US agreeing to "build a constructive relationship of strategic stability on the basis of fairness and reciprocity" is not quite the same as what the PRC says they agreed to. "on the basis of fairness and reciprocity" is a significant addition. Here is Wang Yi in his comments to the media 2. How should the new positioning of a "constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability" be understood? 二、如何理解"中美建设性战略稳定关系"的新定位？ Wang Yi: At the meeting, the two heads of state agreed to take a "constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability" as the new positioning of bilateral relations, providing strategic guidance for China-US relations over the next three years and beyond. This has been welcomed by the peoples of both countries and by the international community. The Chinese side believes: 王毅：会晤中，两国元首同意将"中美建设性战略稳定关系"作为两国关系的新定位，为未来3年乃至更长时间的中美关系作出战略指引，受到两国人民和国际社会的欢迎。中方认为： This should be a positive stability with cooperation as the main theme, continually strengthening the resilience of China-US relations through exchanges and cooperation. As the world's two largest economies, China and the US are deeply intertwined and inseparable; cooperation benefits both, while confrontation harms both. Confrontation would be a disaster for both countries and for the world, while cooperation can accomplish many great things to the benefit of both countries and the world. 这应该是合作为主的积极稳定，通过交流合作不断增强中美关系的韧性。中美作为世界前两大经济体，你中有我、我中有你，谁也离不开谁，合则两利、斗则俱伤。对抗对两国和世界注定是一场灾难，合作则可以办成许多有利于两国和世界的大事。 This should be a healthy stability with measured competition, not a zero-sum game of winner-takes-all. It is unsurprising that competition exists between major countries, but the totality of China-US relations cannot be defined by competition. Even where there is competition between China and the US, it should be healthy competition based on mutual learning, positive competition in which each pursues self-improvement, and fair competition that abides by the rules. The purpose of competition is for each to become a better version of itself. 这应该是竞争有度的良性稳定，不搞你输我赢的零和博弈。大国之间存在竞争不足为奇，但不能以竞争来定义全部中美关系。中美之间即便有竞争，也应是相互借鉴的良性竞争，你追我赶的积极竞争，遵守规则的公平竞争。竞争的目的是为了彼此做更好的自己。 This should be a normalized stability in which differences are manageable, not one that swings up and down like a roller coaster. Both sides should maintain the continuity and stability of their policies, and in particular honor the commitments they have made, always moving toward each other, so that positive expectations of China-US cooperation provide more certainty for each side's development and for the international situation. 这应该是分歧可控的常态稳定，不能像过山车一样起伏不定。双方都应保持政策的连续性和稳定性，尤其要信守作出的承诺，始终相向而行，以中美合作的正面预期为各自发展和国际形势提供更多的确定性。 This should be a lasting stability with peace in prospect, with no conflict, confrontation, or even war. Peaceful coexistence is the greatest common denominator between China and the US; the consequences of China-US conflict and confrontation are something no one could bear. The key lies in observing the three China-US joint communiqués, respecting each other's social systems and development paths, respecting each other's core interests and major concerns, and respecting each side's right to development. 这应该是和平可期的持久稳定，不能发生冲突对抗甚至战争。和平共处是中美两国的最大公约数，中美冲突对抗的后果是谁都不能承受的。关键在于遵守中美三个联合公报，尊重彼此社会制度和发展道路，尊重对方核心利益和重大关切，尊重各自的发展权利。 In sum, a "constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability" is not a slogan, but should be a goal to which both sides remain committed and take joint action to achieve. We should follow the direction set by the two heads of state, continually enrich the content of this new positioning, translate it into concrete policies and practical measures, and jointly open a new chapter in China-US relations. 总之，"中美建设性战略稳定关系"不是一句口号，而应是双方坚守的目标，共同采取的行动。我们要沿着两国元首明确的方向，不断丰富这一新定位内涵，将其转化为具体政策和实际举措，共同开启中美关系的新篇章。

White house fact sheet on us-china trip out. so us did sign up for this “President Trump and President Xi agreed that the United States and China should build a constructive relationship of strategic stability on the basis of fairness and reciprocity.” And wonder what this re rare earths means “•China will address U.S. concerns regarding supply chain shortages related to rare earths and other critical minerals, including yttrium, scandium, neodymium, and indium. China will also address U.S. concerns regarding prohibitions or restrictions on the sale of rare earth production and processing equipment and technologies.”