The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The world of international diplomacy is often a study in contrasts, where the quiet, deliberate work of negotiators is frequently interrupted by the loud, unilateral actions of domestic politics. This paradox was on full display in Paris. On one side, senior Chinese and American officials engaged in "candid, in-depth, and constructive" consultations. On the other, the shadow of new trade investigations launched by Washington loomed over the table, threatening to derail the very stability both nations claim to seek.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The world of international diplomacy is often a study in contrasts, where the quiet, deliberate work of negotiators is frequently interrupted by the loud, unilateral actions of domestic politics. This paradox was on full display in Paris. On one side, senior Chinese and American officials engaged in "candid, in-depth, and constructive" consultations. On the other, the shadow of new trade investigations launched by Washington loomed over the table, threatening to derail the very stability both nations claim to seek.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The world of international diplomacy is often a study in contrasts, where the quiet, deliberate work of negotiators is frequently interrupted by the loud, unilateral actions of domestic politics. This paradox was on full display in Paris. On one side, senior Chinese and American officials engaged in "candid, in-depth, and constructive" consultations. On the other, the shadow of new trade investigations launched by Washington loomed over the table, threatening to derail the very stability both nations claim to seek.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The world of international diplomacy is often a study in contrasts, where the quiet, deliberate work of negotiators is frequently interrupted by the loud, unilateral actions of domestic politics. This paradox was on full display in Paris. On one side, senior Chinese and American officials engaged in "candid, in-depth, and constructive" consultations. On the other, the shadow of new trade investigations launched by Washington loomed over the table, threatening to derail the very stability both nations claim to seek.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.

The world of international diplomacy is often a study in contrasts, where the quiet, deliberate work of negotiators is frequently interrupted by the loud, unilateral actions of domestic politics. This paradox was on full display in Paris. On one side, senior Chinese and American officials engaged in "candid, in-depth, and constructive" consultations. On the other, the shadow of new trade investigations launched by Washington loomed over the table, threatening to derail the very stability both nations claim to seek.

The timing of these new moves is particularly striking. Just as the delegations prepared to meet, the United States launched two significant probes: a Section 301 investigation into alleged "overcapacity" in 16 countries and another into labor practices across 60 nations. While these investigations are technically broad in scope, the primary target is clearly China. By introducing these thorny issues on the eve of high-level talks, Washington has added a layer of complexity that undermines the spirit of cooperation necessary for long-term bilateral health.

Speaking in Paris, Li Chenggang, China international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, was direct about the risks of this approach. He highlighted China's consistent opposition to unilateral Section 301 investigations, noting that such measures disrupt the hard-won progress achieved over the last year. Indeed, following the previous few rounds of consultations in 2025, the two sides had begun to inject a sense of certainty into a relationship that had been defined by volatility.

The use of Section 301 is a return to a specific brand of American economic policy that prioritizes domestic leverage over international consensus. From a broader perspective, this looks less like a strategic shift and more like a tactical reaction to recent legal setbacks. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng pointed out during the talks, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Deprived of that specific executive tool, Washington appears to be pivoting back to the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff regime.

This legal maneuvering creates a climate of unpredictability. When trade policy is driven by the search for new legal justifications for old restrictions, it becomes difficult for businesses and global markets to plan for the future. The recent imposition of a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 only adds to this sense of a shifting, unstable landscape.

The central tension in the China-US relationship today is the struggle between the reality of deep economic integration and the desire for strategic decoupling. Washington's focus on "overcapacity" is an attempt to address structural shifts in the global economy through the lens of trade enforcement. However, this approach often overlooks the benefits that global supply chains provide to the American economy itself.

If the newly launched investigations lead to broad, new tariffs, the impact will be felt far beyond the borders of China. Global supply chains are not a collection of isolated pipes that can be turned off at will; they are an intricate, interconnected web. Disrupting these flows in the name of curbing overcapacity risks raising costs for American manufacturers and consumers, particularly in sectors critical to the green energy transition, such as electric vehicles and battery technology.

Furthermore, the global economy is currently in a fragile state of recovery. A stable trade relationship between the world's two largest economies is a global public good. When this relationship is characterized by friction and unilateralism, it creates a drag on global growth and financial stability.

For the China-US trade relationship to move toward a "healthy, stable, and sustainable" future, there must be a move away from the cycle of investigation and imposition. The consensus reached by the two heads of state provides a roadmap, but it requires both sides to follow through on their commitments.

In Paris, there are encouraging signs of a desire to manage differences more effectively. The agreement to study the establishment of a cooperation mechanism to promote bilateral trade and investment is a pragmatic step. It suggests that, despite the political noise, there is an understanding that the two economies remain fundamentally linked. Practical cooperation, rather than unilateral restriction, remains the most viable path for resolving structural differences.

The stakes of these consultations extend far beyond the immediate trade balance between Beijing and Washington. If the US and China can move toward a more predictable trade relationship, they provide a template for how the world can manage competition without collapsing into conflict. But if Washington continues to rely on unilateral measures like Section 301, it risks isolating itself from the very global trade system it helped build.

The Paris talks show that the machinery of diplomacy is still working. The "candid and in-depth" exchanges between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng demonstrate a mutual recognition of the high stakes involved. The challenge now is to ensure that the progress made in the conference room is not undermined by the investigations launched in the hallways of power back home.

Imran Khalid, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.