Donald Trump declared there had been a “total reset” of trade relations between the United States and China after just two days of negotiations in Geneva. Is it really a “total reset”, though, or just an agreement to talk about one?

After US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US trade representative Jamieson Greer concluded their meeting with China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng, Bessent described the talks as “very productive” while Greer said the speed at which agreement was reached “reflects that perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought”.

Donald Trump is desperate to extricate himself from the worst element of his trade war – the 145 per cent tariff on imports from China, and China’s 125 per cent response.Credit: AP

He Lifeng said an “important consensus” had been reached and the countries had agreed to create a mechanism to hold further talks on trade and economic issues – an agreement to talk more about an eventual agreement.

That’s similar to the recently announced UK trade “deal”, which was effectively just a framework for an agreement, with details to be filled in over coming months, or years, and which, given the US has a trade surplus with Britain and the British economy was already quite open to trade, has only very limited implications for both parties.

While Trump has hailed that agreement as “a tremendous trade deal”, others have described it as a “nothingburger” – and, in fact, a demonstration, along with the 90-day pause to his “reciprocal” tariffs, of Trump’s belated recognition (or maybe just that of his senior trade negotiators) that his “Liberation Day” tariffs threaten significant damage to the US economy and his domestic authority.

While it is promising that the Geneva meeting of US and........

© Brisbane Times