Highlights
- Chinese Premier Li Qiang reassures foreign investors of China's readiness for potential economic challenges at the China Development Forum.
- Beijing strategically communicates its openness to global business while framing the US as an unpredictable economic actor.
- China aims to maintain its global economic integration narrative despite increasing trade tensions with the United States.
This Financial Times article reports (opens in a new tab) on Chinese Premier Li Qiang’s (opens in a new tab) remarks at the China Development Forum (opens in a new tab), where he assured foreign business leaders that Beijing is prepared for "unexpected shocks"—a clear allusion to the looming Trump-era reciprocal tariffs. As the U.S. gears up to impose additional import tariffs on April 2, China is simultaneously working to shore up investor confidence, reaffirm its commitment to globalization, and subtly signal readiness for economic retaliation if needed.
Li’s comments come at a moment of heightened U.S.-China tension, particularly over issues such as fentanyl precursor exports, trade imbalances, and economic decoupling.
The article in the English financial press also notes limited diplomatic engagement between the two countries since Trump’s return to office, with only one phone call between Trump and Xi Jinping. Meanwhile, rare diplomatic activity, like the meeting between Montana Senator Steve Daines (opens in a new tab) and Vice Premier He Lifeng, (opens in a new tab) reflects limited, issue-specific channels of dialogue—mostly around U.S. domestic concerns like the opioid crisis.
What is China's Message to the U.S. via English-Language Media?
Through both Premier Li’s public remarks and the coverage in Western financial media, China is deploying a strategic communication message designed to:
- Reassure foreign investors and multinationals that China remains open, stable, and committed to globalization.
- The U.S. (and Trump in particular) is framed as an unpredictable and destabilizing actor responsible for injecting volatility into the global economy.
- Signal measured strength—China won’t provoke, but it’s ready to respond. The phrase “unexpected shocks” is a diplomatic code for tariff retaliation, capital flow restrictions, or even targeting U.S. companies in China.
- Present itself as the adult in the room, appealing to global business elites worried about protectionism and fragmentation.
The article’s inclusion of American business figures like Apple’s Tim Cook, along with the setting at the China Development Forum, is used to add weight to China’s message: “We’re open for business—it's Washington that’s unpredictable.”
Underlying Bias and Strategic Framing
Though the Financial Times maintains a relatively neutral tone, China’s message—amplified through global English-language media—is carefully constructed.
Rare Earth Exchanges raises a few points, such as the process of victim framing. China is portrayed as reacting, not initiating, thereby trying to blunt Western criticism and frame U.S. actions as aggressive or irrational. This despite the reality that China has orchestrated economic warfare for over a decade.
Then there are the business diplomacy optics. The focus on globalization, multilateralism, and engagement with global CEOs is designed to undermine U.S. efforts to isolate or decouple from China by making the economic case for continued integration.
Finally, a contract to Trump’s unilateralism. The recent FT piece implicitly juxtaposes Li’s multilateral tone with Trump’s combative trade policy, reinforcing a “responsible China vs. erratic America” narrative.
Bottom Line from One Vantage
China’s message to the U.S. via international media is clear: We’re steady, pragmatic, and committed to global trade—if the U.S. wants confrontation, it will bear responsibility for the fallout. Beijing is leveraging moments like this to appeal to Western businesses, global markets, and even political moderates, hoping to widen the gap between U.S. policymakers and international economic stakeholders.
For Washington, the challenge is not just economic—but narrative-based. Is China winning the optics of “stability” at a time of renewed U.S. trade aggression?
Another American-centric View
President Trump's recent decision to impose additional tariffs with America's first focus seeks to counter China's longstanding dominance in the rare earth industry. By implementing such tariffs and other unilateral policies, the Trump administration seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese and other national production for its goods and services.
Moreover, the latest measures send a clear message that the U.S. is committed to challenging unfair trade practices and promoting a more balanced global market. Trump’s recent executive order on critical minerals is an example (although Rare Earth Exchanges does not think it goes nearly far enough). By addressing China's near-monopoly in the rare earth sector, the administration aims to foster competition, drive innovation, and secure a stable supply of these essential elements for the future. But will it be enough?
One’s perspective on reality is often shaped by where they live.
At last, somebody is stating the facts rather than looking for a soft excuse to deny the truth: “Rare Earth Exchanges raises a few points, such as the process of victim framing. China is portrayed as reacting, not initiating, thereby trying to blunt Western criticism and frame U.S. actions as aggressive or irrational. This despite the reality that China has orchestrated economic warfare for over a decade.” That China is slowly winning that war is evidenced by their recent change in tactics. Rather than continuing to suppress the price of raw Rare Earths by moving the price/profit point downstream. They are now being more selective are out to destroy only those few Companies left that pose any threat to the Monopoly. The Chinese are doing this by directly attacking their share price, whenever any significant News is released! Evidence? the illogical and relentless dumping of both Arafura’s and Pensana’s share prices last week. Traders may be ruthless but they don’t try to kill the Golden Goose.