Why US and Chinese trade teams have to mind their language as talks get serious
- Negotiators are now said to be pouring through documents ‘word by word’ to ensure there will be no misunderstandings
- One Chinese report that the two sides recently spent two hours arguing over a single word – and still couldn’t reach a consensus
When negotiators from China and the US sat down in Beijing’s Diaoyutai State Guesthouse for the latest round of talks intended to end their trade war, one of the many things on their minds would have been the need to pick their words carefully to avoid misunderstandings.
While the two sides also have to wrestle with a number of thorny problems, such as intellectual property protection or the market access granted to US firms in China, linguistic and cultural differences are also seen as one of the main barriers towards reaching a deal.
Speaking on the sideline of an event at Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC earlier this week, Michael Pillsbury, an informal adviser to Donald Trump, warned that the resulting “misconceptions” may already have hindered their chances of striking a deal.
He also said that the absence of a Chinese language version of a 120-page draft agreement was a potential problem, adding: “In Chinese translation there are a lot of nuances and choices in how you phrase thing.
Chinese media also suggested that negotiations are becoming much more intense at the final stages of the talks because every word involved could affect the outcome.
According to Taoran Notes, a social media account with links to state media, the two sides are now discussing the text “word by word and term after term”.
During a recent video conferences on agricultural, the two sides “got stuck” on whether a certain word could be used in the document.
“Because of the usage of the word, the two sides argued for over two hours in the video [conference]”, the post said, “in the end, [the two side] couldn’t reach an agreement over the word but had to leave it behind for the moment.”
But the post also noted that behind these arguments over terminology are the competing interests of China and the US.
Wang Huiyao, the president of the Beijing-based think tank Centre for China and Globalisation, partially agreed with the arguments.
“There have been interests and core issues behind the language negotiations,” Wang said, “and what they tried to argue is the implications and concessions behind them.”
One illuminating example, Wang said, was in 2001 after a US Navy intelligence aircraft collided with a PLA fighter jet near the island province of Hainan, killing the Chinese pilot and triggering one of the worst diplomatic crises between the two sides in recent years.
At that time, Beijing reportedly asked for an apology, but accepted a deliberately ambiguous note – which the US insisted was an expression of “regret and sorry” – in which the Americans said they were “very sorry” the incident had occurred.
“Negotiators need to weigh the words included in the final deals, because sometimes the US may want to use a word which may be too strong for the Chinese side,” Wang said. “But I don’t really think the Chinese-language document will be a problem as China has been involved in numerous trade negotiations since joining the World Trade Organisation in 2001 and has gained wide experience.”
And no matter how slow the process, the two sides did at least appear to be making progress.
According to Chinese media, after the US delegations, led by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin arrived, in the Chinese capital on Thursday afternoon talks began almost as soon as they had settled into their hotel.
As Toaran Notes reported, plans for a banquet were scrapped in favour of a working dinner, so they could “save time and talk while eating”.
