Thomas L. Friedman in conversation with Nader Mousavizadeh


5th June 2019

The US and Chinese Presidents Should Go on a Weekend Retreat.
They and the rest of the world will regret the result if their reprisals over trade issues keep escalating.
If I had one wish it would be that the leaders and trade negotiators of the US and China would go on a weekend retreat together — I’d suggest Singapore — with a facilitator — I’d suggest Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong — with no press or tweeting allowed and try to work out the basic trade and geopolitical understandings to govern their future ties.
Because if their trade tit-for-tats keep intensifying, they’re going to do something that they and the rest of the world will profoundly regret — fracture the foundations of globalization that have contributed so much to the prosperity and relative peace the planet has enjoyed since fighting two world wars in the last century.
The US and China are the two most powerful countries and economies in the world. Their economies are also totally intertwined. If they start ripping out the telecommunications wiring, manufacturing supply chains, educational exchanges and financial investments that they’ve made in each other since the 1970s, we’ll all end up living in a less secure, less prosperous and less stable world.
If you don’t think that’s a real prospect, you haven’t been paying attention.
President Trump was right to engage in some trade shock therapy with Beijing. China no longer just wants to sell the US toys and tennis shoes. It now wants to sell the same high-tech products, like 5G telecom, robotics, electric cars and AI systems, that America specializes in. So China had to be made to bluntly understand that the US would not look the other way anymore from China’s longstanding abusive trade practices, nor would it be bought off, either.
We need a level playing field — but not a new battlefield.
“A strategic reset was needed in relation to 21st-century China, but the danger is that we’re sleepwalking into a generational conflict that is neither necessary nor one that we in the West are prepared for, any more than the Chinese,” observed Nader Mousavizadeh, Co-founder of Macro Advisory Partners, a geopolitical consulting firm that advises many global companies doing business in China.
There has been a tendency in Western policy toward China, added Mousavizadeh, to lurch “from the lazy truism that the US-China relationship is the most important one of the 21st century — and therefore should be shielded at all costs from ordinary economic and geopolitical pressures — to an equally lazy fatalism about a new great power conflict with China. But there is nothing inevitable about a new Cold War.”
Yet, this seems to be what we’re stumbling into. “The new divide with China may begin with technology and continue with finance and manufacturing but it ends, ultimately, with people,” noted Mousavizadeh. “If the tariff war now underway culminates with removing Chinese citizens from Western businesses, and US citizens from Chinese companies out of fears of espionage or theft, it will constitute an irreversible step toward generational enmity.”
While I agree with Trump’s core instinct that the trade issue had to be addressed in strategic fashion, I disagree with his total reliance on tariffs to force China to the table. Tariffs are so open to abuse, as each sector of the US economy — like farming — demands special exemptions or payoffs. And more important, this approach makes the conflict all about America versus China on trade, when this should be about the world versus China on trade. Because European, Asian and Latin American countries all have the same trade problems with China that we do.
Trump should have signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which brought together the 12 biggest Pacific economies excluding China, representing 40 percent of global G.D.P., behind American trade standards — and then sought to bring along the European Union as well — into a single coalition to negotiate a new trade regime with Beijing. Instead, Trump tore up TPP and alienated the Europeans by imposing various steel and aluminum tariffs on them. So foolish.
But that’s now water over the dam.
Trump’s team thought its approach was working — that tariff pressures plus negotiations would get China to enact into its laws restrictions on cybertheft of intellectual property, forced technology transfers, certain subsidies to Chinese companies, nonreciprocal trade rules, currency manipulation and barriers to China’s financial services markets, among other issues. Negotiators also discussed a detailed process for adjudicating disputes.
All along, though, the Chinese complained that the language sought by the US was one-sided and tantamount to a confession of guilt by China that would make it look as if President Xi Jinping was kowtowing to the US.
The Chinese also complained that Trump was making excessive demands in terms of the amount of US goods and services he wanted China to buy to reduce the trade imbalance, and that the US would still not guarantee to end tariffs. Also, some Beijing hard-liners wanted to teach the Americans a lesson about the real balance of power today — or, as one of them put it to me last year: “You Americans are too late. We’re too big to be pushed around anymore.”
Whatever the reasons, in the first week in May, following intense trade talks in Beijing — which left the Americans thinking they were getting close to a deal — the Chinese sent back their latest edits on the working draft: On page after page, sources said, lines were drawn through almost all the clauses the two sides had been negotiating for months. No deal.
Trump was livid, and on May 10, he hiked the tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese exports to the US to 25 percent from 10 percent. Beijing then slapped new tariffs on $60 billion of US products.
On a separate track, Trump put the Chinese telecom giant Huawei on a list of companies that need special permission to buy US-made microchips, software and other components. The reasons were Huawei’s long history of reported stealing of intellectual property and the fear that if our allies bought Huawei’s 5G telecommunication system it would open them and us to much greater Chinese espionage. China retaliated with an edict to strike back at any foreign company that boycotts Huawei.
And that is how a trade war can escalate into a full-scale US-China economic war. It may be that China’s government simply cannot or has no desire to change its growth model — hard work, smart infrastructure and education investments, a high savings rate, plus lots of unfair trade practices — because it would mean the end of Communist Party rule.
It may be that 2019 will mark the beginning of both the Sino-American geopolitical and economic Cold War and the erecting of an equivalent of the Berlin Wall down the middle of the global technology market, dividing those that trust installing Chinese technologies to power their 5G phones, computers and internet systems and those that don’t.
I don’t know if that’s where we are. I do know we urgently need to avoid that place if we can. The two sides need to get together at the highest levels and explore whether there is a credible — but more gradual — approach to changing China’s trade practices that we both can live with.
And they have to explore whether there is an alternative to just banning companies like Huawei, such as fining or suspending them for abuses, while giving them a clear road map back into our markets if they demonstrate that they’ve cleaned up their act.
Our goal should be to move China toward global best practices on all these issues, not to isolate it and create a bifurcated world economy, internet and technology market.
It would help if we were mobilizing every one of our allies in this project, not hammering them with tariffs, too. It would help if we had a president who was more respected around the world and did not always have to be seen as “winning” and the other guy as losing.
It would all help. But here is where we are. And where we are is really dangerous.


Trusted Counsel in a Turbulent World


The Firm

Macro Advisory Partners was founded in 2013 to provide a global client base with a competitive advantage in a complex world. Driven by a belief in the value of independent, long-term strategic counsel, we created a firm that delivers actionable macro strategies to decision-makers in business, finance and the not-for-profit sector.

A volatile and fragmenting global landscape requires an integrated understanding of the political and economic drivers of change. Drawing on MAP's unique network, the firm’s partners create tailored and innovative macro solutions mapped to the specific exposures, risks and opportunities facing the firm’s clients.

MAP's London and New York-based team of partners, directors and associates is supported by a Global Advisory Board and a group of Senior Advisors drawn from leadership positions in the worlds of business, finance, politics, diplomacy and technology.


Macro Advisory Partners provides corporate, investor and foundation clients with the strategic insights to navigate the intersection of global markets, geopolitics and policy.

In a world defined by volatility and uncertainty — and an abundance of information, yet scarcity of insight — we identify the strategic implications for decision-makers tasked with maximising opportunity and minimising risk. The Archipelago World is characterised by fragmenting markets, populist politics, policy unpredictability, revolutionary technology, and weaponised arenas of finance, regulation and cyber.  The implications of this environment are dramatic and lasting. To help our clients anticipate and navigate these shifts in the macro landscape, we bring together deep on-the-ground analysis with long-term strategic judgement tailored to our clients' specific interests, exposures and concerns.

For today's global investor and business leader, macro is just as disruptive a factor as technology. Our advice — delivered by the firm's partners through trusted, personal, long-term and dynamic client engagements — is drawn from the policy expertise and connectivity of our global network. The firm's Global Advisory Board and a team of Senior Advisors with backgrounds in diplomacy, intelligence, investment strategy, negotiation, academia and industry, support our partners with the judgements that enable us to provide clients with relevant, actionable and investable macro solutions.


A culture of partnership defines our firm — among the individuals we have attracted to our endeavour, and with the clients whose long-term interests we view as our own. Our team brings to our work a diverse range of global business, finance and not-for-profit sector experiences that enable us not only to interpret a changing macro environment for our clients, but also to design specific solutions that enhance their performance and prospects.

The principles of independence, integrity and intelligence define our culture. Our clients include the world's leading technology, consumer, energy and financial services institutions. Our commitment to them — and to our people — is to deliver on our founding aim of building the world's leading macro advisory firm.


  • Article
    September 2015

    The Weaponization of Everything: Globalization’s Dark Side

    The element of surprise in international relations appears more frequent and more ferocious. Are these shocks to be expected from a dangerously fragile...
  • Article
    June 2015

    Arming Ukraine Will Put the West in Danger

    A dangerous, possibly irreversible, dynamic of conflict is taking hold of Russian-Western relations. In every arena of the Ukraine crisis, escalation is the...
  • Article
    February 2015

    The Limits of Security

    The War Studies 2015 Annual Lecture, Kings College London John Sawers, Chairman, Macro Advisory Partners Dr Strangelove came out in 1964. US President Peter...
  • Article
    January 2015

    The Real Arab Demand

    Two years in the life of the Arab Awakening already feels like an exhausted century, with the pendulum swinging from exuberance to extreme fear. Reckonings...
  • Article
    September 2014

    To Build a Coalition Against Islamic State, US Must Try a Little Humility

    When President Barack Obama assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, he summoned the full weight of U.S. power to a cause...
  • Article
    March 2014

    Russia’s Model Behaviour in the Ukraine

    Russia's Model Behavour in the Ukraine: the Fragmenting Geopolitics of the Future Surprise is the least forgivable sin of statecraft – and yet nothing has so...
  • Article
    February 2014

    European Elections 2014 Report

  • Article
    September 2013

    For the UN Syria is both Promise and Peril

    The agreement between the United States and Russia to rid Syria of chemical weapons should please — but also terrify — anyone hoping to return the United...
  • Article
    September 2013

    How to Win the Vote – and War – in Syria

    President Barack Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional authorization for punitive cruise missile strikes against Syrian government targets presents...
  • Article
    July 2013

    Job Training: Cultivating the Middle-Skill Workforce

    I relocated to Harlem in the summer of 2011, and upon moving in promptly called the cable company. It turned out the cable installer had grown up in a public-...
  • Article
    June 2013

    Turkey’s Crisis is Not About Erdogan

    The decision by Turkish authorities to send the riot police in to clear Taksim Square — while expressing a more conciliatory tone in a meeting between the...
  • Article
    May 2013

    Wheels Spinning, Going Nowhere

    An economic recovery in the UK demands that the incoming Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, (who takes up his post in July) runs a loose monetary policy...
  • Article
    April 2013

    Great-Power Myopia

    The narcissism of small differences is not usually associated with great-power politics. The pathology of turning minor disputes into major divisions between...
  • Article
    March 2013

    Iran Crisis is More Stable than it Seems

    The long-running crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme has met its moment of truth. This is the year when war or peace will break out – or so at least a...
  • Article
    November 2012

    Uncertainty is Not Going Away

    This week, within the space of 48 hours, the United States elected its next president and the Chinese Communist Party will convene in Beijing to begin the...
  • Article
    August 2012

    A World Without Europe Spells Danger and Woe

    The return of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is redefining the region’s relationship with the outside world. Whether or not the euro holds together, the...
  • Article
    June 2012

    Getting Down to Business in Rio

    Where’s the voice of business when you need it? For governments in the West, this has been a common refrain of the financial and economic firefighting over the...
  • Article
    June 2012

    Let’s End the Empty Talk about Syria

    In every conflict, there are clarifying moments of horror, episodes that cast into stark relief the reality of the forces at work and the complex obstacles to...
  • Article
    May 2012

    Europe’s Imperiled Institutions

    The euro zone crisis has spared few pillars of the nearly 60-year-old European project. The chasm between elite purpose and popular support is widening by the...
  • Article
    April 2012

    China’s War of the Oligarchs

    The death of an Englishman in Chongqing has acquired all the intrigue of a John le Carré novel with none of its charms. Despite the occasionally romantic...
  • Article
    April 2012

    Cold War Lessons Can Help Disarm Iran

    Saturday’s talks in Istanbul between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are testimony to the power of diplomacy backed...
  • Article
    March 2012

    Separate Myth from Reality at Goldman

    In April 2006, the cover of The Economist featured the image of a mountain climber and the words: “On Top of the World: Goldman Sachs and the Culture of Risk...
  • Article
    February 2012

    In the Middle East, a Bonfire of Alibis

    Syria can set fire to Lebanon at the wave of a hand. Hezbollah can be ordered into battle with Israel at the command of a call from Tehran. Lebanon’s sectarian...
  • Article
    January 2012

    The Elephants in the Davos Ski Lodge

    The epic global shifts of 2011 transformed the political, economic, and social landscape from Shanghai to Sao Paolo, Washington to Cairo. No leader (not even...


180 Piccadilly
London W1J 9HF
Tel: +44 207 917 9947

New York
200 Park Avenue South
Suite 1117
New York, NY 10003
Tel: +1 212 602 8721