On a cold winter day in 1997, the atmosphere in Beijing was very different from the usual calm. In a simple and serious conference room, negotiations on China's future and international status are under intense intensity.
With the top U.S. trade representative in front of China, a controversy over inspection standards for meat imports is about to take the country by storm.
Long Yongtu, China's chief negotiator, is facing an unprecedented challenge. The U.S. delegates have just made a statement that shocked the audience - they believe that the meat products that have passed the U.S. quarantine are safe enough, and even bluntly questioned the quality of meat in the Chinese market, claiming that "in the United States, such meat is not even dog food."
How will Long Yongtu, as a representative of China, respond to such extremely insulting remarks?
The focus of the negotiations: the conflict between inspection and epidemic prevention standards
In the high-pressure negotiation environment of 1997, the debate between China and the United States over the inspection and epidemic prevention standards of meat products was particularly intense.
The representative of the United States insisted that since meat products had passed the strict quarantine procedures of the United States, they did not need to be inspected again after being imported into the Chinese market.
They see this as a way to simplify trade processes, reduce import costs, and demonstrate trust in the U.S. inspection system.
The Chinese side has put forward a different view. The representative of China stressed that each country's food safety standards and public health requirements had their own specific context and necessity, so further testing of all imported meat was necessary.
The representative of China elaborated on this position, noting that while the quarantine standards of the United States are indeed strict, China has the right to implement additional inspection measures in accordance with its own national standards, taking into account the differences in epidemic and food safety risks that exist between different countries.
In a specific meeting, the Chinese delegates presented a thick document and report, detailing the food safety incidents caused by imported meat in recent years, as well as China's own achievements and challenges in quarantine.
They stressed that the additional testing process is not a distrust of the quality of quarantine in the United States, but is based on a high level of responsibility for the health of Chinese consumers.
The Delegation of the United States attempted to refute those views by citing examples of other countries accepting the results of the United States meat quarantine and emphasizing that doing so would help to improve the efficiency of international trade.
A senior U.S. negotiator even suggested that if China could accept U.S. quarantine standards, trade talks in other areas would go more smoothly.
However, the Chinese representative systematically deconstructed this argument of the American side. By showcasing different international practices on food safety, they show that relying solely on the quarantine system of exporting countries may not be fully adapted to China's domestic needs.
Elaborating on this point, the representative of China referred to a number of specific technical standards and inspection procedures, emphasizing that they were based on scientific research and actual data aimed at protecting the well-being of Chinese consumers.
In addition, the representative of China noted that food safety was a sensitive issue involving national sovereignty. Allowing each country to formulate its own policy of examination and treatment according to its own actual situation is an important manifestation of respect for each other's sovereignty in international trade. China's position was repeatedly emphasized during the negotiations to demonstrate its firm stance on safeguarding national security and public health.
The diplomatic dispute triggered by the US remarks
In the tense atmosphere of the talks, the rash remarks of the US representative have added fuel to the fire. As soon as he finished speaking, the atmosphere in the entire conference room suddenly became more rigid.
China's negotiating team, which had been sitting up straight, was even more rigid at this moment. In the face of such insulting comments, China's response was swift and clear.
The representative of the United States does not seem to realize that his words have seriously offended the other side.
He should claim that the quality of meat in the United States is high enough, and even suggest that the meat sold in the Chinese market may not even be good for dog food in the United States. Although there has been a lot of friction in the previous negotiations, the remarks have undoubtedly pushed the dialogue to a new low.
One of the members of the Chinese delegation immediately stood up, his movements calm, but his tone full of solemnity. He asked the representative of the United States to clarify his remarks, noting that such disrespectful statements were unacceptable.
He elaborated on China's efforts and achievements in meat import inspection, emphasizing that China has a well-established inspection system to ensure the quality and safety of meat products in the market.
At the same time, another Chinese representative also participated in the dialogue, and he showed the US side a series of data and reports on the results of China's inspections on imported meat and examples of international cooperation in food safety.
His intent is clear, with the aim of proving that China's food safety standards are strict and effective, fully in line with international requirements, and that it is not allowed to question China's system or denigrate its market environment.
Long Yongtu's resolute response
At the negotiation table, as Long Yongtu's firm voice sounded, the atmosphere in the conference room instantly became more tense. Long Yongtu stood at the conference table, his voice clear and firm, demanding an apology from the US representative for his inappropriate remarks.
His words are serious and forceful, reflecting China's uncompromising attitude towards dignity and fairness in international negotiations.
Long Yongtu's attitude was clear, and he said that if the US side does not make an appropriate response, the Chinese side will consider suspending negotiations.
It is clear that the American representatives present did not expect such a direct challenge. They exchanged quick glances with each other, and the air in the conference room seemed to freeze.
The other Chinese delegates also showed unwavering support, and their neat postures and solemn expressions further accentuated the seriousness of the scene.
Long Yongtu went on to stress that any form of trade negotiations must be based on mutual respect, and any disrespect for the Chinese market and standards is unacceptable.
His voice echoed through the room, and every word conveyed a clear message that China would not compromise on its national interests and dignity.
After a brief discussion between the representatives of the United States, one of them stood up. There was a hint of embarrassment on his expression, apparently to de-escalate the situation.
He began to clarify what he had just said, and tried to explain that the original intention was not to insult or belittle China's test standard. He said that the United States does take the food safety of pets very seriously, but that does not mean that the food safety standards of other countries are devalued.
However, Long Yongtu did not immediately accept this explanation, reiterating the position of the Chinese delegation, stressing that follow-up negotiations could only be continued if a formal and sincere apology was received.
He reiterated that respect was the cornerstone of international relations and that any disregard for that would have a negative impact on the negotiations.
With Long Yongtu's re-emphasis, the atmosphere on the US side became more serious, and they began to realize the seriousness of the situation.
In the end, the US representative who presided over the negotiations stood up and formally apologized to the Chinese side. Acknowledging the inappropriateness of the presentation, he regretted it and pledged to pay more attention to future words and behaviour to ensure that similar incidents did not recur.
While the apology initially eased tensions between the two sides, it also set a more cautious and respectful tone for the negotiations that followed.
Long Yongtu accepted this, softening slightly, and then announced that the meeting would be temporarily rested to allow both sides time to adjust and reassess their strategies.
The embarrassing apology of the US side and the continuation of negotiations
Hearing Long Yongtu say that the negotiations would be interrupted, the US representative began to panic, he stood up, faced all the eyes in the conference room, and began his verbal apology.
His voice was slightly hoarse, apparently stressed by the consequences of his previous remarks. The U.S. representative's attempt to explain that his remarks were merely a metaphor for emphasizing the high quality standards of U.S. meat, and had no intention of belittling the Chinese market.
He stressed that this expression is motivated by the consideration of efficiency and process simplification, and not by distrust or disrespect for China's inspection standards.
Although the US side's explanation and apology are sincere, for the Chinese delegation, they are still not enough to completely erase the negative impact caused by previous remarks.
The Chinese team's expressions were still serious, and they listened to the explanations of the American side, recording every detail with expressionless faces. After a brief exchange, a representative of the Chinese side reminded the U.S. side that any issue involving food safety and national dignity is extremely sensitive, and that it needs to be more cautious in its expression and wording in the future.
Although the atmosphere remains tense, both sides have shown a willingness to move forward. The meeting continued after a short break.
The US side has been more cautious in the ensuing discussions, trying to avoid any remarks that could lead to misunderstandings. China has also recalibrated its tactics to focus more on substantive negotiations rather than on previous debates.
Subsequent negotiations focused on specific technical and cooperation details, such as further discussions on specific inspection processes for meat products, the possibility of mutual recognition of inspection bodies, and efforts to reach consensus on certain technical standards.
Teams of experts from both sides presented their data and research reports, exchanged information, and discussed how to establish a mutually acceptable safety and quality assurance system.
In the process, the two sides gradually emerged from the initial tensions and began to focus more on how to resolve specific issues in order to move the negotiations forward.
While this phase of the negotiations remains challenging, the interaction between the two sides is beginning to become more constructive and goal-oriented, especially with the understanding that both sides actually share a common goal of safeguarding food safety and public health in their respective countries.
In the end, after several rounds of intense and fruitful discussions, the two sides reached a preliminary consensus on a number of key issues.
Although there are still differences in some areas, negotiators on both sides have demonstrated a determination to resolve issues and move the bilateral trade relationship forward.
Although the incident began as an unpleasant dispute, it eventually made both sides more aware of the importance of respect and cooperation in international negotiations, and laid a more solid foundation for future negotiations.
Resources:
- Si Si Long Yongtu: Committed to the rise of China[J].China Economy and Trade,2007(3):22-24