- 2018-09-27
The Sino-US trade war: everything has just begun
In many cases, when the danger comes, the person concerned does not know. Only when the time comes to reflect, can he clearly realize how close the danger is after a certain moment. On the other hand, the same is true for people to luck.
The current Sino-US trade negotiations may be "that moment" in hindsight.
What amount of information does Rose bring?
In just half a month, the Sino-US trade talks were peaceful. After the Chinese side led by Liu He returned to China for negotiations, Chinese and foreign media believed that China had won, and the situation turned around. On May 29, the White House announced that it would impose 25% tariffs on US$50 billion of Chinese high-tech products.
According to the White House statement, there are two major measures against China, the first is tariffs, and the second is investment restrictions. The situation then turned again. US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross led a team to visit China in June to continue discussions. It is of great significance to the Sino-US trade negotiations, which are irritated by the tariff issue, and both sides have made their own statements. What amount of information will this time bring?
After the meeting, no joint statement was issued. The Chinese statement stated that “the two sides have conducted good communication on the implementation of the consensus reached by the two countries in Washington in agriculture, energy and other fields, and have made positive and concrete progress. The relevant details are yet to be finalized by both parties. "And emphasized that this is our own initiative, implying that there is no trade war. China originally intended to "increase imports from all countries in the world, including the United States," because "this is beneficial to the people of both countries and the world. Reform and opening up. And expanding domestic demand is China’s national strategy, and our established rhythm will not change."
What’s more intriguing is the last paragraph of the statement, “Achievements between China and the United States should be based on the premise that the two sides meet each other halfway without fighting a trade war. If the United States introduces trade sanctions, including tariff increases, the two sides will negotiate All the economic and trade results reached will not take effect." Can this be understood as a Chinese ultimatum, or a response to the U.S. ultimatum? At least that's the understanding of the domestic public.
Correspondingly, the U.S.’s one-day late statement is also quite simple, even low-key. It is described as a government official and a Chinese delegation regarding the “consultation minutes” between the United States and China. The supply of energy products facilitates meeting China’s growing consumer demand to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, and this will help support U.S. growth and employment.” The Wall Street Journal subsequently reported that China pledged to purchase US$70 billion in U.S. energy and Agricultural products. This figure is basically close to Trump's goal of reducing the trade deficit.
It is intriguing that the US announcement did not mention the list of products with additional tariffs that will be announced as early as June 15.
How to read the statements of both parties?
There used to be popular diplomatic slang guides on the Internet, such as frank conversations indicating that there are great differences and unable to communicate; exchanges of opinions indicate that the talks have their own opinions; a full exchange of opinions indicates that the two parties cannot reach an agreement, and so on. Judging from the wording this time, it means that the two sides exchanged their opinions and communicated, but the final decision-making direction is still unclear. In addition to the wording, the two parties did not give a joint statement. One speculation is that the negotiating parties did not get sufficient authorization and still need to report to a higher level. Summarizing the fact that both parties gave simple statements and there was no joint statement, the biggest message indicates that everything is not over, or even just beginning, which is a tough battle for both parties.
For China, in particular, it is necessary to be fully prepared for the severity of possible conflicts. Prior to the sudden increase of 301 and tariff proposals by the United States, the response of the Chinese people was rather bewildered. Someone pointed out that this was Trump's stress test before Ross came to China, but from the domestic situation in the United States, it is best not to treat trade requirements as accidental and individual requirements.
Trump seems to be repetitive, but in fact his attitude towards China is not the worst. Behind him, there is a stronger and broader trend of thought that reflects the fundamentals of the US strategic shift towards China. Always remember that the ultimate decision maker in the United States, in addition to the President, is the Congress.
Robert Lighthizer, the current US trade representative, is a representative of the hawks. I once published his testimony on the official account "Xu Jin Economic Man", which was made at a meeting of the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Committee. The conclusion was that the optimistic expectations of the U.S. Congress for China were not fulfilled. "In the first part, I analyzed the PNTR ( The main reasons for the supporters of establishing permanent normal trade relations with China. I have listed that in this controversy, American policymakers and the public have been repeatedly told that China’s WTO accession will bring significant economic and trade benefits to the United States. . In the second part, I analyzed the records of the past ten years and concluded that most of those promises were not fulfilled. In the third part, I studied the reasons for the inaccuracy of optimistic expectations for China’s entry into the WTO. My conclusion is that there is The following fundamental issues are as follows: (1) U.S. policy makers did not realize how incompatible China’s economic and political system is with our WTO philosophy; (2) U.S. policy makers seriously misjudged Western companies’ business operations The motivation to turn to China and serve the US market with this; (3) The US government’s response to China’s mercantilism is very negative. In the last part, I discussed the measures that US officials should take in response to the problems caused by China’s accession to the WTO." "The passive and laissez-faire attitude of the U.S. policy makers over the years has caused the U.S.-China trade deficit to grow, which is widely regarded as a major threat to our economy. In the future, U.S. policy makers should take these issues more seriously and deal with China. Take a more active approach."
It is particularly worth noting that the testimony time was September 20, 2010. This is thought-provoking. It reveals that the change in US policy toward China is not a whim, but has historical thoughts. In the recent tripartite meeting of Ministers of Trade of Japan and the European Union, Lighthizer reiterated his concern about the non-market-oriented policies of third countries, and the direction is very obvious.
Since the sudden rise of the trade war, for China and the United States and even the world, everyone suddenly discovered that the many differences between China and the United States are already elephants in the room and cannot be avoided. The history for a period of time in the future may unfold along how China and the United States conflict and how to resolve conflicts. How to make the general public who are concerned about the progress of this incident strive for understanding is very important.