Tag Archives: trade war

Options Narrow For A China-US Trade Deal

SUMMITS ARE FOR signings. US President Donald Trump’s second summit meeting with North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi should never have taken place. Or at least not until after officials had worked out what the agreement between the two countries was going to be. President Xi Jinping is not prepared to put himself at risk of the sort of fall-out that followed Trump walking out on Kim and that summit ending prematurely with no agreement.

The presidents meeting at Trump’s Florida resort Mar-a-Lago pencilled in for the end of this month to sign-off on a China-US trade agreement remains no firmer that, with Terry Branstad, the US ambassador in Beijing confirming to the Wall Street Journal that a date had not been finalised. The boosterish talk a couple of weeks back that a deal was near enough to completion to suspend the introduction on March 1st of 25% US tariffs on $200-billion-worth of Chinese exports is heard no more.

The sticking points of the agreement are proving as intractable as this Bystander has suspected all along that they would be, particularly over state subsidies, market access and forced technology transfers. No country readily changes its economic development model without either good cause or great pressure.

However, even the mechanism for monitoring and enforcing an agreed timetable for China to remove tariffs is proving difficult to nail down, as is getting the US side to agree to a schedule to withdraw its tariffs. The enforcement mechanism must be “two way, fair and equal,” Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen said this weekend.

The US president is pushing for an early conclusion to a deal for political reasons. He needs demonstrable benefits from it to take into his 2020 re-election campaign. Xi also needs a deal that avoids him looking as if he has come off second best to the United States or has done anything to exacerbate the current slowdown in the economy.

For both, a narrow trade deal with enforcement mechanisms around only tariff-removal regimes seems more and more likely. Beyond that, Beijing will agree to buy more US produce and industrial goods and codify economic reforms that it is already planning to introduce. The more significant structural issues will be kicked down the road.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., Trade

US-China Trade Dispute Moves From Technical To Political Phase

US PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP has extended the March 1 deadline for raising tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports pending a summit meeting with President Xi Jinping in Florida probably in the second half of next month.

Trump tweeted that ‘substantial’ progress had been made in the high-level trade talks between the two countries.

State media have used the same description of the progress.

The negotiating teams have been working on the text of an agreement that will cover currency, cyber theft and forced technology transfers, services, agriculture, intellectual property and non-tariff barriers. These texts will provide the framework for what state media call ‘the next phase’ of discussions.

There is no official readout from either side of what that progress is but it is thought to have been greatest over the yuan-dollar rate, technology transfer, intellectual property protection and non-tariff barriers — all areas in which Beijing has already been moving in support of its long-term economic reforms to rebalance the economy. China will also be making some immediate large purchases of US goods and produce to cut its headline trade deficit with the United States.

The sticking points are likely to remain subsidies and other supports to state-owned companies, which go to the heart of China’s economic development model.

Until the finalised texts can be seen, it will be impossible to judge what ‘substantial progress’ means, what the pace and scope of it will be, what remains unsettled and what mechanisms will be put in place to monitor and enforce whatever is agreed.

The US team will make one more visit to China for further discussions on that. The fact that Xi is going to meet Trump in Florida in late March rather than on Hainan Island immediately after the Trump-Kim Jong-un summit is a sign of how much of a gap there is between the two sides still, and how little Beijing has conceded on that score.

There is also the little-mentioned question of what concessions will be expected of the United States.

For now, however, it will be all about appearances and how the two presidents control the ‘optics’ of an agreement, which both men need to appear to domestic constituencies as a ‘win-lose’ deal more than a ‘win-win’ one.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., Economy, Trade

US-China Trade Deal: The Devil Is In The Enforcement

BEIJING AND WASHINGTON are both talking up progress by their trade negotiators as they each look to come up with a formula for avoiding the damaging consequences of the imposition of tariffs on US-China trade that will otherwise occur at the end of next week.

News that the Chinese team led by Vice-Premier Liu He will be extending this week’s two-days of talks in Washington can be read either way: that agreement is nearing and just needs a final push; or that it remains elusively far away.

On one superficial level, this Bystander believes, it is the former, but deeper down it remains the latter.

What is likely to be agreed by March 1, the deadline to conclude an agreement set by Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump over dinner at last autumn’s G20 meeting in Buenos Aires, is a framework for further talks with six tracks: currency, cyber theft and forced technology transfers, services, agriculture, intellectual property and non-tariff barriers.

Each track would have binding objectives in terms of structural economic change in China. In addition, there would be an agreement to cut China’s bilateral merchandise trade surplus with a number of immediate big-ticket buys of US goods and produce, notably soybeans, which had been a $12 billion a year sale for US farmers before the tariff tit-for-tat started. Energy and industrial goods will also be on China’s shopping list.

The sections in the agreement for the six tracks would have been called memoranda of understanding in the old diplomatic language. Donald Trump does not like the term, and slapped down the US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer for using it. Trump is a ‘dealmaker’, not a memorandum of understanding sort of guy; and to be fair to the president, touting that he has secured the ‘greatest memorandum of understanding  — ever’ just does not have the same ring as being able to boast of the making the ‘greatest deal — ever’.

Trump’s intent is to tie the big red bow on a deal at a meeting with Xi sometime after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi on Wednesday.

The six areas are all ones in which Beijing will be prepared to agree binding objectives. They are aligned with the structural changes it anyway needs to make to rebalance the economy. The sticking points are how far and how fast Beijing is prepared to go at this point, and, crucially, what monitoring and enforcement mechanisms it is prepared to accept.

Each of the six tracks has obstacles of differing degrees of difficulty to overcome. The currency one has already reportedly been settled. It was probably the easiest to tackle, given that China has a managed float for its currency in place and the yuan-dollar rate provides a clear and transparent measure, even if there is plenty of scope for argument over what constitutes a ‘fair-value’ rate.

On the other five, finding the right language that meets the Trump administration’s tough demands for structural change yet gives Beijing the room to soft-peddle has been proving as difficult as would have been expected.

The most progress has been made on intellectual property rights and improved market access; the least, on the role and practices of state-owned enterprises, subsidies, forced technology transfers from US companies operating in China and, thorniest of all, cyber theft of US trade secrets.

That last one goes to the heart of the issues between the two sides. If China is to succeed in ‘catching up’ with the US economy industrially and rebalancing its economy so the next phase of growth is driven by high-value manufacturing and services based on the next generation of industries, then it will need to acquire the technology to do so by fair means or foul and nurture the national champions to develop and exploit it.

Those priorities will not be given up lightly.

For Trump, a big political win on China, one of his core issues in the 2016 presidential election campaign, is essential going into his 2020 re-election bid. With the newly energised Democrats snapping at his heels, he needs headline concessions that sound grand and victorious to his electoral base, especially in the tightly contested states of the (formerly) industrial MidWest.

Xi, too, needs to demonstrate domestically that he has got the measure of Trump and that he is not yielding any sovereignty to Washington over the reform process. Any sign of the latter will be seized upon by his political critics.

So for both men, perceptions at home are critical. That is what an agreement at or around the end of the month will deliver above all.

Negotiating the details of implementation of what is agreed will take far longer. China will drag its feet on that to the extent that it can get away it until if and when US attention switches elsewhere whether under the current president or his eventual successor. Even a two-term Trump would be out of office ahead of the delivery year for Made in China 2025.

For that reason, this Bystander will be reading closely the details of the enforcement and monitoring procedures that are agreed.

1 Comment

Filed under China-U.S., Economy, Trade

Trade Figures Bring No Cheer To Trade War

THERE IS NOT much comfort to be drawn from the latest monthly trade statistics. The 4.4% year-on-year fall in exports for December to $221.25 billion, and 7.6% decline in imports to $164.2 billion were the opposite of the increases on both sides of the ledger that had been expected. The increase in the trade balance, to $57.1 billion from $44.7 billion last month, is just the result of the arithmetic.

The trade dispute with the United States appears to be starting to bite after several months of front-loading of orders to get ahead of tariffs, but there have been plenty of straws in the wind suggesting the economy is slowing, from the first fall in annual car sales in two decades to Apple’s warnings about slumping iPhone sales.

The question is whether this will make the need to strike a trade deal with the United States by the March 1 deadline self-imposed by Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump  more pressing on Beijing’s part. Or will it stiffen the resolve of the leadership to tough it out, knowing that it can only make superficial concessions unless it is willing to make structural changes that it will not?

It may also judge that a slowing global economy and jittery equity markets worldwide impose pressures of their own on the US administration, which has plenty of domestic distrctions of its own right now.

Vice Premier Liu He, Xi’s point man on the trade talks with the United States, is due in Washington before the end of the month. He might arrive with a willingness to make some big-ticket purchases to cut the headline number for the trade surplus with the United States (2018’s was the largest in a decade) and some token concessions on greater market access for US firms. Last week, the sherpas preceding his visit made some if unspecified progress on both fronts.

However, he is unlike to bring significant concessions in the contentious areas such as intellectual property and Beijing’s support for state-owned enterprises. The slowdown in China’s economy may more likely encourage Washington’s China trade hawks to believe that they need to continue to until he does.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., Economy, Trade

When Elephants Fight, It Is The Grass That Suffers

 

THE WHITE PAPER on China’s membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since it acceded to the world trade body in 2001 released by the State Council Information Office on June 26 implicitly acknowledges how much China has benefited from its membership.

This is all couched in terms of how China has lived up to its membership obligations and is now championing global free trade — an unabashed riding on the coattails of the global backlash against the United States’ protectionist turn.

The latest step in that come today with US tariffs of 25% on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods from ball bearings to lithium batteries coming into effect and China retaliating by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products, also worth a total of $34 billion, and likely to focus on agricultural products.

US President Donald Trump had previously threatened a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of Chinese goods if Beijing’s trading practices remain unchanged, and raised the stakes on Thursday by saying that more than $500 billion of Chinese exports could be tariff targets.

Should that happen, Beijing may resort to non-tariff retaliation in forms such as more expensive and lengthy customs inspections and consumer boycotts of US products, as it did last year to South Korea’s Lotte Group.

That would be a display of patriotic citizen loyalty that the United States would be unable to match and may point to the Achilles’ heel of Trump’s belief that he can push hard on trade because the U.S. holds the strongest hand and thus the rest of the world will, ultimately, back down.

Two days before the imposition of these latest tariffs, the WTO reported that in the seven months to May, trade restrictions imposed by the G20 had doubled over the previous reporting period. These include tariff increases, stricter customs procedures and imposition of taxes and export duties.

In a nod to its purpose, the WTO noted that during the seven months reported on (so they do not include the latest tariffs), trade liberalisation measures taken by G20 members covered $82.7 billion of trade, versus the $74.1 billion affected by trade restrictions. But the gap is narrowing rapidly.

The WTO’s report is blunt in saying that further escalation of protectionism — measures and rhetoric — could carry potentially large risks for the global trading system itself:

At a juncture where the global economy is finally beginning to generate sustained economic momentum following the global financial crisis, the uncertainty created by a proliferation of trade restrictive actions could place economic recovery in jeopardy. The multilateral trading system was built to resolve such problems and it has the tools to do so again. However, further escalation could carry potentially large risks for the system itself. Its resilience and functionality in the face of these challenges will depend on each and every one of its Members. The G20 economies must use all means at their disposal to de-escalate the situation and promote further trade recovery.

Trump’s antipathy for the WTO — beyond a general belief that all multilateral organisations exist to do down the United States — is that it has provided China with a mechanism to create the vast trade surpluses with the United States on which he is now waging trade war.

Our man in Washington tells us that in private Trump repeatedly says that United States should get out of the WTO because it is anti-American and recalls the president on the campaign trail in 2016 calling the WTO a “disaster”.

Perversely, because the US-created the system and has lots of effective lawyers at the WTO, it does better than most when it comes to dispute resolution at the WTO. According to this year’s Economic Report for the President, the US has had an 85.7% success rate in cases it has initiated before the WTO since 1995, compared with a global average of 84.4% and China’s 66.7%. And it wins 25% of the cases brought against it, compared to the overall average successful defence rate of 16.6%.

Whether Trump would push the destruct button on the WTO remains an open question, though he is constrained to an extent in that the US Congress would have to pass legislation for the United States to leave the organisation.

Doing so would send both world trade and world financial markets into a tailspin. Stockmarket indices are scoreboards that get Trump’s attention. A deal to ‘fix’ the WTO might appeal more to him, especially if markets react badly to this latest round of tariffs.

For all the rightful concern, the US tariffs so far are tiny in the global scheme of things, affecting the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and accounting for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley.  The collapse of the WTO would be on an altogether greater scale.

Meanwhile, Beijing will continue to play its long game and to occupy the moral high ground over the WTO, its belief in its ability to outlast Trump as unshakeable as Trump’s belief that it cannot.

 

1 Comment

Filed under China-U.S.

Not-So-Easy Trade Wars

TRADE WARS MIGHT, as US President Donald Trump says, be easy to win (although this Bystander, for one, doubts it), but some of the terrain that has to be to yomped across is complicated and treacherous. Take the example of semiconductor equipment manufacturers.

The direct costs that result from the tariffs the United States is imposing on China and the ones that China is imposing on US firms in retaliation would be unwelcome but manageable for the three leading listed US semiconductor equipment manufacturers, Applied Materials, Lam Research and KLA-Tenco.

The trio’s China business earned them $5.4 billion in the year to end-March, 2018, according to calculations by the rating agency Moody’s. That was equivalent to 18% of their total revenue. Although that was 41% up on a year earlier, their business overall seems to have been growing at a similar rate.

These are good times to be making the equipment that makes chips, as it should be given global chip sales have increased by one-third since 2016, and are forecast to be a $460 billion market this year.

This is where things start to get complicated for trade hawks. Only about one-third of the three US firms’ China revenue comes from indigenous Chinese chipmakers, Moody’s reckons; the balance comes from multinationals that manufacture semiconductors in China, such as Intel and Samsung. (That is in line with the overall rule of thumb that holds that about two-thirds of world trade is accounted for by value and supply chains.)

US-based multinational chipmakers manufacturing in China could apply for US exemptions from US tariffs for the components they export back to the United States, though that would do nothing for reducing the headline trade deficit figure by which the US president sets so much score.

China could even ban such export sales. There is no indication Beijing is considering doing so should it come to it, but who knows what symbolic gestures will be made?

Absent a trade war, US semiconductor equipment manufacturers could expect steadily growing sales in China both to indigenous and multinational companies. Prospects would be particularly bright for the next several years among Chinese companies as Beijing is pushing the development of an indigenous chipmaking industry under Made in China 2025 to wean the country off its dependence on the United States for this critical technology. China will make its own chips first, then later the equipment to make them.

In the event of a trade war, Moody’s estimates, the three would lose $660 million of business from Chinese companies this year and $775 million in 2019.

At the end of this month, the Trump administration is set to announce new rules to curb Chinese access to critical US technology. While investments in the United States by any company with at least 25% Chinese ownership will be at the forefront, restrictions on exports of technology by US firms are also likely.

Limits to the three US firms’ freedom to sell their chipmaking equipment to Chinese companies would be a significantly more serious threat to them than tariffs. That might be appealing to the Trump administration as a way of delaying China’s drive to self-sufficiency in chip-making. There are no ready alternatives to the three US companies to which Chinese firms can turn.

But that, in turn, could force China to speed up the development of its own manufacture of semiconductor-making equipment.

So who wins? There is no uncomplicated answer.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., Technolgy, Trade

The US Resumes Its Trade War With China

WE SAID EARLIER this month after the United States put its trade war with China on hold that that would last only until US President Trump tweets that “it is back on, or was never off or is over”.

We have moved into the ‘back on’ phase.

The Trump administration says it plans to impose 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports by the end of June. The list of goods to be subject to the tariff will be published on June 15. The announcement also promises specific investment restrictions and enhanced export controls on “industrially significant technology”.

In a rather resigned-sounding comment, the Commerce Ministry said it was both “surprised and unsurprised” by the announcement.

Wilbur Ross, secretary of its US opposite number, is due in Beijing later this week for a follow-up round of talks to those earlier in the month that led US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to say that the Trump administration would hold off imposing tariffs on up to $150 billion in Chinese imports for alleged violations of US American intellectual property and unfair trade practices as the two sides were making progress towards a ‘framework’ for cutting China’s $375 billion merchandise trade surplus with the United States.

So the latest White House announcement may be Trump indulging in his new favourite negotiating tactic of cutting up rough ahead of talks.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., Trade