By: Azhar Azam
The shorter version of this piece first appeared in Global Times with the title "US has to review aggressive stance as China triumphs" in Global Times on 16-April-2019.
After dismal exports in February that showed an enormous decline of 38.6 percent – China’s economy strongly hit back, posting a sensational growth rate of 47.0 percent in exports for March. Total trade contracted by 1.5% to USD 1.03 trillion for Q1-2019 largely because of 4.8 percent drop in imports.
This may perhaps be the most awaited and the most worrisome China Customs’ quarterly release for Trump administration since it waged trade war on Beijing and is now hoping for a productive outcome from the ongoing trade negotiations. But unfortunately for the United States, Trump’s tariff “mallets” seem to have made no damage to the world’s second largest economy.
Although the bilateral trade between China and the U.S. withered by 15.4 percent but disturbingly for Trump, the United States was the bigger loser. From January to March, Chinese imports from U.S witnessed a roller-coaster plunge of 31.8 percent up against only 8.5% drop in exports to America.
The data lends a significant blow to Trump’s long-standing campaign to confine China by impeding its fast-clocking economic growth through slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. He has frequently used his twitter mania to lambast Beijing for stealing American jobs, theft of intellectual property, and forced technology transfer.
It’s about time for U.S to review its aggressive stance at China, which is not only bleakly affecting the bilateral trade between the two countries and causing the global economic growth to slow down but most importantly, is sandwiching more than 1.6 billion people of both countries amid tariff and counter-tariff row. Additionally, if such a spat between the two largest economies of the world continues, the upshots will be no less than appalling for all the countries and the people across the regions.
Washington needs to understand that with the world’ largest population at its disposal, Beijing needs a consistent economic growth and a viable international trade environment, not to challenge the United States, but to gyrate its domestic industry and boost global trade to remain stable.
It is not a Chinese ambition to control the world or increase its global influence. As a matter of fact, it is obliged to expand its global economic footprint to pull out some 30.5 million people (more than the population of Texas), who are living below the poverty line of only $1.90/day.
Trump administration should realize that Beijing’s economic policies, to lifting the living standards of its people and their well-being, are no different to any other country of the world. And if its initiative such as Belt and Road is offering increased connectivity and mutual economic growth, Washington should instead join the so-called greater economic plan rather than eliciting unprovoked controversies.
Whether it is China, the United States or any other country of the world – there are some elements with hawkish attitude, which exist in every society and fuel war-game tactics or push state heads for hostile actions towards other nations. Such a behavior could jeopardize the entire global trade system and can also lead to worldwide turmoil and instability.
In her recent paper for Asia Society Policy Institute (APSI), former U.S. trade negotiator Wendy Cutler extolled the US approach “in brining China to the negotiating table” and advised President Donald Trump to lead a joint coordinated trade drive against China with the help of European Union (EU) and Japan as well as those of Australia, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea.
While advocating for strengthened trade actions, she said that the US unilateral actions of increased tariffs or investment restrictions can be weaker than anticipated because other countries can often fill the vacuum.
Citing the imports of all these countries about half of Chinese exports, Cutler exhorted that “If some or all of these countries were to collectively urge for reform, they would have a much stronger bargaining position than the United States alone, and China would be hard pressed to ignore them”.
Where Cutler’s impel for a collective and synchronized effort against China, with the help of the U.S. allies, is a grudging acknowledgment of Chinese upper-hand over the U.S., it also traces the actuality that the Chinese economy is such outsized and diversified that it could not be encumbered just by Trump’s unilateral tariff batters.
Her punitive opinion on China even overlaps Washington’s Beijing-focused strategic gambits to pulsate the growing Chinese military and economic influence. Outlined in the Pentagon’s prodigious defense budget, the United States’ strategy clearly invoked to resolutely patronize Trump’s tariff campaign to ditch Chinese interests in the regions where Beijing is gaining traction.
There are many pragmatic slants that would easily castoff the emboldened arguments of Cutler or like-minded contentious experts – conceding that as a sovereign state, China should be free to make policies that best suit its economy and people. Moreover, these kinds of actions could question the reliability of the U.S. foreign policy, which on one side impose sanctions on China for everything from military to trade but on other side, give waivers to India – whether it is S-400 from Russia, oil from Iran, or U.S. intellectual property law violations.
The United States also demands China to reform and open-up its economy. In order to facilitate the U.S., European Union (EU), and other countries – Beijing has already taken a series of initiatives to reform and open-up its economy for providing level-playing field, high-quality development, expanded market access, and stepping up the protection of intellectual property rights.
Trump’s trade war on China is appearing to be politically driven. As he accentuates that the ongoing negotiations will lead a trade deal with Beijing, Riley Walters wrote in The Heritage Foundation that “the U.S.-China talks aren’t technically a trade deal at all”. “It’s really just an executive agreement between the two sides, with commitments to reform on the Chinese side.”
Walters’ rationalization sounds weighty in the framework of the EU-China Summit Joint Statement that broadly endorsed Beijing’s efforts to reform and opening-up. “The EU and China commit to build their economic relationship on openness, nondiscrimination, and fair competitions, ensuring a level playing field, transparency, and based on mutual benefits.”
A setback to Trump’s years-long aversion for China, both the sides also reaffirmed their support for implementation of Iran nuclear deal, known as JCPOA, and agreed to work with other parties on a peaceful and democratic way out of the crisis in Venezuela.
Following one of the U.S. closet allies to settle differences with China, it would be much encouraging if the United States could its hostile conviction towards Beijing and learn from it age-old ally, European Union, as how to resolve trade disputes through dialogue.
Maybe, Trump could realize the case and maybe he won’t, preferring to going into the next presidential elections with the same China-oriented rhetoric. Reviewing the vast chronicle of Trump’s history, he probably will opt for the latter one.
The shorter version of this piece first appeared in Global Times with the title "US has to review aggressive stance as China triumphs" in Global Times on 16-April-2019.
After dismal exports in February that showed an enormous decline of 38.6 percent – China’s economy strongly hit back, posting a sensational growth rate of 47.0 percent in exports for March. Total trade contracted by 1.5% to USD 1.03 trillion for Q1-2019 largely because of 4.8 percent drop in imports.
This may perhaps be the most awaited and the most worrisome China Customs’ quarterly release for Trump administration since it waged trade war on Beijing and is now hoping for a productive outcome from the ongoing trade negotiations. But unfortunately for the United States, Trump’s tariff “mallets” seem to have made no damage to the world’s second largest economy.
Although the bilateral trade between China and the U.S. withered by 15.4 percent but disturbingly for Trump, the United States was the bigger loser. From January to March, Chinese imports from U.S witnessed a roller-coaster plunge of 31.8 percent up against only 8.5% drop in exports to America.
The data lends a significant blow to Trump’s long-standing campaign to confine China by impeding its fast-clocking economic growth through slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. He has frequently used his twitter mania to lambast Beijing for stealing American jobs, theft of intellectual property, and forced technology transfer.
It’s about time for U.S to review its aggressive stance at China, which is not only bleakly affecting the bilateral trade between the two countries and causing the global economic growth to slow down but most importantly, is sandwiching more than 1.6 billion people of both countries amid tariff and counter-tariff row. Additionally, if such a spat between the two largest economies of the world continues, the upshots will be no less than appalling for all the countries and the people across the regions.
Washington needs to understand that with the world’ largest population at its disposal, Beijing needs a consistent economic growth and a viable international trade environment, not to challenge the United States, but to gyrate its domestic industry and boost global trade to remain stable.
It is not a Chinese ambition to control the world or increase its global influence. As a matter of fact, it is obliged to expand its global economic footprint to pull out some 30.5 million people (more than the population of Texas), who are living below the poverty line of only $1.90/day.
Trump administration should realize that Beijing’s economic policies, to lifting the living standards of its people and their well-being, are no different to any other country of the world. And if its initiative such as Belt and Road is offering increased connectivity and mutual economic growth, Washington should instead join the so-called greater economic plan rather than eliciting unprovoked controversies.
Whether it is China, the United States or any other country of the world – there are some elements with hawkish attitude, which exist in every society and fuel war-game tactics or push state heads for hostile actions towards other nations. Such a behavior could jeopardize the entire global trade system and can also lead to worldwide turmoil and instability.
In her recent paper for Asia Society Policy Institute (APSI), former U.S. trade negotiator Wendy Cutler extolled the US approach “in brining China to the negotiating table” and advised President Donald Trump to lead a joint coordinated trade drive against China with the help of European Union (EU) and Japan as well as those of Australia, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea.
While advocating for strengthened trade actions, she said that the US unilateral actions of increased tariffs or investment restrictions can be weaker than anticipated because other countries can often fill the vacuum.
Citing the imports of all these countries about half of Chinese exports, Cutler exhorted that “If some or all of these countries were to collectively urge for reform, they would have a much stronger bargaining position than the United States alone, and China would be hard pressed to ignore them”.
Where Cutler’s impel for a collective and synchronized effort against China, with the help of the U.S. allies, is a grudging acknowledgment of Chinese upper-hand over the U.S., it also traces the actuality that the Chinese economy is such outsized and diversified that it could not be encumbered just by Trump’s unilateral tariff batters.
Her punitive opinion on China even overlaps Washington’s Beijing-focused strategic gambits to pulsate the growing Chinese military and economic influence. Outlined in the Pentagon’s prodigious defense budget, the United States’ strategy clearly invoked to resolutely patronize Trump’s tariff campaign to ditch Chinese interests in the regions where Beijing is gaining traction.
There are many pragmatic slants that would easily castoff the emboldened arguments of Cutler or like-minded contentious experts – conceding that as a sovereign state, China should be free to make policies that best suit its economy and people. Moreover, these kinds of actions could question the reliability of the U.S. foreign policy, which on one side impose sanctions on China for everything from military to trade but on other side, give waivers to India – whether it is S-400 from Russia, oil from Iran, or U.S. intellectual property law violations.
The United States also demands China to reform and open-up its economy. In order to facilitate the U.S., European Union (EU), and other countries – Beijing has already taken a series of initiatives to reform and open-up its economy for providing level-playing field, high-quality development, expanded market access, and stepping up the protection of intellectual property rights.
Trump’s trade war on China is appearing to be politically driven. As he accentuates that the ongoing negotiations will lead a trade deal with Beijing, Riley Walters wrote in The Heritage Foundation that “the U.S.-China talks aren’t technically a trade deal at all”. “It’s really just an executive agreement between the two sides, with commitments to reform on the Chinese side.”
Walters’ rationalization sounds weighty in the framework of the EU-China Summit Joint Statement that broadly endorsed Beijing’s efforts to reform and opening-up. “The EU and China commit to build their economic relationship on openness, nondiscrimination, and fair competitions, ensuring a level playing field, transparency, and based on mutual benefits.”
A setback to Trump’s years-long aversion for China, both the sides also reaffirmed their support for implementation of Iran nuclear deal, known as JCPOA, and agreed to work with other parties on a peaceful and democratic way out of the crisis in Venezuela.
Following one of the U.S. closet allies to settle differences with China, it would be much encouraging if the United States could its hostile conviction towards Beijing and learn from it age-old ally, European Union, as how to resolve trade disputes through dialogue.
Maybe, Trump could realize the case and maybe he won’t, preferring to going into the next presidential elections with the same China-oriented rhetoric. Reviewing the vast chronicle of Trump’s history, he probably will opt for the latter one.