Quantcast
Connect with us

What China wants: 3 things motivating China’s position in trade negotiations with the US

Published

on

Relations between the U.S. and China have deteriorated sharply in recent days after trade negotiations broke down, leading some to suggest we are on the cusp of a new “cold war.”

President Donald Trump blames the resumption of hostilities on China. Specifically, he and his negotiators say their Chinese counterparts backtracked on an agreement to change laws aimed at enforcing the deal, prompting Trump to raise tariffs on US$200 billion in imports and China to retaliate. Only a few weeks earlier, the two sides seemed very close to a deal.

ADVERTISEMENT

So what led to China’s change of heart – if there was one?

As an expert on China’s development and economic reform, I believe the answer lies in trying to understand the situation from the Chinese perspective.

Chinese and U.S. negotiators seemed close to a deal – until they weren’t.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

China’s rise

China was a poor country not long ago. Its leaders effectively developed its productive and institutional capabilities by learning from foreign countries while allowing domestic companies to flourish over four decades of reform.

While this is commendable, as my research shows, and something other developing economies should emulate, it has also been controversial, particularly as China’s economy has become the world’s second-largest.

In 2015, a 10-year plan known as “Made in China 2025” put in place a set of incentives to encourage Chinese companies to move from basic manufacturing to high-tech sectors such as electric cars, robotics and artificial intelligence. China’s goal is to have its companies globally competitive in these sectors by 2025.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, in order to meet these ambitious goals, in some cases Chinese companies must rely on subsidies, government funding, forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft. To foreign political and business leaders, these practices smack of unfair competition.

Now that China has established strong capabilities, the threat of overtaking the U.S. in high-tech areas such as AI seems real and the methods being used appear unfair. That’s why, as part of the negotiations, the Trump administration was trying to get China to end its practice of forced technology transfer by changing their laws.

The U.S. said China agreed to do this, but the Chinese rejected those claims.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trade officials celebrate China’s entry into WTO in 2001.
AP Photo/Donald Stampfli

China’s internal debate

While China will understandably not give up its development goals to please the U.S., the methods used to achieve them are also controversial within China.

There are those who want to continue to reform the economy by making it more efficient and letting private companies – rather than the government – handle business decisions. Others want to keep the government at the center of things by operating state-owned companies and providing support to other sectors of the economy, old and new.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is generally accepted that the reformers would like to see some of the very changes that the Trump administration has been pushing for, such as more protection for intellectual property rights, open competition and a modern financial system to allow better global integration and a free-floating currency.

Reforms such as these carry risks, however. China’s economy has been slowing, and some policymakers worry that now is not the time to rock the boat. In times of economic distress, China has shown a tendency to fall back on top-down controls that were the norm when China had a centrally planned economy.

China has been here before. Based on my research on the process leading to China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, China’s internal debates were intense. Some policymakers believe that China gave up too much for the privilege, including changing many domestic laws – just as the Trump administration is seeking.

ADVERTISEMENT

Those memories are likely influencing the debate in China today.

National humiliation

A third factor provides an overarching context that is deeply integrated with the first two: China’s leaders and people will not tolerate “humiliation” by foreigners.

In the 1800s, Western powers won two so-called opium wars and received control over treaty-ports in China, allowing them to impose better terms of trade for themselves. The “century of humiliation” that followed is known to all Chinese, and China’s leaders have promised it will never happen again.

Fast forward to today, and President Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” is to establish China as a leading world power on par with the U.S. Hence, President Xi cannot be seen at home as weak by giving into American demands. China feels it must preserve its path to domestic economic strength and decide on its own what changes to make to its economic system.

ADVERTISEMENT

These sensitivities underlie the instability of the current U.S.-China negotiations and the relationship more generally. They also show why, even though China doesn’t want a trade war with the U.S., finding a deal that satisfies both countries is not impossible, but will be tricky.

China’s reformers seem to have lost the upper hand in recent weeks, making it even less likely that the Chinese will make changes that are compatible with what the U.S. wants. Ultimately, any deal will need to convey to Chinese citizens that President Xi did the right thing for the country.

Combine this with the fact that Trump may seem to Americans to have “won” the trade war simply by appearing tough on China – whether or not a deal is struck – and the prospects of a positive resolution look dim.The Conversation

Penelope B. Prime, Clinical Professor of International Business, Georgia State University

ADVERTISEMENT

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Facebook

The View’s Meghan McCain responds to GOP senator’s smear of impeachment witness: What about Hillary Clinton?

Published

on

"The View" co-host Meghan McCain changed the subject from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to Hillary Clinton during a discussion of the impeachment trial.

Guest host Ana Navarro took exception to Blackburn's attacks on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified against President Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry, after House managers cited his allegations against the president and some of his top officials.

"Yesterday Sen. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee spent hours, tweeted out and spent hours on TV attacking Vindman, Alexander Vindman, questioned his patriotism," Navarro said. "This is a guy who has a Purple Heart because of the injuries he received in the Iraq War, he still has shrapnel in his body. His parents are Soviet Jews who fled communism. I can't explain how angry I am about that."

Continue Reading

Commentary

Fox News’ coverage of Trump’s impeachment trial has been an embarrassing joke

Published

on

When Rep. Hakeem Jeffries addressed the U.S. Senate on Thursday night as part of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, there was a crucial difference between how Jeffries’ speech was covered on different cable news outlets: while CNN and MSNBC broadcast the speech, Fox News muted the speech while its pundits offered pro-Trump talking points. CNN and MSNBC allowed viewers to hear Jeffries making a compelling case for removing Trump from office; Fox News let viewers see Jeffries but not hear him. And that Trump-friendly way of covering the trial is the subject of an article journalist Aaron Rupar wrote for Vox this week.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Columnist drops the hammer on ‘Stalinist’ GOP for running a bogus ‘show trial’ to exonerate Trump

Published

on

In a brutal column for the Daily Beast, longtime political observer Michael Tomasky went all-in on an attack on Republican senators for turning the impeachment trial of Donald Trump into a "Stalinist show trial" where the outcome is known before it even starts.

Reflecting on the impassioned case laid out by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) over the past three days, Tomasky wondered what it would take to get through to Republicans who seem uninterested in fulfilling their constitutional duties.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image