U.S.-China Trade Talks Face Big Obstacle: Ensuring That Promises Are Kept

What about media exchange? There is zero reciprocity. Since the 1950s, the United States has allowed the CPP mouthpieces speaking loudly in the United States without any censorship. These Communist media are full of distorted propaganda against the United States. And so far, the Chinese Communist regime still does not allow any US media to be published without censorship in China.

time to be use “Chinese” as a verb meaning to 1 trick, con, obfuscate, deceive, outwit by subterfuge, 2 to other, exclude outsider or foreigners

Trump is just as foolish to expect honest business from Chinese as Obama was for a deal with Iran. Chinese view any contract with a Westerner as materiel for make paper airplanes

The comments as always are interesting, but I find pejorative terms used in discussing the remarkable development gains made by China these last 40 years to be unfortunate because they do not allow for a proper understanding of what it has meant for the lives of hundreds of millions of people to have been so much improved. I could not be more impressed with the gains in the well-being of the Chinese, not more impressed by the continual wish by the Chinese to partner with Americans.

I would suggest retroactive enforcement fines for broken promises by China in the hundreds of billions of dollars. China holds a lot of our bond debt. Let's just cancel the liabilities. Today, the United States owes hundreds of billions to China; tomorrow, we don't. We can decide in U. S. courts what should be the correct amount.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/us/politics/trump-china-wireless-networks.html February 12, 2019 Administration Readies Order to Keep China Out of Wireless Networks By JULIAN E. BARNES A long-awaited executive order would block technology from adversarial powers, including China, from superfast next-generation networks. [ We evidently want China to abandon economic development as a price for trade, which is absurd. ]

It's almost impossible to trust any country that does not have democracy and does not trust its own citizens. Each and every autocratic regimes are in that list- mainly the communists (Putin's Russia included) and the Islamic nations. International organizations including WTO and UN, seem to be ineffective to deal with autocratic regimes. China hardly care about any international law in any way- be it International Court of Justice in The Hague (regarding its dispute with Philippines over sovereignty in South China sea), or WTO. UN is fairing the worst as China is a permanent member of Security Council with veto power (along with another rogue regime-Russia). Ideally, no autocratic regimes should be among the permanent members in UN security council. There are legitimate demands to reform such international organizations to have some kind of law enforcement mechanism and that should not depend on the aggressive or the victim nation(s) to act if international laws are broken. It's so strange that even USA hesitated in the past (during Bush and Obama era) to legally retaliate against China when it violated WTO rules.

America's trade fight with China is a "clash of cultures" as much as a battle over imports, exports, and protectionism. The US was the primary backer of the Bretton Woods system of global trade management that was enacted at the end of World War II-- a system put in place precisely to avoid the horror of nations going to real war over economic issues. The system is rules-based and transparent, in keeping with Western philosophies of governance and peoples' individual rights. And, the system worked; for 75 years the world has enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity. But China works from a different position, "Confucian values" if you will, that promotes collective strengths over individual rights and decision-making mechanisms that are more transactional than precedent-based rule-following. It's a "get 'er done" approach that has the benefit of resolving questions rapidly. Other factors obviously come into play here, to be sure. But the question today, as China has expanded its economy prodigiously, is this: can we have a global trade system that is not governed by fixed rules, but rather is one in which every trade deal is bi-laterally resolved on its own merits? This, unfortunately, was the trade regime prior to World War II-- and it proved disastrous for the world as bullying and sheer power defined outcomes, not fairness and equity. The resolution of this clash of cultures is critical: the future of our world hangs in the balance as President Trump fights.

International organizations including WTO and UN, seem to be ineffective to deal with autocratic regimes. China hardly care about any international law in any way- be it International Court of Justice in The Hague (regarding its dispute with Philippines over sovereignty in South China sea), or WTO. UN is fairing the worst as China is a permanent member of Security Council. There are legitimate demand to reform such international organizations to have some kind of law enforcement mechanism and that should not depend on the aggressive or the victim nation(s) to act if international laws are broken. It's so strange that even USA hesitated in the past (during Bush and Obama era) to legally retaliate against China when it violated WTO rules.

From this article: "American negotiators want to create a mechanism that would automatically raise tariffs on Chinese goods if its exports to the United States keep rising,..." If this is the heart of the matter I can't think of a more foolish and ignorant objective for a trade negotiation. It defies everything we've learned about international economics since the 1700s. The fundamental objective of an international trade negotiation is to establish the rules (the "playing field") and what happens if they are not respected. The results of those rules - i.e. by how much the value of imports or exports changes, is beside the point. Good rules should produce economically correct outcomes. By focusing on hypothetical outcomes rather than the rules, they are making nonsense of the negotiations. It has been said and demonstrated over and over again that bi-lateral trade balances are economically immaterial to economic welfare. It is time the US officials in charge of these talks start learning and implementing basic principles of international economics, otherwise the Harvard-educated Chinese negotiators will throw their hands up in disgust and these discussions will go nowhere.

What Keith Bradsher is not explaining is just how many barriers to trade the United States has against China. What we are about is denying trade in advanced products to the Chinese, just as we deny the Chinese participation in the International Space Station program. We are even now trying to ruin an advanced Chinese telecommunications company. Trade with China for the US at present appears to be meant to limit Chinese development and that objective is completely unfair and will prove self-defeating.

There is zero chance that a Chinese company will ever buy Visa or Mastercard. It would be blocked. That should say enough about the real openness of the US economy. The present upheaval about Huawei is the perfect illustration of how the US reacts when it believes it is on the losing side in international economic competition.

If a trade deal is to occur then both sides will be required to honor their commitments or face consequences. India looms quite large to China and will face much of USA business to go there anyway, but in the interim much of the critical components business have allowed to be outsourced in China somehow must be repatriated to be made in the US. Hopefully smart US businesses will understand that so that their production does not hinge on foreign manufacturing. If China cannot nor will not enforce patents and trade secrets then it should suffer the consequences of high tarrifs and we too shall live with the same until our industries shift and adapt to those new realities. We should not be subsidizing China's growth by their stealing our intellectual properties.

Trade war with China is not just a dispute but also an approach to contain China in its technical advancement. Huawei is a good example. There is no easy way to solve this dilemma unless we are willing to sell some of the more advanced products to them, thus reducing the trade imbalance. The bottom line is that we need to cooperate and accept China in which she will lead in certain technical areas. In the meantime, we will continue to dominate the majority of other technical areas.

The time for W.T.O.’s efforts to create a level trading field with regard to China is long passed and was contradictory from day one. Communist systems by definition manage their business activities and the link between banks and businesses public and private is organic in a state operated system. Visa and MasterCard in China’s WeChat and bank motivated exchange system will remain quaint in whatever system allowed. Michael Wessel, a member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, an advisory body created by Congress, can only be read as ‘wishful.’ But some agreement will be signed and then like in the past ‘be there for those interested.’

Here is my prediction on the US/China trade talk. It is based on observing the behavior of the liar-in-chief, one DJT. He always talks big, "bigly". One example is the most recent Trump shutdown that he so "proudly owns". At the end he folds and still claims victory. With the market going wild because in part of trade wars that he started, he is worried about the market damaging his own support, and with losing, "bigly", the mid term, he is fearful of the unknown consequences of his own actions. So here is my prediction. He will fold in his dealing with China, just the same as he folded in his dealing with Kim Jong Un, and as he folded in NEFTA, and then claimed a major "breakthrough" and "victory". Sad!

Trump and his team will make a significant tactical error if they agree to extend the March 2nd deadline. This is a critically important deal for the USA and the rest of the free world. I also suggest that Canada should follow the USA and impose the same duties and penalties to ensure that China does not use Canada to dump goods. We are all fools if we do not appreciate that the Chinese Communist Party considers us both real long term enemies.

Even with all China's special favors for his daughter's business and all his Chinese-made MAGA hats, if they think they can trust Trump, they are doomed to failure.

Democrats sure missed the opportunity to be the party that represents fairness for American businesses. No what you think of Trump, his work on trade has been long overdue. China has shown that they will take advantage of the US as far as the US is willing to allow -- they only respond to action.

You ever tried to close a deal with a Chinese? Real estate maybe? I do hate to say anything NotPC, but it's almost a tradition to come up with "oh, just one more thing." I cannot be optimistic about verification or enforcement; I am sad to say it.

China cannot be trusted to keep its word. I don’t know if it’s a cultural thing or what but they will outright lie if it’s in their best interest to do so. The country is ripe with corruption which is exactly why the President of China has had an ongoing anti-corruption campaign for years that’s put thousands of Chinese in jail. They have been cheating countries for years in trade. China is a black swan event waiting to happen. The Chinese Communist Party and it’s new dictator will eventually push too hard on the Chinese people and democracy will come to China.

Stop it. WE'RE worried about THEM breaking promises? Don't make me laugh.

So, let me understand this, Mr, Mnuchin is going to find an automatic process whereby the Chinese will be dinged every time they use F=ma because only Americans know this? The Chinese have landed a spacecraft on the back side of the moon and have the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. (This mostly requires knowing F=ma and very little of E=mc2.) It is my opinion that anything the US does, the Chinese can do with a three year lag at worst. So, what is the problem? The problem is they work for a fraction of the worker's pay here, the worker has no health or social security, is told their living standard is way better than that of their parents and grandparents and that they should be grateful for it and just shut up. If I say that this will inevitably lead to China forever being consigned to a second rate power, nobody here will agree but that is the sad truth. Oh yes, there is in the meantime a need to bring the trade deficit into some balance. Best done by imposing stiff tariffs, not to spite China but to stop people buying all manner of unwanted stuff with a click instead of at least walking around the mall which will provide some much needed exercise.

The Chinese don't fear Trump, I mean he just got crushed by a woman.

Not to hand Xi the upper hand (because he, of course, isn't trustworthy). But Trump is a pathological liar who can't keep his foot out of his mouth. Advantage: China.

Without the coordinated pressure from the whole world, US, EU and TPP countries, China will not make substantial concessions. At this point Hillary Clinton, working with other countries, would have much stronger hand negotiating with China than Trump.

China Telecom should have restricted access in terms of points of presence (PoP) to the USA unless China grants equal access to US companies in China. China has already used China Telecom for espionage purposes; it is unlikely they will want to provide reciprocal access. Fine. We should restrict their PoPs in the USA. Doubtful that the USA negotiators are even aware of the significance of this.

Trump just wants to look good , the art of the deal, as long as it appears like we are coming out on top to him it's all that matters. When the truth comes out that we sent the wrong people to negotiate and neither side was ever thinking long term will we be able to deal in good faith.

China will always do what is in their interest in the long run. Whatever concessions they give will be watered down and delayed so that it is worthless. We are better off without the low priced goods. There are many countries besides China that can supply them on favorable terms. Mercantilism is alive and in an updated virulent form. The question we need to ask is whether trade with China benefits this country and not just particular companies and industries. In China, there are no lobbing groups for corporations. The party does what is best for the country and there are no other voices--including the workers.

The emphasis of the article on China’s problematic trustworthiness is mystifying in view of Donald Trump’s own established lack of credibility. If the United States cannot believe Trump, why should the Chinese? The only basis for an accord is mutual transactional self-interest. However, even if this were theoretically possible, there is no reason to believe any meaningful deal could be achieved given Trump’s utter incompetence.

Do the "promises" that China made when it joined the WTO in 2001 have a specified time lines? Apparently no. China has passed official WTO reviews several times in the past. If there had been violation of rules, the U.S. could raise it to the WTO dispute resolution body. The fact is WTO treats developing countries like China differently from it treats developed countries. The WTO may need some reform, but that's a separate issue.

The Chinese do not share our value structure, our philosophical history, or our conception of how value and progress are created. They believe that they have a right to a western quality of life for all their people and that any action leading to that is justifiable, fully ends justifying means. There is no negotiating with this and no way to develop trust or mutual understanding. There are two options, treat them like an organizational virus that will use any opportunity to gain an advantage at the cost of the west, or pretend that they are working with us in good faith and watch them take advantage of the west until they can dominate the world, at which point we won't be able push back no matter what we are willing to do.

There's no point in "negotiating" with China until they can show that they are not engaged in cyber warfare and that US companies are free to do business there. I mean FREE not as joint ventures or being made to give away trade secrets. Until it's as easy to do business in China for US companies as it is in France, there's no negotiation that makes any sense. They will never REALLY let US companies in. They will never REALLY stop state sponsored industrial espionage until they understand that it will cost them more than it's worth. We need to slowly strangle their economy until they actually demonstrate fair play and adherence to the WTO regime. Promises from the PRC are pointless.

Trust. Or lack of. That is the problem. The Chinese have spent decades stealing technologies and gaming the international trade system. They did not even abide by the Obama era agreement to stop cyber hacking. Everything the Chinese government does is aimed at furthering their world domineering aspirations. The concept of fair trade, and sustainable long term relationships doesn't appear to be important to them.

I strongly urge administration to tie student, visitor and business visas to this deal - along with clearances for Chinese firms to operate here. The Chinese can't place enough value on a visa to USA which they turn into a green card - just in case - they need to leave China for good. Similar to sanctions we have imposed on Russians post Crimea - ditto here. We can use examples of Australia and New Zealand who are now regretting a generous system of visas for the Chinese to their countries. And they are clamping down. I know not quite related - but if WTO tarriffs have expired - we have little leverage. And triggering additional tarriffs in future - well, who is on first base?

A bit one sided. You fail to mention all those US companies (Apple, Ford etc) that have factories in China to exploit the lower costs of labor. You also didn't mention that China regularly saves 25% of GDP while the US rarely saves above 5 % , spending the other 95 % on...imports... from other countries including China and including iPhones from the Apple factory there. Yes there are some issues about technology and ownership, but the main reason behind the trade deficit is that Americans want to buy the imports.

A statement and a question: 1) Let's not forget (as a onetime "engagement" supporter I certainly haven't) that "engagement" was heavily sold to the US public as a vehicle to "change China from within" by trade groups and think tanks across the political spectrum. As the brand new Asia Society report spells out, Engagement Policy has failed. 2) Doesn't anyone else think it strange, if not suspicious, that Trump has not tried to form a unified coalition to face China's trade policies? Has anyone bothered to ask Lighthizer and co. whether they wouldn't prefer to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the EU,Japan,Canada, etc. in their negotiations with China? Trump's treatment of our democratic allies by putting them in the same bucket as China makes this reader VERY suspicious of his motives!

If you have ever seen Star Trek Next Generation, and you know what "The Borg" are, then you will better understand China. For the most part, all the citizens and the entire government are willing to pull together for the good of the country, regardless of any objective sense of right and wrong. They are focused only on getting the best for their country, not in honoring any agreements they made, or not pressuring foreign companies to give up trade secrets, or not even stealing trade secrets. As far as China goes, they will play the game in any way they can win, because winning is the most important thing by far to them. "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated." The best thing the US can do is to provide exact trade requirements, provisions to monitor, and automatic penalties to keep the Chinese from cheating to win. Because China only cares about winning.

If you had an American company that was in hot water with the government because its plants were leaking pollutants into a river or it continually failed to follow EEOC rules how many times would you allow it to say "I'm sorry, we'll do better in the future" before imposing penalties? Well, we are finally at that point with China. For forty years we have allowed them to break all the trade rules and take advantage of our markets to the point that it would be difficult to walk into a mass merchant today and find anything "Made in U.S.A". If we have to ruffle a few feathers and perhaps do without cheap Chinese goods for a while in order to level the playing field then it will be worth it.

Chairman Mao Zedong, December 21, 1939: "Comrade Bethune's spirit, his utter devotion to others without any thought of self, was shown in his great sense of responsibility in his work and his great warm-heartedness towards all comrades and the people. Every Communist must learn from him. ... We must all learn the spirit of absolute selflessness from him. With this spirit everyone can be very useful to the people. A man's ability may be great or small, but if he has this spirit, he is already noble-minded and pure, a man of moral integrity and above vulgar interests, a man who is of value to the people." Regime issues death sentence to Canadian Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, 36, after a one-day trial in Dalian in northeastern Liaoning province, China. China not keeping its promises, you say?

A fully homogeneous society instructed to never think outside of the PRC box is never going to come up with new ideas, period. The entire construct of China forbids exceptionalism and worships group-think. Of course they steal other's trade secrets - they haven't any of their own and never will. And the poor people who live under this charade! They are the innermost Russian doll, but are convinced they know more than the outermost. Really nice people - I have known plenty of Chinese nationals, but they live in fear their government will control them through family. This is exactly why the recent hack on data records in the U.S. by the PRC was done. When you can threaten through family, you can turn anyone - anyone.

Basic Psychology: If the solution is realized by the patient, as an answer to the suffering, the implementation is far more likely to succeed, than the prescription from the treating psychologist - the psychologist probes for answers, the patient provides them.

The basic problem, as I see it, is with our own lack of a balanced trade policy. As once proposed in Congress, but blocked by special interests, the US could grant $ trade credits to US exporters that importers must buy on a regulated exchange before releasing equivalent $ to pay for imports. No trading partner is singled out for special treatment or punishment. Trade $ balance could be achieved without political shenanigans. Small companies need not be inconvenienced, because those $ trade credits could be brokered through the bank that normally handles their accounts.

Is anyone really concerned that the US won’t keep its promises? Why is it all about China? The article also makes it sound like Trump is correct and Democrats are wrong.