I lived in China for five years and learned a few things about Chinese negotiating tactics. They are very different from those used in western societies. Chinese negotiations are non-linear, often lateral or even circular in nature. Nothing is ever decided, and everything is always negotiable. Even signed contracts are nothing more than a basis for further negotiations.
Just because things seem to have fallen apart for now, this does not mean the end of negotiations as far as China is concerned. It is just a temporary hiccup while they search for maximum advantage. And don't expect the negotiations to end, even after a deal is signed.
It sounds like the Trump administration was caught off-guard because they did not bother to learn about the people on the other side of the negotiations. Typical for an administration that has been so consistently arrogant and ignorant.
“If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
37
@Kertch
Kertch says " Even signed contracts are nothing more than a basis for further negotiations"
Dan agrees. As they say, in China, negotiations start when the contract is signed!
5
@Kertch Trump said at the outset exactly what you said. That is why the US requires enforceability clauses throughout the new draft - and why a new trade deal with China may not even happen for years. Trump is the first leader to effectively negotiate with china and correctly characterize its method in decades. You obviously don’t like Trump, but your views are identical to his.
12
if the time to challenge China was 20 years ago then what's the plan now?
1
In my past negotiations with Chinese businessmen, I learned that they waited until the closing of the transaction. Then, they dropped the hammer and demanded capitulation on issues that seemingly been resolved earlier.
My reaction was always the same as Trump's.
Get up and walk out.
They'll come back sooner or later but they are going to insist on renegotiating key items.
6
The article portrays the conflict as a conflict between two countries. The conflict is deeper than that, it is a collision of two systems of governance and two systems of economic management.
3
American capitalist temperament and negotiating style tends to be relatively concrete and linear, leading to surprises when an an Asian opponent saws off the square corners of an agreement so to speak. This contretemps therefore is as much about cultural misunderstanding as actual disagreement. It is to be expected and makes the world go around.
2
It is too bad that Trump has no concept of nuance and subtlety. He also has never read any history, or he might understand the pride of the Chinese after the humiliation their nation endured as a result of colonial oppression. Perhaps someone on his staff could slap together a video of the Chinese point of view, since that appears to be the only medium Trump is capable of comprehending.
2
China is a major threat to peace and stability in the world. The evidence is overwhelming. Look no further than their state sponsored theft of intellectual property, manipulation of their currency, widespread censorship, discrimination and imprisonment of their own people, aggressive and imperialistic building of man-made islands in the south china sea and their methodical reduction in the rights and privileges of the people of Hong Kong. Communism is all about giving up individual rights in service of the "state". China is the most aggressive abuser of human rights outside of the middle east today. I for one think Trump (gasp) is right to walk away from them on this, even if he's doing it for the wrong reasons. The outcome is all that matters.
4
China seems to be in no hurry to end this tariff war. They are willing to go the distance to see who will be hurt more. Even if both sides are hurt the same they will consider that a victory. They just want to show the world they can stand up to US and win.
19
If "win" means that you can do things that "stand up" to the evil Orange Man, then owning all of those T-bills is the currency for that. Xi doesn't have to run for office or essentially run an entire political apparatus. If he screws up he disappears. That's the way it is over there. Both guys are taking a risk, both are willing to lie, both are trying to sell that what they are doing is good for the country and the people in the long run. And the Democrats have nothing as an alternative with China.
2
A lot of commenters here have a Blame America First mentality, and more specifically, a Blame Trump Every Chance You Get mentality. If there is anything we should all be able to agree on it's the need to check the growing beast that is China. Not only for our own short term benefit but also for our children. A world dominating Communist regime with a massive chip on its shoulder is not good for humanity, period. Fair trade deals with China is just one of many fronts to fight this battle. I fully support taking a hard line with the Chinese now and I hope future administrations follow suit with similar objectives and strategy even if with different tactics. I'm sure there is blame to share on both sides for the collapse of this deal but that should not be the focus. The focus should be supporting our leaders to get the best possible deal for the United States and in doing so, weaken China.
14
Trade deal or no deal, if China doesn't stop stealing technology by not protecting our patents, Trump should impose sanctions, not just tariffs.
9
@Robbie. the rest of the world should join us in sanctioning and tariffs
4
I fully support Trump's refusal to backtrack. It is understood that this is the way the Chinese negotiate. It is also true for other far east cultures.
The issue now is the potential world economic slump. A continued tariff war will hurt both China and US. Farmers, high tech, manufacturers and retailers in the US will be seriously threatened. Chinese exports will decline significantly hurting the Chinese economy that is slumping.
As a retiree, I will take a very conservative (i.e., go to a mostly cash position) in my portfolios.
It will be very interesting. Noted Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.
4
What people don't realise at this moment is the fact that France,Italy,Greece,Germany,Iceland,England are dealing with the Chinese, they have agrements, trade deals they have to respect.So one wonder who wants to deal with uncertainty.
1
Our experience is that for the Chinese a negotiated agreement is only the starting point to completely re-write the agreement.
Trump in this instance is correct in his assessments.
6
As strongly as i dislike Trump and his political philosophy, i must admit i agree with him on two issues, similar issues:
China...Trump wants a level playing field and is fighting hard to get it. It has to happen.
NATO...Trump is demanding that our NATO allies live up to their commitment to fund their defense up to 2% of their GDP. They ain't doing it. They must.
Cannot think of any other agreements with this guy Trump.
48
@Greig Olivier
Greig, I have to agree with your comment. I am not a Trump fan, but I feel he has these two issues right.
5
@Greig Olivier Yes. I also agree with him that N. Korea needs to be dealt with appropriately. But I hope he handles these two issues better than he has handled that.
1
China has played this game before. Just ask India. China is getting away with it's unfair trade practices with the whole World for a long time. It is however more vulnerable now.
Trump should keep the pressure on and increase the tariff to 100% on all Chinese imports. China is sitting on a Real Estate bubble and has an aging population, which is now used to higher standard of living. In a few years, public pressure will force this Communist Dictatorship to mend it's way and agree to a fair trade with not only America but with all nations. It will be good for everyone.
19
"Winnie the Pooh" certainly miscalculated. It's pretty difficult to make Trump look smart, but Jinping, sorry, Winnie, somehow made it happen.
14
Who said that China went back on anything? oh wait an administration that is on record as saying that if they aren't under oath, lying is perfectly acceptable. As someone who has worked on international trade agreements since the Reagan administration, what the White House has said makes no sense in terms of draft text. the issues that the white house says they reneged on were obviously still bracketed text, so proposing to eliminate bracketed text is not reneging.
why has no one from the NYT asked this question?
104
@JJ Because if there is one administration less trustworthy than Trump's, it's Xi's.
8
@JJ-Agree 100%. U.S. negotiators sound naive: "One of the things that was impressive was the extent to which every single person we met with delivered the same core message points on a few key themes. (Ifs)....A key issue was the United States’ demand that the agreement bind China to setting some of the changes in domestic law. (Ands) the message on trade was, ‘We are making our best efforts to hear you and to reach an agreement.’ ” (Buts) ...The exact reasons Mr. Xi and other leaders waited so long before presenting the Trump administration with a new negotiating position are unclear." (Finally)..."It could need a good six to 12 months before we get back to a serious deal in the works." I believe Mr. Xi holds the better hand and will prove he can afford to wait things out.
9
@JJ
Bingo: the WH position is unrealistic. If the agreement allows the US to keep tariffs, and reimpose more without constraint, there really is no point for the Chinese to agree to the deal, whatever else is or is not in the deal.
The US used many of the same tactics with Canada during NAFTA negotiations, particularly the "they backed out" when Canada had not and would never agree to something; the "5 year termination proposal" is an example. During NAFTA negotiations the NY Times faithfully parroted the US trade positions, and often read like a USTR press release; this article looks similar.
9
this is a very silly report without any substantiation of what was claimed by Trump, a known habitual lier. He is not trusted by his business partners, his associates, nor his countryman. The only exception are those two who wrote the article.
153
@ted. Yes, coming from that notorious pro-Trump, fake news site, the New York Times. Just try to get past the Trump hating for one second and consider that even a broken clock is right twice a day
29
@Todd - Regarding fake news, I seem to remember a NYT columnist going on and on about weapons of mass destruction in the lead up to Iraq.
They were not completely above board regarding Harvey Weinstein.
13
@tom harrison Fair enough, that said is your initial reaction to this article to assume the Times did their search and take it at more or lest face value or to go into full Trump derangement syndrome like ted above?
6
This is what happens when you have one cheater negotiating with another. As much as I dislike Trump, in this case it might actually work out for us.
1
I trust the Chinese about as much as I trust the con man Trump.
1
A 'must read": Tim Clissold's book 'Chinese Rules".
I think the Chinese are playing the long game.
1
Two autocratic, narcissistic, pathologically lying gangsters - who've totally marginalized their respective legislatures - working out a "deal" unilaterally. What could go wrong? Going to need more popcorn.
3
What struck me as most amusing from this article is that the Chinese actually think that Trump's knowledge of Chinese history allows him to think that the Chinese are "soft persimmon!" Trump has no idea of any history short of ... maybe, yesterday!
2
"In China’s top-down political system, where President Xi has amassed formidable power, it’s unlikely that anyone else would have had the authority — or, for that matter, the nerve — to fundamentally alter the emerging pact at this late date"
Come on NYT can you he a bit less blatantly anti-China?
Who would have the nerve to fundamentally alter a trade deal that Trump wanted on the US side? Or Obama's? Or Trudeau's? Or Merkel's?
1
@Adam.
Congress. Look at NAFTA 2.0. A brush that paints China and the US with identical strokes is a brush too wide.
Since Trump and his cohorts "know" the US Intelligence is "fake news," part of that "Deep State" of the horrible Democrats, how could they possibly know anything about what is really happening, say, in China? Or, for that matter, anywhere else?
1
Xi’s mistake was to fundamentally alter an agreement that China wanted at the last minute.
Trump’s mistake was to immediately hit the “nuclear option” as a default, ie, large tariff increases on most Chinese imports.
Xi overplayed his hand: he’s president for life in China but certainly nowhere else.
Trump just doesn’t understand how to negotiate with anyone outside the real estate world. His profound lack of understanding of other cultures is troubling.
Xi should blame the last minute changes on underlines and signal a willingness to pick up where they left off. Trump should delay any further tariffs until they have had time to discuss in Japan.
Hopefully, there are seasoned negotiators behind this deal to coordinate announcements to that effect, more or less simultaneously, so both sides can save face?
2
As awful as Trump is, he has handled the China negotiations very well-- look for a deal, be friendly, be upbeat, and be absolutely willing to walk away from a bad deal as casually as one might pass over an item past its sell-by date; completely refusing to lose public optimism or suffer any political fallout. I think its fair to say that China has never encountered any negotiator as formidable as Trump before-- prior administrations accepted failure to make a deal as their own failure, and that desperation showed in the resulting agreements. This is actually a healthy attitude towards trade negotiations, and I hope it continues-- under a president other than Trump.
10
Trump's usual ham-fisted nonsense aside, the bigger issue here is really about incompatible economic systems. Free market capitalism (or anything close to what we have in the US) is not on the same playing field as state run capitalism (really mercantilism) and as such, it was only a matter of time before we would have to face that fact, and address the inequalities of these systems.
In the short term, expect the two sides to work something out, since the immediate risk of damage to both economies is too great. Longer term however, expect US companies to find new supply chains and China to find new allies and markets.
Divorce procedures have begun.
5
The arrogance and stupidity of Trump and his right wing cronies in believing they could fundamentally overthrow the Chinese Revolution, and specifically its economically collectivized nature with state planning, through trade negotiations ran into a wall. It’s only because the Chinese leadership are Stalinists, who believe they can prove the worth of Chinese “socialism” by acceding to key institutional elements of capitalism, domestically (stock market) and internationally (World Trade Organization), that the political nature and parameters of Trump’s play weren’t exposed from the get-go.
1
Our idiot president should get some credit for confronting China on it's corrupt trade practices. He is not nearly the successful negotiator that he envisions himself to be, but his administration is right to take on the Chinese.
Perhaps America would have been in a stronger negotiating position if it has partnered with the European Union in opposition to China's trade practices and theft of intellectual property. Perhaps joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership might have strengthened our negotiating position, as well. In the end, no matter which negotiating strategy we used, imposition of tariffs may have been inevitable.
4
We were duped by the Chinese government. There is no intention to strike a deal with Trump, especially after he made a reputation for himself as someone who doesnt honor deals (e.g. Iran). The Chinese now have a specific picture of what industries matter most to our economy. They will use the trade war to slow us down, like we are trying to slow them. Then once trump is our of office, they are betting they will be in a stronger position by then to dictate the terms. A trade deal Mr. Trump, is not a simple business deal. It is a political agreement which takes decades. The Chinese will hunker down and wait. They will use the state to make sure their companies dont red line. They will use the time to aggressively pursue other clients, like Africa, Asia and south America to find new markets for their goods to compensate their US losses. And now they have a chest picture of our positions, short and long term, to continue to weaken the US over the next 5 years.
1
I don't trust the story pedalled by the US negotiators because of the tactics used during NAFTA.
During NAFTA, Canada saw the US use a number of bad faith negotiating practices including selective leaking to friendly press, miss-characterizations of Canadian positions, presenting as "agreed" positions Canada would NEVER accept, last minute bait-and-switch, texts changed dramatically overnight, insults, threats and outright lies. The US consistently overestimated it's leverage, and ended up with an agreement that was a subset of TPP with a couple of minor tweaks. I suspect the lost revenue from reduced Canadian tourism during negotiations far outweighed any economic benefit the US will ever see from NAFTA 2.0.
Of course, even this US administration is more trustworthy than China!
When negotiating, parties need to keep in mind what will cause the other to walk away. A deal where the US gets everything it wants, still keeps tariffs on, and the US can back out anytime, is just not going to happen because then "no agreement" is better for the Chinese.
4
Two men with political agendas who cannot be trusted to keep promises. Why would be expect them to be able to find a way to end the trade war? It will take a new President to make it happen.
4
So, all that's left are the tariffs. We're now worse off than before the negotiations started.
2
@JVG No, we're not. Tariffs are a tool to guide long-term policy. Corporations that are considering offshoring will now consider places other than China, given the political uncertainty and the increased cost of importing into the US. Corporations that buy Chinese imports will now be making substantial contributions to the US treasury. The overall desired effect is to limit our trade with a predatory trade partner.
3
I thought we only heard from the tweet of the president that this is the last minute of the negotiation. A similar case was the nuclear talk with North Korea, he said that he fixed it, and.....what happened?
2
As a world traveler, I have witnessed the shoddy, tawdry and corruptive influences of China’s trading system from back room illegal gaming parlors in Venice, a shoddy takeover of Italy’s leather industry, to an emerging scandal of pharmaceutical manufacturing.
When I was active in investing I read the glowing reports of bank analysts about the opportunities in China followed by uncertainties about China’s banking stability. Now, we learn continuing stories about their intellectual piracy and their demands for access to proprietary information before allowing foreign investment.
It’s all a sham and fraud. I wouldn’t ever vote for Trump but the myth of a vast Chinese market is just that, a myth.
4
No way to know what actually happened on the Chinese side behind the scene. But within China's totalitarian regime there is fierce power struggle. So it could be a calculated move by the opposite hardliners. Tragically, if history has any relevance, reformers like Liu He were typically crucified in the end.
2
I don't understand the part where Trump officials are unwilling to remove the 25 percent tariffs imposed last summer on Chinese goods "deemed critical to national security, such as nuclear reactor parts used by the United States Navy." I mean the tariffs don't change the parts, just how much the Navy pays for them. If the idea is that some parts must be made in the USA, then that should be in the contract. I'm sue the Navy is a big enough purchaser that someone will make the parts here. The tariffs just make the Navy pay more. I'm not taking China's side on trade generally, but this seems a nonsensical objection on our part.
2
One of the dirty secrets of our military is the extent to which the manufacture of software and nuclear components to critical national defense systems has been outsourced to China. Our defense industries are essentially normal capitalist enterprises which look for low cost and high profit at all times. The last few decades of low cost manufacturing services in China have prompted many defense industries to move some of its manufacturing to China. Now that political tensions between the US and China are rising the threat of actual limited warfare with China is not out of the question which brings the conflict of interest in the manufacture of war materials into sharp focus. We are now subject to sabotage by the China if they simply stop making our parts. And we do not know how much hidden spyware they have already put into the code that we buy packaged with the many parts of our communication network built in China.
This is essentially the unintended consequences of our short sighted capitalistic system which prioritizes short term profit over long term survivability. Maybe we should have let the patriots who live here keep manufacturing those parts instead of shipping those jobs to China so that another Republican could get his wings.
8
do we want to show China how to make our nuclear parts?
No one knows how to make those parts here. The people who knew were laid off around 2008 and have been out of work ever since. You might be able to go to a Starbucks and ask a barista if he still remembers anything about how he once made critical nuclear parts but I suspect you will not like the answer you get.
Or you might try hiring a newly minted engineer to do it and wait ten years until they learn how. Of course they are not going to be receptive to your concerns because they have to take the highest paying job no matter what it is just to pay back the $100k they owe in school loans. So no, we do not have a way to suddenly make critical components here in the USA. Our whole system is designed to discourage it. You could go out and change our whole political system of course... be my guest.
3
American corporate greed and American consumer support for quality, low cost manufactured goods no matter what the human costs to the American economy is what has permitted Xi and other Chinese Communist leadership to accomplish this international trade transformation.
This mutually beneficial philosophy has run its course in terms of domestic political costs in the United States. The Chinese Communist dictatorship will have to accept and accommodate this new reality.
5
@David LockmillerThere surely isn't quality when it comes to generic blood pressure pills produced in China that are constantly being recalled because they have been deemed to cause cancer as a side effect.
4
Not a chance. With much of our critical economic and defense material outsourced to other countries so that a few CEOs make bigger profits, we are a paper tiger under the thumb of anyone who chooses to cut us off. We put ourselves in this position and we are going to pay for it.
1
trump seems impossible to negotiate with on any level. he changes his mind. he didn't take china's treatment of minority groups seriously and hold china accountable for the reeducation program going on openly.
1
the president was told that bringing up human rights records would definitely derail any agreement
1
China is often accused of copying others rather than engaging in original innovation. Seems like President Xi is also playing this game: his last-minute rejection of the trade deal mimics the negotiation style of our own "art of the deal" president, who-- according to numerous validated reports-- would walk away from some negotiated outcome at the last minute as a tactic to gain advantage. Conclusion? What goes around comes around.
6
Two crazy people negotiating the fate of the world. What could go wrong?
3
The Chinese never had any intention to negotiate away the advantages that made China prosperous.
Mr. Xi was simply playing for time hoping the Muller report will doom President Trump and things go back to square one while keeping the status quo.
Don’t fool yourself, even if a negotiated agreement is reached, the Chinese will find ways around it.
299
@Memento mori
The irony is Trump's own history of bad and criminal business practices. He's sitting on a pretty high horse now.
31
@Memento mori
Trump is a failed business/con man, and a bully. The tariffs he's imposed on China will hurt his base, and are much more of a threat to him at the moment than Robert Mueller. These negotiations were begun with Trump's signture chaotic nastiness, and are likely to end the same way.
33
@JCam Your dislike of President Trump should not blind you to the fact that we are dealing with a murderous communist regime that will bring darkness and terror to the civilized world if ever became the dominant power. The US is the only and last stand for the free people, never forget that.
52
This article is very one-sided, in my view wrongly so. Everyone who has every done much in the way of negotiations knows that last minute glitches and reversals are common. The way to deal with this, if you really want a deal, is to keep talking in a constructive way, and usually to meet in a compromise. Instead, Trump goes public with accusations and threats, all calculated to end negotiations, not foster them. And his rage is very likely unwarranted. My impression is that China has always resisted the US request to control their laws by forcing them to pass laws that favor the US. And the idea that they will be forced to do away with their tariffs and literally bend over to the US before we do anything, particularly with a US that cannot be trusted, is just silly. This piece reads like propaganda for Trump, I would have expected a more measured analysis.
4
Even the title suggested that China broke promises at the last minute of the negotiation. But we only heard this is the last minute from trump tweets, and we know how believable his tweets are. Who said one side can’t negotiate over terms before signing?
2
The Chinese have been playing the "face" game for centuries. They want to deal with the west yet maintain this convenient culture trait while denying the west any culture traits of their own, such as honesty in agreements.
Let's look at it more simply. We want them to stop stealing our technology, they agreed, then they backed out when word of the terms reached lower down the system, or so they say. On the one hand hand Xi is an absolute dictator, when it is convenient, then when it is not he has to bow to the CPP.
The time to stop the charade is own and Trump and his own China advisors are right.
7
@David why can't everyone see this?
China is right not to take seriously the onerous, overly-generous patent and copyright protections that burden American enterprise, stifle competition, and keep hordes of lawyers in undeserved luxury.
1
True. In the future everybody will steal everything and no one will have privacy. We are getting there pretty fast.
Xi's actions need to be seen in context. Increasingly China is committed to multilateral approaches to world problems. Trump has advanced U.S. interests disregarding global problems like climate change thereby weakening international institutions that China sees as important to a stable world.
Trump's unilateral sanctions against Iran without evidence that Iran has not complied with JCPOA have been forced on China at high cost to China. Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty is counter to China's fundamental interests. The insulting arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wengzhou strikes at China's most successful business. There are more and more reasons for China to lessen ties with the U.S. which has ceased to be a partner in addressing global concerns and has begun to engage in petty acts against Chinese public standing.
The U.S. market has been lucrative for China, but a loss of face is too high a price to pay. Trump is unlikely to get a China deal during the balance of his term in office. This is sad.
1
@Vid Beldavs Signing accords, such as the Paris accord, is one thing. Abiding by them is another.
Note that China has not come close to meeting one single goal outlined in that accord.
Also note that if you do a quick search on this site, you will find ample articles about Chinese debt trap projects across the globe. South America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand.
Then feel free to read about the security flaws in Huawei's equipment.
Maybe finish with the global proliferation of Chinese made cameras and software used to monitor the everyday citizen or maybe the muslims in China sent to a re-education camp.
Why they get so many free passes is the only question. Because their goods are cheap? Because humans are self centered and only care about themselves?
As a country there is more than enough to think twice about entering into any agreement with them.
8
@Herry. Well stated. Your comment should be screamed from the roof tops not buried in a response!
@Herry. why do you insist on embarrassing the liberals with facts.
1
Geopolitically China is our adversary. In every way they are the ones dictating the terms of how business is done in their country and how one outsider would do business with their country. Today China has the world's largest navy and is strategically placing naval bases near American naval bases abroad. Negotiations for economic purposes is counter to our national security and interests. The days of the US building up our direct adversaries is going cost us our freedom! Chinese leaders have no intention of every conceding and soon their military will be impossible to match via man power, technology and resources. we have to stop doing business with them until politically they change their rhetoric.
5
This comes from someone who loathes this administration with every fiber of his being: they are handling China very effectively.
China plays a long game, and is using the weaknesses of Democracies (accountability, frequent changes in control, quickly shifting priorities) against them: their leaders think they can wait us out and promise, promise, promise, while all the while doing whatever they want. Trump's administration is showing them, through dogged escalation and constant pressures, that this is unacceptable, and each stutter step will only be met with further pressure; bravo--my only regret is that this is happening 20 years later than it should have.
13
@John Do not forget that China tried to "purchase" Congress in the late 90's.
They did not target the presidency, why? Short term.
Congress is essentially a lifetime position and in turn the long game will pay off.
It was a bi-lateral commission (when those existed) that really wagged a finger at China and their attempts to influence US politics.
Most people are unaware of that, or simple forget with time, focusing on recent political history.
3
China owns the Congress. Russia owns the presidency. And I don’t even own my car. I don’t think democracy is strong enough to level this playing field.
2
Maybe China just wants to drive a nail in the coffin of Trump's reelection campaign and hopefully start fresh with someone else.
2
It is amazing that many of the Times readers hate Trump so much they truly can't see right from wrong on this issue. China is a brutal dictatorship which imprisons ethnic minorities in labor camps. Are the images of tanks running over people peacefully protesting so distant in your memories? And on trade they have had a policy based on threat and unfair trade practices for decades. Our presidents from both parties have tolerated this hoping economic prosperity would bring political change. It would a idea worth a chance. But they were wrong and it failed. Now it is time for a change in our policies. You may not like Trump but he is our president and he is pursuing policies to try and level the playing field. It may be painful for our side but the alternative will be far worse. And anyone who hates him so much that they are reflexively siding with Xi and the rest of his brutal gang in Beijing really needs to take a look in the mirror.
16
@Todd, I basically agree with you but too bad that Trump can't unite our Asian and European allies to stand beside us in this trade war. China might be forced to fold their hand if Trump were the type of leader to unite the free world. A major failure on Trump's part, but yes, China, and particularly XI, is the villain in this story.
5
@Bill Yes, a united front with our natural allies against China would make us much stronger. I agree completely.
4
This costly kerfuffle could soooo easily have been avoided had Xi simply borrowed a chapter from Trump's playbook: promise anything, sign anything, commit to anything and then simply renege!
Ask any subcontractor who has EVER worked on a Trump property. As any supplier who has ever delivered goods or supplies to a Trump operation. Ask any business associate who has ever had any agreement of any form with Trump.
Whatever he agrees to has an "out-of-sight" warranty: as soon as he's out of sight the warranty is void.
8
@John Poggendorf - So you support China's position in this dispute?
2
“Chris Coons, a Democrat senator from Delaware who visited Beijing at that time, said Chinese officials had all said they wanted an agreement on the trade dispute.” When did “Democrat” become an adjective?
4
So China should bind its hands by changing the law while the US should keep complete freedom to at any time renege on fulfilling its part of the agreement under the pretext of national security?
What is the point in signing such an agreement?
3
The bottom line is, which country can outlast a total embargo on goods from each others country. While it might raise economic havoc in the short term, the Chinese are probably better able to survive such a measure as they have alternative markets for their goods and could totally ignore the numerous embargos currently in force by the USA. The longer such a situation should last the more the rest of the globe would come to realize there are alternatives to dealing with the USA. We are just accelerating the decline of another empire on the world stage, Ours!
4
@John Warnock In 2018 Chinese exports to the US were 18% of total exports out of China. US exports to China were 7% of total exports of which around 17% were agricultural products. The largest proportion of those products were soybeans. Soybeans imported from the US make up 50%+ of the Chinese soybean market. There are few alternatives - Brazil is one, which may explain Belt and Road in South America - to the agricultural capacity of the US. And China has 4x the population of the US. Surely you have it backwards. The US is definitely better able to survive a total embargo.
2
@DB The Chinese economy can far better survive without imports from the USA than we can without imports from China. That was my point. China can steer its exports to other markets to include those under embargo by the USA. The USA has the mistaken impression that the global economy cannot survive without the USA. It most certainly can and will.
1
@DB good pickup on the South America connection
President Trump is totally correct. I recognize President Trumps shortfalls- but negotiating on issues such as this- he is very much on target. It’s about time we had a leader that has a business sense when dealing with China. I look at the Democratic presidential hopefuls and it’s frightening to think how many would handle. I doubt many have ever had even a job which demands a business performance/ profit performance to even cover a payroll.
6
@BEB How does that business background help when China doesn't help us with N Korea anymore or sides with other nations in the world court. Trump has to quit playing checkers and realize global diplomacy is very much 3 dimensional chess and the greatest victories aren't trumpeted on twitter but happen behind doors and honored by history down the road. However, any idea that Trump would do something for the good of the nation and not immediately issue gradiose statements abut how great he is is delusional.
2
It is time to shift American culture away from consumerism and a sovereign clean manufacturing industrial base. The fact is China has been counterfeiting products and taking western technology since there textile industry grew when uniforms were not required. China’s unfair trade policies have cause the biggest economic problem in world history. We need to stay the course on the trade war. Reign in consumerism, retool industry and build an economic coalition against China with allies.
The next move Tump will make is to renege on debt to China just as he has treated debt in his private business affairs. Economists, how might that effect the trade war?
3
"That has left hopes for a historic breakthrough in tatters."
all the tattered hopes
all the shattered fantasies
brew one cup of tea
2
This is a China. They are a dictatorship. They lie, they steal, they cheat. Wealthy Chinese know this and are shipping their kids out. Just because Trump is who he is, do not be deceived by who the Chinese are. They need us far more than we need them. The U.S. industries who have been seduced by the size of their market are starting to wake up. Do business with thieves at your own risk.
15
It is not China, it is business. Business almost always cheat, steal and lie, no matter it is Chinese business or American ones. Look at Trump's business history.
5
@yulia You cannot separate government and business when you are dealing with China.
They are one and the same.
4
wow, Trump would never renege on a deal or multi-national agreement, would he?
6
I have been to China many times and for the ignorant few who believe this is a lawless nation then they are wrong. However, they don't necessarily abide by business rules that would leave them behind more developed countries but it is based on self preservation and somewhat understandable from that view. The secret to any negotiation is to not publicly back an opponent or yourself into a position where further compromise is impossible or shameful. Once statements like (we will easily beat" an opponent or " this is a red line" start getting made then the two sides back themselves into corners. Always try to leave an avenue for a gracious reversal for your adversary if negotiation is your real tactic. If it is political statement or a wish to bludgeon your opponent into submission then realize that your only avenue is an outright victory and deep resentment left within the defeated that will re-emerge down the road.
11
The trade agreement would never have flown. It was always dead on arrival in Beijing.
At stake was no less than the Chinese Communist Party's paramount position. Xi closely studied the collapse of the USSR under Gorbachev. He concluded that Russian's greatest mistake was the introduction of 'glasnost,' relinquishing the Party's control.
Xi believes that only the CCP holds China together. And that requires the CCP's ability to impose its will *at its discretion*. He can never allow the introduction of the rule of law, as incorporated into the proposed trade agreement.
Get ready for a cage fight, because the US and an expansionist, authoritarian Chinese system are therefore fundamentally at odds with each other.
1
It only proves how bullying China will only produce a dent in Chinese economy or politics. Trump who used such methods in his business dealings is doubtful to succeed with Xi , who is well aware of Trump's aspiration for another political term and the many political battles he is facing. Therefore, it is doubtful he will cave in and much rather seek other sources to accommodate his needs. The ones who will be left to suffer most are the American consumers who will be forced to pay higher prices for their products, unlike the Chinese consumers who are far more accustomed to squeeze their belts .
1
Let me state unequivocally that I think Trump is the worst thing that has happened to our country in ways too numerous to mention. However, he was absolutely correct in his stance to refuse to allow the Chinese to change the terms of the agreement at the 11th hour. The issue is that he does not understand anything other than bullying and certainly has no understanding of anything outside real estate “culture”. By so publicly calling out the Chinese leadership to appeal to his own base, he made it impossible for the Chinese to back down. Amazing that nobody in his Administration understands the Chinese concept of “face” 失去了面
7
Too bad for Mr. Xi - do most American's care if we are paying slightly more on goods? No, we do not because this fight with China is long long overdue. As a country, we've only been on this earth for 240+ years but regime after regime has learned the hard way that you can push only so far: England, Barbary Pirates, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Germany and Italy to name a few .. looks like we are adding China and Mr. Xi to the list
8
@RJPost I don't know how to translate "slightly more" on goods into dollar terms; but I did walk down the appliance aisle of a big box store yesterday and purused the prices. Any more tariffs on those goods will most certainly cause sticker shock to the average consumer.
1
I don't think this is a matter of China's "national honor" or Xi underestimating Trump. The two countries were close to agreement prior to May 1 and its almost certain that President Xi was read into the key aspects of the deal from China's perspective. More likely that, as the details of the deal emerged post May 1, other constituencies that keep Xi in power or are highly influential raised strong objections that could not be ignored or overruled by Xi. Remember that much of the Chinese economy is controlled directly or indirectly by the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party.
But I am still confident there can be an agreement, China cannot afford a slowdown, which could be destabilizing, and there are already signs that is happening. China need the US as a trade partner and is still the largest holder of Treasury bills - so a healthy US economy is important to China too. A long term reciprocal trade agreement is in everyone's interest for peace and stability in the Pacific.
Let's put Trump's unappealing nature aside, at least for a minute! Trump is correct regarding tariffs and China. For my part I feel that he was not wrong over NAFTA, NATO contributions, or his policies towards israel, Iran or North Korea. However, his endless 'tweeting' and his course style do little to advance these policies.
5
I'm not sure that Trump really want a trade deal.
US companies were happy to include China in the WTO to have cheap labor. But now that China products start competing with US (Huawei), they have no interest in this relation anymore.
4
Mr. Xi probably listened to the democrats, who continuously underestimate Trump.
8
There's a simple remedy to this situation. Our American Capitalists, those Captains of Industry, need to stop moving production off-shore to cheaper labor havens and remain in the United States.
But they seduced themselves, and are addicted to cheap labor. They/We have built a marvelous edifice since the end of WWII. A vast, global, military-styled supply chain all designed to do one thing; feed you the average American, a citizen of our American Empire, fine goods at cheap prices.
America sits at the heart of a global economic web. You reap the benefits of all that is produced. Yes there are issues to resolve; as they should be. But do you really want to rip that web apart? Do you realize the one who will be most negatively impacted from doing so will be you, unless you bring all production home and suffer the intrinsic costs of doing so?
Ask yourself honestly; how likely is that to occur in today's world, eh? Certainly it will not happen so long as our Captains of Industry keep chasing the cheap labor drug. It is a totally integrated world we live within. We, and everyone, need to adjust to the new paradigm. One planet, one economic/world view.
So it goes...
John~
American Net'Zen
2
@John I don't disagree with your premise but it is too late to "bring back production" to the US. First of all, 330M people are not going to sign up to pay more for anything as long as they know there is a less expensive alternative. In addition, the fiduciary responsibility of the CEOs and boards of our companies is to maximize the wealth of their share holders. Hedge funds and banks will not buy into it. Retirement accounts will take enormous hits in value.
We are at the mercy of that web you refer to and that web is probably more is fragile than ever, especially since the industrial revolution caused trade to explode, and the information revolution caused it to explode again into the current global economy.
One planet, one world and economic view. And the US wants to dominate it. China is the fly in the ointment.
2
Again, this is not a trade war, it's an ego clash. Both these 'I alone can fix it' guys are trying to turf it out with their base, and everyone else is getting squeezed in the process. It's personal now, if not long before. These two very wealthy very damaged egos are out to prove to the world who is more worthy of running a Superpower. Xi recently warned of a "stupid dangerous clash of civilizations', so why doesn't he back down? Exactly.
2
"...when a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." Simon & Garfunkle "The Boxer". We are at the stage now where nothing coming out of the W.H. can be taken at face value.
4
Krugman was wrong
NY Times, May 22, 2018
Why a Trade War With China Isn’t ‘Easy to Win’ (Slightly Wonkish)
"Trump’s tough talk on China trade will turn out to be as empty as his tough talk on, say drug prices. Faced with the prospect of actually going toe to toe with powerful interests ... Trump keeps backing down, ignominiously."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/opinion/why-a-trade-war-with-china-isnt-easy-to-win-slightly-wonkish.html
7
@John Well Trump is a coward, Xi survived Mao, well will see who blinks first. I would not bet on anything Trump says. It is not over until it's over if this turns into a full-on trade war China can buy all wheat oil and soybeans it wants from South America.
Although maybe you're standing on the beautiful concrete wall that Mexico paid for and seeing things I can't see.
3
Its too late to stop the Chinese now -- they have bought, copied or stolen pretty much everything they need. The time to have acted was 20 years ago.
7
It’s noteworthy that in the photo of the Singapore meeting, John Bolton is sitting next to Trump, and not Mnuchin or Lightszinger, the trade negotiators. Bolton is a warmonger, a belligerent bully who has no respect for other countries whatsoever. He is also a schemer with close ties to the Mercers and undoubtedly involved in financial machinations behind the scenes. If you short the market, and stick it to the Chinese, you make millions. Bolton was the first user of Cambridge Analytica which Mercer paid for. He is a schemer extraordinaire who Mercer recommended to Trump. In these negotiations with China, there is much more happening than we know, and Mercer and Bolton are pulling the strings.
6
I still believe the US gave up the big stock when we dropped the TPP. And for that I blame Trump, who’s pole star is to erase Obama, and short sighted Democrats.
4
@Tom Hayden As a corn and soybean farmer I agree completely, Included in TPP were substantial concessions on agricultural products by Asian nations, Japan & Korea in particular. The reduced tariffs weren't immediate but were to be phased in over time, giving the Japanese producers time to adjust to the increased American imports. Abe in particular sacrificed substantial political capital to push though these tariff reductions. And nobody became our hated enemy over it.
Trump reversed and wasted all that progress. Now there's so much ill will all over the world we can never expect to recover the lost ground.
5
Many of China’s wealthy have secured foreign passports, sent family abroad, and expatriated large amounts of their assets. Even they know their government can’t be trusted.
Any agreement we reach with China is ultimately worthless. There is no rule of law. There is no independent judiciary. As history has shown, whatever you sign will be undone by numerous underhanded ways to avoid compliance.
Political and economic engagement with a corrupt Communist Party state doesn’t work. We need to admit that Nixon and subsequent presidents were wrong. The extent to which our economy depends on trade with China is just dumb on our part. Unwinding our interdependence with China is hard but necessary. Export and import markets just need to shift to a more diverse group of nations.
7
Recall this all started with Trump's declaration of a trade war. “Easy to win,” he said. Ridiculous, was the reaction of most of the world, including from the would be losers.
Bully your way to a win might have worked 50 years ago, or maybe 150 years ago. Today the tactic is laughable and the results predictable. Everybody loses, and trade issues that should be addressed, aren't.
2
Two gargantuan egos clash.
Whatever is in front of them is destroyed and smoking rubble trails behind them in a wake of smoke and confusion.
Sounds like a script for a cheap monster movie.
Wake up! Nothing good will come from this.
It has boiled down to a matter of “face” and while trump doesn’t understand or care about the concept (following the road down most of his policies), xi can’t afford to come out on the losing end as it will show weakness and he risks the loss of everything.
1
It’s called leadership. It’s not Trump’s fault that no other leadership showed leadership took China to task for its bad faith and blatant mercantilism in their trade practices. Nor is China to blame for taking what they could for their own people. Prior American “professional” leadership, hilariously misled by academics in foreign policy and economics, are to blame. The experiment failed. Trump’s leadership on this is merely an indictment of everyone else. How did we get to the point where we believed diplomats and economists know everything, in the face of all historical data, hollowing out of the nation and in ignorance of basic bargaining tactics even a common grifter like Trump can master?
3
All highly speculative. From all appearances it was the US not China talking up the prospects of a deal emerging. See in particular the comments of Mnuchin. The Chinese were essentially non committal.
3
I had predicted in the end China would pull the "century of humiliation card." Revisit the Opium Wars when Europe was buying goods, such as silk and chinaware, from China but ships were returning to China empty being China was not interested in buying goods from Europe. China is now a military force to be recognized with. They have a state-run media to get their point across. Trump has rhetoric and a loud mouth; and tweets on Twitter.
1
@Wayne
China is a paper tiger resting on a mountain of junk debt coming due.
America is the centerpiece of the global economy.
Not even remotely comparable positions.
2
@asdfj even if what you say is remotely true we are not in the 19th century anymore where small countries like Portugal, United Kingdom, can colonize parts of China. That's my point. It's not going to happen paper tiger or not. No one is going to go to war with China to force them to buy their products as the British did in the Opium Wars. And worse creating a market to sell opium to Chinese people that created a drug addiction way into the 20th century.
@Wayne
China's relative impotence compared to America is the point, but you characterized them as "a force to be [reckoned] with."
American/Chinese international trade is a larger portion of China's GDP than America's. America is firmly entrenched as the #1 trade partner of many of China's regional allies.
The basic economic/geopolitical arithmetic is all in America's favor.
1
No matter what you think of the president, this is clearly a problem that the Chinese created, and it's time to put the blame where it lies, and it's not with us, too many Chinese apologists and anti-American commentators on the string without enough intelligence to see through their emotions
7
Trade wars—like domestic commercial disputes and marital disagreements—have two sides. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Buried in the article is the line that China’s demand for existing tariffs be removed “was difficult to accept.” So, here is a possible scenario: once the Chinese demand was rebuffed, they pulled back their agreement in other areas. A perfectly reasonable response to an unreasonable position (they have the Canada-Mexico example as warning).
1
We might as well slap on the tariffs and eat the costs until we can divert manufacturing away from China.
Any promises they would have made with Trump would be broken anyway at a later time. Just like all the promises China made upon entering the WTO were broken.
As the Vietnamese say, if China is being nice to you, it's a trap.
9
@Not 99pct
You apparently don't understand that much of that manufacturing is American owned and is the price of US access to the Chinese market. GM sells more cars in China than in the US.
2
@John I assure you I know more about the economy and finance than you. The US exports less than 200bn to China, while America imports 600bn. Tariffs hurt everyone, but hurt the Chinese more net net. At the end, Clinton should never have let China into the WTO with all their broken promises. I guess you can say both the Chinese and North Koreans made a fool of Clinton.
5
@John
Our trade with China makes up a far greater proportion of their GDP than it does ours.
We have the clear negotiating advantage, it's basic arithmetic.
4
China has been cheating us for 30 years plus. There's no doubt in my mind that this was all part of a plan to scuttle the agreement and push back at the last moment. The coastal globalists who've been running our country for the past 30 years would have gladly caved in- Hillary, Kerry, Obama, the Bush clan, et Al. Not Trump. Time to take a stand.
10
Why so quick to assume this was a miscalculation?
For both Xi and Trump, this latest turn is great fuel for propaganda and personal branding (and what else matters to dictators?). Until economic reality comes crashing down, they both get to brag to their supporters about how tough they are and how they won't back down to a bully.
The last minute overreach is a classic tactic. It's North Korea's bread and butter, for example. It allows the overreacher to play the victim and capitalize on sympathy for the underdog.
5
It is uncharacteristic of the Chinese to make such a mistake. Didn’t they see how Trump unexpectedly pulled out of the NK talks and left Kim blubbering in dismay? Kim could be excused for his naïveté but Xi—?! I think there will be repercussions from within.
3
There's been a deluge of anti-China articles in this newspaper and others...essentially amplifying the Administration's stance. European and Asian newspapers are much more nuanced and balanced in their reporting.
No one party wins in a trade war...least of all the side that consistently lies, issues policy statements on Twitter, makes threats then retracts them...etc.
Having gotten where he is...Xi Jinping is a smart, wily, hardened, seasoned negotiator and politician. On our side, we have ideologues who are lightweights in comparison.
4
We have bunch of inexperienced dopes dealing with China - they are falling into the trap that enforcement of IP protection or cyber security in China is something to fight for.
It will never happen and if we think we are getting something for those protections we are wasting our time.
We may get laws, but enforcement will never happen if China’s growth is at stake.
This is just like the NAFTA agreement - symbolic fight, nothing materially changed at all. It
It’s worse here because we are paying a new consumption tax in the form of tariffs
1
I'm not a fan of Trump but China has taken advantage of the US for too long. China is an admirable nation but so different than ours. Doing business with them is a necessary evil. A billion plus untapped consumers is too tempting to pass up for a capitalist country such as ours. The price paid is forfeiting intellectual and or copyrighted property. Is it worth it? We are a nation of laws and freedoms that are followed and respected. China has laws but they are often only followed when convenient to be followed. Case in point are music and movies. Is it legal in China to make unauthorized copies of new music and movies from the US? I doubt it. Can you get a unauthorized brand new 4K copy of the latest blockbuster movie from Hollywood on the streets of Beijing? Avengers anyone? Yup. Not legal but also not frowned upon in a China.
I do feel bad for US Citizens hurting from our rift with China. I do believe we will figure out something through ingenuity and patience.
6
Don't agree with Trump on much but taking a harder line with the Chinese on IP protections is one of them. I'd like to believe there's another solution other than tariffs since that only hurts Americans in the short term. American companies are incapable of stifling their greed for national security interests or even their own long term interests. Having worked in China for 20 years, I've witnessed this way too many times. It's high time the US put up some roadblocks.
6
That was a classical beginners mistake when negotiating with Chinese business people or politicians.
Any agreement is only final if it has been inked, signed and sealed.
I has been known that even during proof reading of the negotiated contract just before signing it, changes have been negotiated upon request of the Chinese side.
Unless you are an absolute beginner in this area, you do not talk in public about the contents of the agreement or even about what you are negotiating right now as Chinese culture dictates to you could lose face if your come out with a set item too early and it will be changed at the very last moment.
You only tell the facts after they have been secured by signature and stamp, Chinese call that Chopping,
Trump, despite his self assertion, arguably the worst negotiator of all times, has made the mistake that only complete beginners make as described above.
No wonder Xi jumped at the gun.
At home, that is in China, Trump has just lost face and no amount of anger and increased tariffs will get him back his face.
Chinese will simply see him as someone who is too weak to make a point stick.
So they will play him at every corner and will not take him seriously.
On the other hand, when did the US ever tried to understand foreign cultures?
4
I read and watch China's various forms of public media, and talk with a number of people from Mainland. If you were paying attention to what China was saying, rather than believing the misleading bluster of the Trump Administration, including master liars Mnuchin and Trump, you would have seen that China was seeking "Middle Ground" positions with the US, and that it was not willing to change its laws and governmental processes.
Trump's Trade War has interfered with China's goal to build and increase trade on a steady and peaceful basis every where. Trump, who acts only for Trump, after extracting a number of patents and trademarks in Ivanka's name just prior to the first imposition of the tariffs, has destroyed this relationship, and driven all of our partners into China's arms. Their exports increased by double digits once Trump began the Trade War. The US' exports have fallen, and the dollar less competitive.
3
What happens if China stops accepting dollars and switches to the euro in all transactions?
1
Several posters write that for China, a promise or even a contract is not considered binding - that they can revise the terms when they choose.
There's some truth there, but the Chinese are amateurs at this compared to Donald Trump. He's the champ, whether in real estate or in campaign promises or in presidential proclamations or in breaking laws (including both the US Constitution, and treaties which the Constitution specifies become part of the "highest law of the land") that he has sworn to enforce. Remember his promises, many times repeated included as President, of an immediately constructed beautiful 30 foot tall wall from the Pacific to the Gulf, all paid for by Mexico? He didn't even bother to bring up any of that in Congress during his first two years when he had Republican majorities. Remember his frequent promises, including as President, of immediately inaugurating a new beautiful less complicated health care plan covering everybody with lower premiums and deductibles and covering more conditions? He never bothered to even write a bill for that one.
Do not seek to remove the mote from the Chinese eye while there are a big bunch of beams in the American eye.
3
I remain unconvinced that 'China making last minute changes' is the reason for the continuance of the current trade war. Mr. Trump is wholly unbelievable on virtually any subject he brings up. In my opinion, Trump is playing his usual ego games here, monkeying around with the process for maximum political and reality show leverage with his base.
2
I have negotiated mega deals with Chinese companies. You need to be extremely patient, play the long-game, and don’t give in on key points.
Almost always, they will try to change something or get a little win at the very last moment. I always say, “that’s not what we agreed to,” and walk away. Usually, they will come back. It’s a tactic.
Not a trump fan, but he did the right thing.
13
The impasse in bilateral trade negotiations between the United States and China has two striking features, which show how politicians are generally inept on the subject of international trade in comparison to the cadres of economic specialists in the governments of both sides.
First, punitive tariffs amount to a “trade war” which both sides lose, and the tendency of Donald Trump and Xi Jinping to welcome such tariffs is disappointing.
Second, as much as Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi are perceived as the strong, unquestioned leaders of two of the three economic giants of the 21st century (western Europe is the third), both men have to answer to domestic groups with enormous influence.
The tariffs are taxes on the American and Chinese people, and the unrest this provokes cannot be ignored. The even greater danger is that the trade war will morph into a geopolitical clash which may result in military clashes.
There are aggressive people in the governments of both countries who want this confrontation of weaponry to happen in the foolish belief that the other side will back down.
We have our John Bolton and Robert Lighthizer, and China has its own radical ideologues who are out of touch with reality.
3
The stock market has smartly brushed off most of this drama and for good reason. We're talking about billions worth of goods being taxed in a multi trillion dollar economy. Sorry but there's way more hype and drama than substance here.
4
It's possible that Mr. Buckley and Mr. Bradsher may have their dates wrong. Back in early April, I remember reading in the South China Morning Post about the draft agreement being returned with "large sections simply crossed out." At the time, there was a question in the Chinese press as to how close any deal really was. Despite this, trump and the trump administration kept up this "a deal is close" line for weeks. Weeks ago, the Chinese were saying that the changes the US demanded would need the approval of the National Committee. In the deal, Xi simply offered to make the changes in the regulations that were within his power to promise, everyone knew that the more substantial changes might not be possible.
Rather than Xi suddenly changing his position, I think it's just as likely that trump continued in his delusion.
I suspect that rather than Xi " miscalculating", trump thought that his threat to raise tariffs might push the Chinese to his version. That was the miscalculation. I think trump was surprised at the Chinese response.
10
Odd coverage. "Xi miscalculated." "The Chinese have painted themselves into a corner." This is about as nationalist a piece (from the American side) as one could write about the current impasse.
What is perhaps most striking is that author's assumption that the US insistence on leaving a significant part of Mr. Trump's unilaterally imposed new tariffs in place permanently is reasonable. US imposes tariffs. The parties negotiate. China gives up a bunch of stuff. The settlement leaves part of the US tariffs in place permanently. Exactly what is the US giving up?
Were I the Chinese (or any US counterparty) I would fear that any such settlement would give Mr. Trump an incentive to restart the trade war with new tariffs and new accusations whenever it seemed expedient. Can they really afford to accede to such terms?
8
The Chinese recognize that it was internal economic and political pressures that ultimately brought down the USSR and they have therefore taken a different approach to world dominance. Post Korea and Vietnam, they have prioritized developing an economic juggernaut, especially in manufacturing, and have placed military and political actions in a secondary role until recently. The central theme is the need to improve the lot of their 1.3 billion people as a necessary foundation for Chinese hegemony.
Any trade deal with the US must be seen ,by both sides, as a step in that process, not and end point. The goals of the two sides are simply too disparate.
Everyone needs to settle in for a decades long contentious and challenging, economic and human rights cold war.
In reading these comments, I can see that I am not the only one over my head on this complex issue. It involves a very significant cultural divide, unchecked egos and probably an issue that involves the well being of much of the world, at a degree of complexity understood by few.
Perhaps the congress would have a solution, put it in the same drawer with most of our other complex un addressed issues and ignore it.
2
Donald Trump believes he can bully his opponents into submission. He can do this when he is stiffing some tradesmen, and beating them down by overwhelming them with legal costs trying to collect what they are due. It appears the Chinese have him figured out. There is no doubt the Chinese have gained a significant advantage in the global economy by their tactics, and undoing them is going to be very difficult. It appears that Trump is not intellectually or temperamentally suited for the task of bringing this negotiation to a successful close. As the authors say,
"The official Chinese news media has described the United States this week as an “all-out bully,” a “paper tiger” and a schemer who, as in an ancient Chinese tale, entraps a guest by inviting him to a banquet." They may not mention Trump by name, but everyone knows what they mean.
9
Fully support our President and his team on our strategy. Would recommend going ahead with the additional tariff on the balance $300B.
We have a phenomenal free market system. American enterprises have an awesome ingenuity to improve and innovate. Hence I see not much impact to American consumers.
I commend our President for taking a hard stance to put an end to this nonsensical behavior which our previous Presidents did not address.
33
If American enterprises are so “awesome”, where are all the manufacturing jobs promised by DJT?
3
Seems like you have two sides that are temperamentally unfit for diplomacy.
10
Whether or not you like Trump he is right on this issue. He is the only President to stand up to China's theft of our intellectual property and their endless spying on us. We need to accept the short term pain in order to make important long term gains.
In this case the most important thing Americans can do is strongly support the Presidents trade position. Strong support will give China pause to consider the devastating effects a trade war will have on the Chinese economy. Pelosi and Schumer should make strong statements of support but of course politics is more important than principle to these people.
Editorials of support by the NY Times and Washington Post would also go a long way in convincing the Chines that they cannot win a trade war.
31
Maybe, but, where he is absolutely wrong is doing this alone. If he would put his ego aside for a minute, he could have brought Europe, Canada, Australia along and it would be dramatically more effective. As it is, China figures it has alternatives and might take a hit in the short term but, in the long run come out ahead.
25
@Tim Rutledge Australia is too dependent on exporting to China to be effective in being an ally in this matter. Europe maybe. China has fewer options than the US, and more to lose. The problem is that face saving is so important over there.
6
@Tim Rutledge
Good points made here. And I am not a fan of Trump but he is doing the right thing with China.
As for Europe, their disdain for Trump, rightfully so, has effected this decision. Trump is willing to use the US to take these Trade war shots against Chine, it may be in Europes best interest to put their ego's aside and realize that Trump may be saving their industries as well
2
A trade agreement between nations is meaningless without domestic laws requiring private businesses to comply with the Agreement's provisions, and the creation of an effective enforcement mechanism.
To object to such laws indicates the Chinese were willing to agree to anything in principle, but then not enforce the Agreement's provisions in practice, Thankfully, they did not get away with their bad faith negotiation tactics.
20
@RM
Correction: Trump did not get away with his bad faith negotiation tactics. Might work on some powerless cabinet designers and undocumented workers. Doesn't work on China. Surprise!
3
Going beyond strictly the matters of economy and trade, the US-China trade war is essentially one aspect of a broader power play to acquire global dominance and shape the world order. Even if it produces some kind of an agreement at some stage of the bilateral engagement it will be a tactical halt of the battle likely to be revived sooner than expected with larger consequences for rest of the world. .
8
" Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled."
This is indeed Trump's line, but where is your evidence that China had agreed to those terms? They deny they had agreed to change Chinese laws.
11
@Michael Munk
There is no evidence. All of this was a lie by the Trump negotiators. Not that anyone should be surprised by this.
1
Foolish mistake. They played their cards too early. Their goal has always been -- at least since HP, Apple, and fellows began using their slave-labor industry to build products for them -- usurping American economic and military dominance.
Given Americans are not up to the consumer pain, this will only slow them a couple of years, or till Trump leaves office in 2024.
7
The word "may" appears several times in this column. With no evidence cited to prove the dubious allegation that Xi was solely to blame, the column is pretty much unsubstantiated nonsense. I can assume that there "may" be a polemicist in Beijing writing a similar article but simply reversing the roles of Trump and Xi. Your readers deserve something better.
19
I agree. What I got from the piece is nobody knows what went wrong. Could have been this, could have been that. Some experts think this, some think that. It seems implausible to me, a China hand from the dark days, that China’s decision makers were so disorganized they bungled a major trade issue because they lost focus. If China, a centralized regime, indeed miscalculated the strength of its hand on trade and tariffs, issues central to its interests, Xi is in deep trouble and the world has turned upside down, neither of which seems likely.
2
It's about time somebody put the blame where it belongs--on the Chinese.
19
I keep hearing on tv that everything Walmart and Amazon sell plus all appliances are made on China. Dont we make ANYTHING here anymore? Well yeah guns and some cars. One thing that really concerns me is drugs. I dont care who makes my tv or shirt really, but I dont trust China or India to make safe effective drugs.
15
@caharper
Q: Why have we done this to ourselves?
A: Greed.
3
China is standing up not only for itself, but for the rest of the world as well. If China submits to an erratic bully who threatens and then demands unilateral concessions, it will send the message to Trump that other nations will appease him. Then South Korea, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Europe will be next.
China's policy is, rightly, that they do not appease monsters.
9
@Tom
Animus towards Trump has turned Americans into cheerleaders for our political and economic rivals. Do you have any idea how this diminishes the image of Trump's critics? I can assure you. It's not a good look.
6
@Tom Not sure how you defend the right to not respect international copyright and patent laws, and steal technology, but seems you want to do that.
10
@Tom You are kidding right? Have you lived in China?
9
There is only one type of evil capitalism. State-run capitalism.
when the people have no jobs in their starving again I'm pretty sure they're going to want to change the law. On the bright side the nine-year-old child laborers will get a 15-hour day instead of a 18 hour day. So there is that
7
I beg to differ. You’ve very likely not lived outside of a system of ‚state run capitalism.‘ East Germany, Czech Republic, Romania, Russia - all previously broken economic system who moved towards capitalism- Not to mention the stifling totalitarian control on free speech. My friend‘s grandfather complained about the lack of bread in line at the bakery one day and ended up in the Russian Gulag for 10 years. You’re free to go back to that!
I hope tariffs stand.
I’m willing to take short term pain in the stock market for an opportunity to slow down the manufacture and purchase of consumer Bric Brac that ultimately clogs landfills.
Because it’s so easy to trash the junk - when replacement junk from China is so cheaply purchases from overstuffed Walmart shelves
25
The framing of this article reflects the distorted view of reality that Trump and his cronies held for the entire process. The Chinese NEVER agreed to anything. They NEVER said that they would accept the terms proposed without revising them. This was a figment of a dotard's imagination.
Imagine Trump's surprise when the Chinese actually insist on having a say in the final agreement. They did not "go back" on anything. They merely sat there and listened politely while Lighthizer, Navarro, and these other clowns ranted at them and drew up some imaginary terms.
Then China went and splashed a much-needed bucket of cold water in their face to wake them up to reality. Honestly, I don't think it's that easy to wash away the delusions of Trump's administration, but it was well-deserved.
20
@Tom
While it is true that an agreement is not a full Agreement until fully finalized and signed, it is bad faith negotiation to go back at the 11th hour and insist on major revisions on matters previously finalized.
8
@RM Having negotiated trade agreements in the past including with your government, the reality is that a deal is not a deal until it is signed and implemented. In addition it is known that in certain cultures the negotiation starts with the deal i.e. everything is still up for negotiation after the first "agreement". Throw in the usual American pound the table approach it makes getting a deal complicated.
3
This is a convenient explanation by someone who wants to be an apologist for China and has anger towards the US but having done business in China I can tell you that reneging on an agreement, outright ignoring it or changing it at the last minute is not unusual behavior. No amount of cultural expectations can explain this, this is global business and there are certain rules. The Japanese tried this “cultural explanation” back in the 80s and 90s when they were reneging on contracts and look where it got them.
1
trump and Xi are like two bully peas in a bully pod. At the final hour, both men want to put their "stamp" on the deal that their downline team has been hard at work negotiating.
trump is famous for his last minute 180-degree turn abouts, without regard for how it turns out while embarrassing his cabinet over and over again.
Xi seems to share the same penchant for being a bully, even if he is publicly polite about it.
In the banquet photograph as Xi looks at trump, the look on Xi's face says "What a buffoon. He doesn't even know when he's embarrassing himself!"
3
There are a number of stories in the past few weeks which have no corroboration.
China did not miscalculate, they simply pushed back at trump who will now raise tariffs which will be noticed by the American people when the new TV or cell phone will suddenly jump 25% or more in price.
In the last forty years Iran has never sought territorial gain, but they have supported their allies like Syria, and Iran did much more to defeat Isis than the arms length US military. The story that Iran planned to attack US troops is a fairy tale first told in Tel Aviv and taken up without corroborating evidence by US media. Netanyahu wants to point fingers and have the US military do his bidding, with American money and US lives, but at no cost to Israel, and the American media takes the story as though written in the Gospels.
Israel is the most significant war monger in the middle east and America responds like a good dog would, immediately and without question.
The war in Iraq cost trillions of dollars to defeat a country of 30 million people with open terrain. Iran has 80 million well educated people with an army experienced in fighting a war.
Does America really wish to spend perhaps 10 trillion dollars to defeat a country that Israel wants to attack?
18
The Chinese negotiation style is bait and switch. The Chinese and Donald Trump are made for each other. There is no trust, only intransigence and deceit from the Chinese. This is their mantra.
10
The framing of this article reflects the distorted view of reality that Trump and his cronies held for the entire process. The Chinese NEVER agreed to anything. They NEVER said that they would accept the terms proposed without revising them. This was a figment of a dotard's imagination. What were the concessions to China? What will the US give for all of these demands?
Imagine Trump's surprise when the Chinese actually insist on having a say in the final agreement. They did not "go back" on anything. They merely sat there and listened politely while Lighthizer, Navarro, and these other clowns ranted at them and drew up some imaginary terms.
Then China went and splashed a much-needed bucket of cold water in their face to wake them up to reality. Honestly, I don't think it's that easy to wash away the delusions of Trump's administration, but it was classic statesmanship and well-deserved.
10
China miscalculated horribly—it thought it worth the risk to advantageously change the terms of the agreement assuming Trump wouldn’t risk being blamed for a no-deal. Now the Chinese gov’t. is in full spin control.
6
After all, it seems, it's all about politics and trade topics are just the cover-up. It's about who shall dominate the world trade and determine its rules in the years to come.
China is well on its way to replace the US, which, in return, tries to preserve the old status quo where world trade was dominated by the USA.
I believe that train has left the station already and will never come back. China will dominate the arena and the USA (and others like the EU) will have to get used to it.
Tariffs are probably the least intelligent approach the USA could have chosen, as it will make imported goods more expensive for the domestic market, crippling growth potential and fueling the inflation potential.
The only obvious remedy would be to replace imported goods with domestically produced goods, but that would require to build the production sites, train the workers and compete price wise with those competitors abroad (China, Bangladesh, Vietnam to name a few). Will American workers be able to compete? I seriously doubt that. And how long will it take to build those domestic production sites and to gain the experience it takes to get the desired quality and quantity?
US companies such as Apple decided for good reasons to use China as their workbench and not the USA. Thinking that using stupid tariffs will fundamentally change things just reflects the very limited economic understanding and intellectual acumen of this caricature of an apprentice POTUS.
4
@Fundok If Americans stop purchasing Chinese tchotchkes and gewgaws; then the Chinese Roads and Bridges policy, the Steal Your Island policy, the We’ll Bankrupt Your Country policy, the It’s Our Sea policy, and so on, will end because the Chinese government won’t be able to afford it. The US is their biggest market.
My mother, who grew up in Asia before the Second World War, said that even then it was common knowledge that you do business with the Chinese at your peril..
1
An old tried and true tactic used by unscrupulous business types that failed Xi. Get the other side excited and taste the sweetness of success and then at the last minute throw in a bunch of demands with the hope that the other side will be tempted to pushed along by the hunger for success.
Most politicians would have done so because they have already staged the announcement of a successful deal and don't want to disappoint the cameras have a big letdown that hurts their polls.
Fortunately, Trump is savvy to these tactics and played it perfectly; reject the demands, come back twice as hard and be ready to walk out. This is what it takes to negotiate with the Chinese and it is good that Trump is the spearhead.
5
I guess China will wait two, maybe twenty years to reach an agreement with the US on trade.
4
"A key issue was the United States’ demand that the agreement bind China to setting some of the changes in domestic law". Big problem here. The US demand can only be of any merit if China follows the rule of law, i.e. the government is bound by the rulings of the courts. China does not follow the rule of law, its courts are a farce and its judges are Communist Party puppets. So even if the changes were set into domestic law, no-one would be able to enforce them.
2
I always thought a deal wasn't complete until signed by both parties. Otherwise it's just a work in progress. Whining about it to the whole world isn't going to help much.
2
It baffles me to see us administrations bickering about china exporting products that are at least 2 times cheaper than they can make at home. In addition those products aren't 100% made in china at best only 50% of the material and parts went into making them were actually made in china.
Guess who is the biggest economic threat to usa and most developed and developing countries in the world. Yes, the mighty tiny south korea who has been the leader in R & D for a decade now. Nothing against her personally, actually I like their products more than any other because of higher quality and standard. Probably koreans are the most dedicated hard working determined people i have ever met and they are not afraid to go places few others would ever dare. I will name a few companies that you may have heard of: samsung, lg electronics, hk hynix, daewoo ship building, hyundai, kia, lg chemical, posco and many more that are global leaders. Even chinese financial might cannot defeat them.
Remember the 'mini-economic war' between china and korea. china only realized korea was a threat only when they were attacked on two fronts: economically by korea and geo-politically by korean ally usa (when us installed thaad). Then the economic onslaught began on korea by china... and the rest is history.
3
It is an old tried and true negotiation tactic in Asia. Get the other side to almost taste the sweetness of victory and at the last minute throw in demands and hope the hunger for a deal will cause acceptance of the demands. Trump reacted perfectly, refuse the demands and strike back harder. Now he has the Chinese’s respect and attention. Look for a better deal soon.
6
How about the Chinese assessment was that Trump was not desperate enough yet to essentially cave in with cosmetic face saving devices. As the negotiations get closer to 2020 and the impact of the trade war on the economy, especially the Trump country economy grows. The self professed great deal maker will find himself far behind the 8 ball, The Chinese revisions were designed to create temporary impasse, this was strategy not sudden poor judgement. It is incomprehensible to me that we are seeing 'rationales' for Chinese behavior that suggest some level of incompetence. They will have had Trump pegged long ago and had a longer term strategy planned. It is only Trump who would never have predicted more than one move ahead
1
@Brian Farr Trump won’t feel pressured to make deal even as 2020 approaches. His supporters want Trump to be strong in negotiations, even if that means a deal will fail. Look at him shutting down the government not too long ago. Republicans had to overrule him because he has to look strong Regardless of the damage it can cause. That same principle will apply to China. Just watch.
This article reads like an "explanation" of why the US -China Trade negotiation suddenly went off the rail because if is all the Chinese fault because they changed their mind. In fact, this trade negotiation is failing because because the Trump chose early on to abandon TPP and other established trade agreements and instead bilateral negotiation with different trading partners ( Canada, Mexico, Chinese, etc) that use threats ( tariffs, blocking trades) to bully the trading partners in the hope of scoring additional concessions.
Instead, the US trade negotiator had been operating with the presumption that they are in stronger position to negotiate on their own without the support of other trade partners.
But every time Trump and his trade negotiators act like the Ugly American of old, it helps remind the rest of the World that they may be next under the Trump's "Divide and conquer " approach, and they may well be better off by ignoring or passively resisting US call to isolate China now than to risk suffering the same fate later on.
3
Having worked on many deal between Chinese and US companies myself, I think the last minute changes from China are hardly surprising. In a way, Trump's moves probably work better than previous administrations. We finally have a lifelong con man in the WH to fight a foreign cheat. On the other hand, our con man plays checker when China always try to play chess. Over the long run, this kind of staring contest rarely work.
3
Why in the world would Xi want to give Trump a trade win, no matter how meaningless he could lie about how great it was to win reelection?
1
It seems that the Trump Administration still has a long way to go before it can begin to understand the Asian cultural mind-set. With little in the way of Asian expertise and years of preparation for such substantial major foreign policy agreements, this current Administration will need to somehow be re-elected for another term in office if it truly wants to find success in Asia and China. With the Presidential elections coming up next year, time is running out to return to some form of status quo in order to save the American economy and President Trump's re-election chances.
Chinese pride is nothing compared to the pressure Xi will feel from the party oligarchs who will see their fortunes in jeopardy. This was badly misplayed, and I suspect some on the Central Committee may move to reign Xi in and bring the trade dispute with the US to an end.
5
There was no miscalculation or overreaching as far as I can see. Chinese were encouraged by the result of Q1 and they simply played their hand. They played Trump's game of power, in other words.
The characterization of Xie's turn-about on the THAAD deployment in Korea as overreaching is just not accurate, BTW. What would the US do if Russians placed their MD in Mexico? Chinese had no choice but to take a stand. And it wasn't KORUS alliance that kept the missile deployed. Moon, despite his best effort to dismantle it, including ordering EIR to delay the additional deployment, simply couldn't overcome the American pressure and geopolitical reality. At that point, there was no point for Xie to insist on dismantling the missile at the expense of alienating South Koreans.
1
"It could need a good six to 12 months before we get back to a serious deal in the works."
I think that says it all of what may be behind Xi's thinking. It's a matter of who wants it more, and when.
1
China’s proper demand for respect should be balanced by their recognition that China has a longstanding reputation for slipping out of commitments, in particular their WTO commitments (and unfair business practices that have persisted in the face of complaints that are ignored).
So, requiring that China certify its commitments in law—in a world that depends on securing itself through enforceable law—is reasonable.
China’s framing of the issue as one of “face” is the kind of attitude that portends violation of commitments, because trust has not been respected by China in the past, evidently.
However, the difficulties of making new law by China’s system is a valid concern, for THEM, not as a matter for respect by a world where parliaments are standardly in session most of the time.
It’s not a valid complaint by China to demand respect for pyramidal government and command approach to economic policy, when the rest of the world develops in accord with flexible, lateral structures.
Of course, China has the discretion to shape its government as it pleases. But other nations, with flexible structures, are not obligated to respect that. For China to become more legislatively flexible is good for economic development.
It’s not about a vanity fair (except for regime legitimacy based on image, rather than good policy).
China pretends to be a global player, but doesn’t want to institute congruent flexibility in legislation like the rest of the leading players do.
14
@gary e. davis
China IS a global player. What you need to understand is that global players are not bound to follow the diktats or imitate the policies of the United States. Given the rapid decay of American influence, the evidence shows that Chinese have chosen the right path.
5
A cogent analysis, nicely phrased. Arguments that a nation sufficiently powerful, and the corollary that China is such a nation, need not follow international standards and protocols is aggressively absurd. This entire situation arises from a heritage of governmental corruption, victimhood-clinging, xenophobia, and an unshakable belief in cultural superiority (ask the Vietnamese, Tibetans, Uighurs, Sri Lankaps, Kenyans, Ecuadorians, etc, etc...).
5
While one has to read between the lines, it is quite obvious that even the NY Times now realizes that Trump is no pushover, and that his business experience is holding America in good stead. China needs America a lot more than America needs China. Much of what China exports to the US is unnecessary merchandise, or merchandise easily sourced elsewhere. The Indian, Cambodian and Vietnamese economies are fast filling any voids, and at lower cost. Despite what the MSM would have us believe, America is in capable hands vis a vis its foreign and trade policies, and vastly more secure than it was during the previous administration on all counts.
16
@JJ Gross
Are we tryIng to find a fair and reasonable solution or do we simply want the other guy to cave in,
And how are we "more secure"?
3
@JJ Gross So if those jobs now go to Vietnam or wherever how will that change anything here? Our trade balance with those countries will go way in the red and that will help...how?
I also believe that a lot of what we import from China is junk, junk which I avoid buying. But lots of other Americans do buy that stuff. I gotta believe that includes a lot of Trump supporters. Are we saving them from themselves?
China, of course, wants to, and is moving up and away from the super cheap stuff. The normal course. I can remember when made in Japan meant cheap transistor radios. That was a long time ago. Now China is really big in solar panels and also making a lot of cars. Haven't heard much about Chinese automobiles. What quality? Do they export many?
They do have a huge internal market not yet all that developed but how long until there's more middle class Chinese than Americans?
American companies have been lusting after the Chinese market for a very looong time. That's why they've been willing to accommodate Chinese demands for technology transfer. Demands they wouldn't have accepted from anybody else.
It's funny to hear how outraged we are at their "bad" behavior. Reminds me that the English started out as pirates and when they became rich and powerful they became huge champions of rule by law. I do favor rule by law but the notion that we've never cheated is laughable. We did keep our cheating within certain bounds so other countries were willing to go along.
3
It's hard to believe this mess is the result of bad translation. The issue now is will Xi pay for a political price. When Xi is asked to take responsibility for this fiasco by the Chinese eventually, we need to prepare to see a level of disturbance inside and outside China. Bad news in the short term, but not necessarily so in the long term.
8
When the draft agreement was written in English, which side was writing it is obvious. It's the Trump team that wrote it, after translated into Chinese, the wording insulted Chinese high-level officials. So who is reneged? For example, was the difference between laws and government codes translated correctly in Chinese at first ? Plus, after China agreed to all the major conditions America team demanded, why did Trump still want to slab huge tariffs? Is that reasonable? Isn't it all about removing tariffs that China came to the negotiation table ?
10
China never honored their promises. The only way to make them yield to the international laws is by force. Look at the latest development in Hong Kong, South China Sea, Xinjiang, and the Belt and Road, you see that they only care about how to take advantage of the others at the most, without any interest to play by the rules fairly.
18
@Wayne
True. Our mistake is trying to apply our understanding of "fair" to a very different culture. There is no "fair" in China, only power and advantage.
4
@Wayne Look at what the U.S. did to Puerto Rico and Cuba. The U.S. only cares about how to take advantage of others the most. Look at what Russia is doing with its borders. What large global power isn't exploiting smaller domains?
2
@Wayne "China never honored their promises." Better look in the mirror, Wayne. Which country pulled out of TPP, Paris Climate Accord, Iran Nuclear Agreement and NAFTA? It seems quite obvious that America never honored any promises or SIGNED deals, does not play fairly, act like bullies and throw temper tantrums when facing capable competitors.
4
Xi’s last minute negotiation tactic has opened the door to the best U.S. solution – no deal whatsoever.
The goal should be to keep the tariffs in place in order to drive manufacturing from China to other low-wage, low-regulations countries. A limited amount of higher value production might even return to the United States.
Xi’s mistake wasn’t merely a small negotiating miscalculation. His mistake was to overplay his hand over the past 5-10 years, prematurely positioning China as a geopolitical and military rival/adversary to the U.S.
The DC Establishment is now realizing that it is not in the best interests of the U.S. to incur large trade deficits that fund such a rival/adversary or to be economically dependent on such a country.
It took Trump to shake them out of their Bush/Clinton-induced slumber. And not a moment too soon.
56
@John
A trade deficit with China is still a trade deficit even if the imports are re-sourced from a different country. If the imports that comprise the trade deficit are to now come from another country, Trump has failed in his objective.
I don't think that Xi miscalculated by trying to improve his country's economic and defence position. Isn't that what all countries endeavour to do?
9
@Barry Long
Though opening China to U.S. markets and thus bring some balancing of trade, which seems to be a main tenant of the agreement, I believe the U.S. goal is equally to use tariffs to induce American companies to start manufacturing goods here instead of importing them. Unfortunately the use of tariffs as a trade tactic tends to, if out of hand, stifle trade globally and then you see a downturn in all the economies. However as some have pointed out, some tariffs are of strategic value to the U.S. and are probably a good thing.
3
@Barry Long
Not Trump but Xi failed. Yes it may have been a miscalculation thinking that Trump would cave due to the upcoming 2020 elections. Xi tried to drive a harder bargain and the US walked away without compromising. As has been said and written ad nauseam, No one wins in such a war. But China will feel the pain a lot more than the US.
8
Not to worry, "trade wars are easy to win"!
12
Are there any Chinese sources for this article? And why should we believe a single word from Team Trump? Sorry, Trump has cried wolf too many times.
30
@ Robert K
Chinese sources confirm that Xi’s changes to the agreement were generous, wise and a win-win for all (CCP affiliated) parties.
3
Time withdraw the MFN status, WTO membership and UN veto power for China. An economic blockade might be needed to force South China Sea withdrawal and military bases in places like Sri Lanka, Africa, Pakistan etc.
8
@Shaker Cherukuri
A veto is a veto, the US does not control the world and has no ability to remove the veto of either China or Russia, any more than China or Russia can remove the US veto.
And China has more people and more naval hardware than the US, it is unlikely the US military can do anything against China when it is still fighting in Afghanistan, and threatening Iran.
If the bet is the US against the world, I will bet on the rest of the world.
12
@Warren Courtney
I get your point, but not sure China has anywhere near our Naval "Hardware". Navy's take a long time to build
1
@Warren Courtney
FDR made the same bet--guess who won?
1
These are typical Chinese negotiation tactics, where nothing’s decided until everything is decided, Not like the Western way of linear negotiations.
9
@Volker Lauterbach
even when everything is signed in a contract trump has frequently refused to pay for work done.
trump is a repeat offender when it comes to living up to signed agreements. See Paris accord and Iran nuclear deal. It is the US which has recently violated signed agreements.
The American word is now valueless. the signature of an American president has all the value of a puff of the wind, here now but forgotten in an instant.
3
@Volker Lauterbach. Wait, negotiation is negotiation. Before anyone signs anything, it is still not an agreement. Seems like Trump camp is just one sided wishful thinking, even with his constant tweet to try to fool the American public!
2
@Warren Courtney. In a move that was a bit too cute, the prior administration never submitted the Paris “accord” to the Senate for ratification. It sought to circumvent the Constitutional method for entering into a country-to-country agreement. Bad on it. And bad on the other countries seeking a binding agreement with the U. S. The other signatories failed to do something quite basic: Always make sure the person who signs an agreement has authority to bind the other party. A U.S. president lacks authority to bind the U. S. That requires a supermajority of the Senate.
A key issue was the United States’ demand that the agreement bind China to setting some of the changes in domestic law, wrote the author
Oh, la, la... The U.S. empire thinks it may imposed some domestic changes in China. A top-down collective amnesia case. Long term generational junk food diet has slowly but surely imposed some brain cell limitations in Uncle Sam territory.
27
Sounds like Xi “pulled a Trump” and Donny didn’t like it! Trump has long been known for moving the goalposts at the last minute and getting right in the other guy’s face. He did it in his real estate deals, and again while dealing with Congress. Like every other bully, he can dish it out but he can’t take it.
22
Donald Trump and company are using the American military and economic might to bully other countries - from Mexico to Canada to Europe to China to Iran to Cuba and probably other countries.
It took forever for the 2018 elections following 2016. Before we know it 2020 will be here - can't wait!
12
I imagine that Mr. Xi and every other leader in the world looked at the way Trump handled the U.S. government shutdown and logically concluded that he is an incompetent blowhard. Negotiations have a context. Xi may well have miscalculated on this, but perhaps his reasoning had a solid historical basis.
12
If you consider what caused the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 China, you’ll find an explanation for China’s refusal to change their policies to suit Trump’s demands.
Western nations used military force to impose lopsided trade deals on China leading up to the Boxer Rebellion. Tens of thousands of Chinese from the northern provinces descended on Peking (now Beijing) to oust the “barbarians” which is what the Chinese called the Christian Missionaries who imposed their religion on the Chinese. And even though the Boxers didn’t win due to the superior weapons possessed by the European imperialists, the rancid smell of western despotism still permeates Chinese nationalism.
Of course, Trump couldn’t know this history because he refuses to listen to research or anyone who disagrees with his “gut feel”. And Laurel & Hardy (aka: Bolton & Pompeo) can only think in one dimension and that's force so we're stuck with a tariff war that's decimating America's farmers.
21
@history buff
Not only that, but Trump has a history of not honouring any international agreement, be it the Paris Accord, the Iran nuclear arms deal and NAFTA. Even if a deal is reached, who is to say Trump won't try to revise the deal at a later stage ? This would make Xi look very foolish. In any case, even if a deal is reached and no additional tariffs are imposed, the Trump administration has other means to damage China. From targeting individual companies such as Huawei, to targeting individual people such as Meng Wanzhou. If a deal is signed, Trump will get what he wants but pressure on China will not necessarily be relieved. From what we know about the deal, China has to promise to accept a series of punitive measures if they are found to violate the agreement, but the US has no obligation to honour the terms, and not even have to retract the tariffs, which was what brought China to negotiate in the first place. This would seem like total capitulation to any outside observer, and likely to be politically poisonous for Xi. Never mind the optics it gives to other countries that China can easily be made to kowtow to foreign powers.
3
China is practised at outalsting its adversaries, sometimes for centuries. Xi will wait out Trump's defeat and endure the tariffs and all they entail. What's two years?
7
The Chinese were simply negotiating. And negotiation means you don't accept everything that's demanded and you seek advantage.
Too many comments here are "trust me, I know their ways, when dealing with the Chinese...", implying some sinister cultural inclination. If we're going to cast aspersions at everything Chinese we're really seeking containment, not compromise.
18
China seems to have a shared strategy with Nth. Korea. Nod your head right up to the last minute and then say no. Perhaps it's aimed at making Trump look like a poor negotiator and thus a dud in the eyes of Americans.
Also, it's clear that the terms of the agreement that Trump wants would be unacceptable to any country, least of all China.
Or perhaps China wants to stall an agreement until a new administration with realistic trade policies is elected.
With China's exports to the US such a small percentage of their GDP, perhaps they think that changing their successful economic strategies is not worth the risk.
4
Classic negotiating wisdom: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
3
I have represented an U.S. company and done negotiations with Chinese government before, and was able to read both Chinese and English version of the agreement during negotiation and the final version.
I was surprised by the difference in meaning and intention in final version in both languages although I decided not to challenge the differences. The Chinese version was written to appease their boss so the agreement can be approved, and the English version was to make sure Americans will sigh off.
The differences were to be left for future interpretation. And the result was that the project eventually collapsed and each side brought out the original version of the agreement and blamed each other.
It appears that this is happening now. I am not surprised at all, except that US government still has a lot of "China Experts" at the negotiating table who can not fully grasp the differences in two versions of the trade agreement.
Sad, but maybe it is just the case with Donald Trump's administration, which is not famous for having competent staff.
26
At full employment, the fruits of comparative advantage may outweigh concerns about domestic manufacturing. Likely Trump will decline to increase tariffs, and the current ones remain easy to circumvent. On the plus side, foreign manufacturers do the dirty dangerous work and have driven down costs for American consumers while those formerly employed in factories have mostly found other work. The forward view carefully measures whether or not domestic worries about outsourcing are fully mitigated; this is the sovereign policy space leftover, and includes, of course, making transfer programs sustainable. The next "crisis" (mitigation) requires a woken unanimity not yet seen in current U.S. leadership. Still, the positives of the new order far outweigh the negatives, and the future can be very bright indeed.
Let's do a thought experiment: extra tariff to the hilt goes into effect on both side, all trade talk halted indefinitely.
Starting with price increases at the stores, cancelled orders, business failures, layoffs, mortgage defaults, bailouts, ... all these rolled from 2019 into 2020. Something's gotta give. Right?
7
"........prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled."
Isn't that a Trumpian tactic? The way I remember things, it's pretty much what happened at the end of 2018. Xi simply turned the tables on Trump.
11
@Vanessa Hall
Xi was bargaining in bad faith.
10
Is this just what Trump wants us to believe? Or were there missteps on Trump's side too?
17
@Brian
My thoughts exactly. But I suppose it would be unpatriotic to even think that our side may have miscalculated.
4
@Brian Couldn't be - after all Trump was 100% focused - not golfing and not tweeting or doing anything else not-related to the Chinese trade deal during this critical event - never!
5
A deal of the kind Trump's advisors wanted was never realistic.
Their demands:
- China to dismantle its industrial policy to promote and develop key high-tech industries like clean energy, AI, automobile and airplane manufacturing, high-speed rail, semiconductor research and fabrication, 3D printing for manufacturing, etc
- China to end all retaliatory tariffs while the United States keeps theirs until they decide to drop them
- Instead of relying on arbitration or courts at the WTO, the US would decide whether China was fulfilling the terms of the deal, and could levy punishment when it wanted.
- China would allow 100% foreign ownership in businesses, including protected key industries. The US could continue to block Chinese ownership of companies due to national security.
- China to buy much, much more US goods to match the amount the US was importing. China would be blocked from buying products they actually want from key industries like tech, manufacturing, and defense, for national security reasons.
The list of US demands look like terms of surrender, not a trade agreement. What leader, communist or not, would agree to such terms? The trade war will end in one of two ways: Both sides continue to hurt each other with tariffs in the ongoing war, or Trump blinks first and dresses up some minor concessions and a resumption of the previous trade relationship as a trade victory.
83
@Jeff
I agree with your assessment.
Xi clearly had reasons to push back late in the negotiations.. and given who Trump is and how he behaves... not to mention the wild gerbil show that his negotiators perform on a weekly basis as well... Xi would be nuts not to push back.
13
@Jeff
Anyone looking at the list of US demands could see why a sovereign country would not agree. (Ask yourself why US coverage does not set these terms out more clearly.)There was no reneging China simply did not accept these terms and could not. Your list is accurate and the fact US coverage does not communicate exactly what the US is demanding but rather China's rejection of these terms is typical.
14
@Jeff
A better summary of the position than the article.
The article reads more like a "he says, she says" review of a reality show than an attempt to explain a complex negotiation.
8
How do you judge that Mr. Xi misjudged Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a deal? It could really be that US negotiator put too many unfair terms into the deal agreement and want to force China to sign it?
22
How will all this be remembered 1000 years hence?
2
@northlander It won't be. The Antarctic ice will have melted, the world's coastal cities will have drowned, nuclear war will have reduced human population by 90% and the other 10% will be engaged in endless wars nuclear and non nuclear.
1
Good for Trump. I’m sick of foolish Presidents that have a community organizer or whatever background fold to China.
Short term pain for long term gain.
Their stocks sank by twice as much as ours when Trump announced the new tariffs. Our economy is still bigger than theirs although they are catching up. If we don’t stand up for ourselves now, when?
39
@Jay Lincoln Much better to have a president well versed in bankruptcy, as that is exactly the road he is leading the USA down. Lots of experience in that regard.
35
@Jay Lincoln I guess you prefer 7 times bankrupted background as master negotiator.
24
The US position was reasonable on its face, but also ignorant of the inner workings of the Chinese government.
The US wanted approval by a government organ that barely exists and rarely meets. The US was very specifically demanding the wrong thing. It was ignorant.
Surprise, Trump's team was ignorant of China's government structure.
8
This is not an uncommon occurence in the business world. Having spent a considerable time in China, it is generally understood that your Chinese counterpart will see agreements as more malleable at a much later stage in the negotiations as we would in the United States. one may think an agreement is a signature away only to find that it's not acceptable on the other end. In fact, you can find this as precautionary advice in many intercultural Sino-Western business negotiation books. It may come down to Americans being more upfront and blunt in their discussions coupled with a higher level of empowerment from management. The Chinese are much more deliberative and consensus oriented which can add to last minute changes and slow progress (although ultimately any consensus can be squashed by the highest ranking individual).
159
@Drew
We all know Individual-1 never read his own book(s) so there’s little chance that he read any fancy “Sino-American business negotiations” books.
26
@Drew ~
"This is not an uncommon occurence in the business world."
Kind of like Trump telling his construction contractors that they can take 50% of the agreement or go to court.
24
@Drew
I remember negotiating an agreement with a Japanese company in the '70's. Once we had crossed all the Ts and dotted the i's, we thought all we needed was a signature and fly home. Instead, the company called in their entire Board of Directors and read the agreement to them word by word. It was finally signed the next day. Cultural differences are significant.
8
This analysis is incomplete in that it fails to tell us just what China stands to gain from this deal with the USA in exchange for such profound and far-reaching changes (as China sees them) to how China does business, both internally and externally.
All we've been hearing are aggressive US demands, backed by world-trade disrupting tariffs, and now sanctions on Chinese companies.
We never hear what China will receive in return -- other than the lifting of Trump's tariffs. But that was a "perhaps" that late in the negotiations turned into a "not going to happen; we're going to keep all our tariffs in place until we're satisfied that China isn't going to renege."
Can you imagine any US president even negotiating at all faced with such arrogance?
Now the ball is back in Trump's court. The author makes much of the domestic pressures on Xi, but he may feel he has the advantage on that front; increasingly frantic US farmers and companies, and higher prices to consumers due to tariffs may be more of a problem for Trump.
128
@Nick Wright What they continue to receive is access to our markets. The sell us more than 400 billion in goods than we sell them a year. They have been stealing an estimated 500 billion dollars in intellectual property from US companies. This isn't a balanced relationship where the US is making outrageous demands. It is an untenable one which a US president said has to change one way or another. This is arguable long overdo.
29
@Todd: If only it were that simple, but it's not. American consumers and businesses want Chinese goods because they're usually less expensive and good quality. Many of them, including materials and parts used by American manufacturers, aren't made by American companies, so Americans keep buying them from China even when their own government makes them more expensive with an added tax called a "tariff".
Cheaper imported Chinese materials and parts allow American manufacturers to compete globally and domestically, but when those imports become more expensive. American manufacturers lose sales and market share, and have to shed employees.
That's largely the basis of the trade "imbalance"; it's got little to do with Chinese government policies: Americans buy more Chinese stuff than Chinese buy American stuff.
As part of the negotiations, the Chinese promised to stop Chinese companies demanding technology as the price of doing business. The problem is the US is trying to dictate to them how to do that, which is offensive and unskillful. The deal talks blew up because the Trump administration was far too heavy-handed and bullying. A deal could have been had by a smarter and more diplomatic approach.
45
@Nick Wright I have to add something on your assessment. Technology transfer actually is part of the agreement when American or European country like Germany want to enter the huge Chinese market. So the agreement is the Chinese paid a large sum of cash upfront for any imported machinery and they will teach the Chinese the know how technology, plus the fact that they will gain access to the Chinese market. So this is the agreement. It actually benefits both parties concerned.
16
We can't know the precise internal workings of the Chinese negotiating team. (as to who authorized what in the revised draft) But, the behavior is typical of the Chinese government's negotiating style. Agree to one thing in principal, then 'paper' something very different. A crude, but often effective tactic.
It's very good that Trump called Xi out on this. And it is essential that the agreement be codified in Chinese law -- because it is precisely that law which will be cited when disputes are adjudicated. (Notably, foreign companies are often able to contract so that Hong Kong is the jurisdiction for interpretation of disputes. Hong Kong courts don't automatically support the Chinese position (as most mainland courts do). So, if the law is clear and codified then foreign companies have a chance to prevail). Without the trade terms being part of Chinese law, the terms are worth little.
217
@Ami. What Chinese law are you talking about?? It is only this Trade Agreement between US and China. You seemed to imply that the Chinese government can change its law with a snap of the finger! At least here in the United States, we have to go through layers of legislation within the states before its official.
11
@Ami
And what is the American government's negotiating style?
An "America first" attitude which doesn't work towards mutual gain. Failure to comply if agreed positions are not ratified by Congress. Unilateral imposition of sanctions. Refusal to work through multilateral bodes such as the WTO. Signed international agreements which can be declared null and void by one man. Bullying of allies. Threats of bombing and invasions for not agreeing completely to US terms.
11
@GH Xi has ultimate power there, I think he can. There's no democracy there.
1
If this article is substantially correct then it is hard to see how Trump could have responded any way other then he did without totally being played. Xi needs to take a step back and honestly return to where they were before the revisions if he doesn't want a years long trade war. It was a deal he and his people were apparently fine with 10 days ago. The only question is given the internal politics in China, now that Xi has cranked up the "nationalism card' and the " we will never be dictated to by the west card" for domestic consumption can he actual do it. If not he has put his country in a bind. Given that most experts think while there will be no winner here, that China is significantly more vulnerable than the US, here and now.
146
China may pay a larger economic price, but Xi Jinping doesn’t have to answer to the people every four years...all he has to do is wait out America’s patience. The same strategy worked for the Vietcong in Vietnam - they didn’t have to win outright, they just had to wait for America to get frustrated with the stagnation. Besides, whatever economic price China pays due to the trade war, it’ll have to be a whole lot higher than it is now if it ever hopes to out shadow the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth of IP that they have stolen and will steal in the future. It’s like we are negotiating for our stolen $100 bike back by imposing a fine of $5.
Trump is despicable but he’s right that China needs to be reigned in. As we become a more globalized society and economy, respect for basic laws and IP will become even more important. It is already a massive issue. Unfortunately, Trump is going about negotiations in a predictably disastrous manner. I see no reason that China can’t hold out for one of two favorable (for them) outcomes:
1. Trump caves and we end up with weak, unenforceable deal.
2. Trump loses because he alienated the Midwest. The new president will quickly take a watered down deal for a quick “victory” and to avoid making their predecessor’s same mistake.
Oddly, it’s somewhat reminiscent to the wall shutdown with Pelosi - Trump forced a standoff only to realize his opponent could hold their breath for a lot longer.
21
@Caleb Rowan A lot of those Democrats are more anti-global than Trump. Do you really think Xi will get a better deal with Bernie? You make good points but I think the Chinese economy is more at risk in the short term than you think.
16
@Todd you’re right Bernie might be an exception - if anyone of the current democratic candidates is willing to tolerate public chagrin to achieve their ideals, Bernie seems like the type. However he does have other major goals regarding health care and tax code, so I’m not sure if it’ll truly be advisable for him to waste political capital or the robustness of our economy (which is already going to get tested in a Bernie presidency - not necessarily a condemnation of his goals; it’s just that they have a historically large upfront price tag). It’s possible he’ll continue what Trump is doing because he’s an idealist, but it’s a hard sell to an incoming president to continue or escalate an economic war. Keep in mind, this is hypothetically taking place in January 2021 - so a big part of this will depend on how ours and China’s economy looks. To your point of China being at short term risk -
1. I think there’s a degree of uncertainty in that area as we don’t exactly know their breaking point - will they give in to avoid a massive recession? Keep in mind, this is a country where the government has historically treated its people terribly and gotten away with it. I have some reservations about how well economic sanctions influence the policy of totalitarian regimes - hurts the poor but doesn’t necessarily affect leadership decisions
2. It’s possible tariff rates could be less economically threatening than IP law compliance is, and China has no economic incentive to give ground.
5
Xi has very limited room for compromise. Xi has dissolved party norms established under Deng that guarantee the safety of those officials that lose the domestic political struggle.
Xi has concentrated a lot of power and yet his position is less secure than that of his predecessors. Unlike Trump, if Xi loses power, he may lose life or liberty as well. Xi cannot accept any loss of face and therefore has a lot less room to manoeuver.
Xi's likely willing to take hits to China's economy as long as it poses less risk than losing face in the negotiations.
111
@EvdM
Wishful thinking on your part.
Actually, Xi has wide latitude to do just about anything he wants.... largely because he has successfully dismantled the long standing entrenched power structures in Chinese politics. Write or wrong.. he has defeated his political competitors and has a lock on the party in China.. just like Trump currently has a lock on the Republican party.
2
@Chuck
Don't mistake my argument for wishful thinking; I make no claims about the likelihood of Xi losing power. I acknowledge that Xi has concentrated much power in his hands; Xiis now much less likely to be removed and in all likelihood he'll be in power for a long time.
However, in doing so he changed the stakes. Upon losing power, where previous elites would face retirement, Xi will likely face imprisonment or death. Consequently, Xi is ultimately less secure. He will have to evaluate every policy decision based on how it affects his own political and therefore physical survival.
4
Beijing reneging on points previously agreed is a blessing in disguise if one looks at the reality of the regime and the history of promises they make to the West; in short, it's highly unlikely they would have kept their promises anyway.
.
Beijing made and broke formal bi-lateral trade agreements with the US in 1992, 1996, and 1999, their WTO accession agreement in 2001, and several more times since with the US, notably Xi's promise to Obama to stop state-sponsored cyber-theft of US tech and commercial secrets. This cyber-theft has in fact accelerated since that 2015 promise, especially since Trump began to act on the whole trade problem.
.
Had they "agreed" to behave now and signed a deal with the US, they would have effectively bought more time -- even if just a year or so -- to prepare China to weather the rough economic road ahead they've brought on themselves.
.
One might not like Trump or agree with much of what he's doing, but this economic battle with Beijing is the most critical issue of our times. It's not about trade, it's about freedom and human rights and the type of governments we want leading the world. It's good that Trump stepped up to deal with it and highlighted Beijing's bad trade behavior to the rest of the democratic capitalist countries of the world. Beijing are painting China into an economic corner. They did it to themselves and should stay there until they decide to follow the rules of the world trading system they agreed to when they joined.
12
We should learn from China’s “covert, corrupting and coercive” tactics to sabotage the democracies and elections in Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand. Canada is becoming aware of the orchestrated subversion as is the United States. Confucius Institutes are being 86’d from our campuses for restricting free speech and education about such topics as Taiwan, Tibet, the democracy movement in Beijing that killed thousands, the Mao famine that killed almost 50 million Chinese and the Taiping revolt that claimed the lives of up to 100 million.
5
From reading this, "insufficient policy coordination" is probably the best explanation of what went wrong with the agreement. Two other explanations might be: 1. Xi assumed he could play Trump. From the Kim episode, this would be a reasonable assumption; 2. For both countries, the tariffs mean increased revenue for their governments (how ever short lived). In China this would mean a large inflow to the CCP--maybe they would just rather have this money. The same in the U.S.; Trump has shown any revenues that come his way, including his inauguration funds, are his to spend.
Saving face by the Chinese is a red herring here. They control the message they want the Chinese people to hear about this, plus the people know their new found wealth comes largely from trading with us. Accepting changes to keep this going should be an easy sell. If those in control really believe the appearance argument, the problem is in believing their own propaganda, always a problem with authoritarian governments. We've just seen it here at the border with migrant "caravans" and the Trump response.
The Chinese government is also believing its own propaganda in Hong Kong by reneging on their promise of autonomy. Instead they should be giving them free rein. It is the Hong Kong model that Deng recognized, and that has given them all their prosperity.
The photo with this says 1919-2019, or 100 years of history. Does this mean they recognize, teach, that the U.S. freed them from the Japanese?
1
I don't quite agree with the idea that China was never going to trade away what , in part, made them prosperous. The main thing that made them prosperous was the central Government economic control and their willingness to trade. Other things like intellectual property theft were unacceptable but wasn't the major driver. Let's face it, such theft occurs everywhere, even if the property is just tweaked a little. Edison was very good at it (as well as being brilliant in his own right). My main concern is : what exactly is the US giving up? It seems all one way and, if so, I can understand why Xi might baulk at it.
4
This article is contrived garbage that appears to be an effort to contradict widespread expert commentary that the hardliners objected and Xi let it go to elicit the American reaction. Now that he has the reaction the matter is entirely up to Xi and his dealings with his own Party leaders.
1
Biden gaffed that China is not competition...if you were Xi what does that mean? Wait?
4
@Charlie
China cannot compete with America in creativity and innovation. They don’t invent stuff, they copy stuffing.
They have 5 times the population of America and we are their largest customer but they don’t really compete in the 21st century without having Americans as their customers.
2
In politics, when you deal with a bully, you need to be a bully, which Trump is by nature.
Xi thought Trump would cave in but Trump is made of sterner stuff than our previous President who let Assad cross the red line
10
Xi has lost the Mandate of Heaven.
1
Nonsense.
Xi Jinping is the son of a Long March Chinese legend father who was deposed and banished to the hinterlands to be re-educated during Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. Xi Jinping is a ' princeling'.
Xi Jinping is the first Chinese leader since Mao Zedong whose thoughts are deemed worthy of study by members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Xi Jinping is the first designated Chinese ' core leader' since Deng Xiaoping. It was Deng Xiaoping who restored Xi Jinping's father to a place of honor.
By eliminating the collective term limited leadership model Xi Jinping has effectively claimed the Mandate of Heaven of the Chinese Emperors.
Xi Jinping is a an educated, experienced, competent, temperate, secure, mature, wise and smart politician. Xi is a long time elected /selected official in the most populous nation state on Earth. Donald Trump is none of those things.
10
It seems to me that the US asking China to change the actual law of the land is a lot to swallow. Seems pretty arrogant on the part of the US, actually.
5
@Syliva
If it doesn't have the force of law it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
3
Nothing new, really -- another botched deal by a man who doesn't grasp the most basic fundamentals of deal making himself...
9
I think what is missing here is this is a common business practice in Chinese culture.
You will come to an agreement and when you think all is left is the formalities of signing a contract and your Chinese counterpart will figuratively rip it apart, start over again wanting more concessions.
Many times people will cave as they're too far in or want to return home appearing a victor. Pains me to say this but glad trump didn't cave. To summarize, western see a contract as a consumation of the relationship, Chinese see it as the beginning of it.
Our company we don't do dealings with Chinese, simply as it's bad for business. Unfortunately the US does not have that option.
10
By the way, I visit Taiwan every year, stay for 3 months, have many friends in Taiwan. Yours is an incredible country, greatest people, safest, excellent public transportation, healthcare for all, democratic, capitalistic with a large college educated, bi-lingual population. It is my adopted home and am more comfortable in Taiwan than anywhere else in the world. Thank you for making Taiwan one of the best countries in the world.
6
Happy to hear today that Pennsylvania adopted two resolutions to enhance friendship between the Pennsylvania and Taiwan.
‘The Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives unanimously passed two identical resolutions on Wednesday last week and Tuesday respectively to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the US’ Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and improve the state’s relations with Taiwan.
...Taiwan is Pennsylvania’s seventh-largest export market in Asia, while the state is home to a growing number of Taiwanese companies.”
3
Trump is the first US President, since before 1971, to do anything to protect US interests in regards to China.
Since Nixon every US President has allowed China to enrich itself at the expense of millions of our citizens. Millions of lost jobs- lost livelihoods and the loss of opportunity for generations of people in millions of families.
China is dishonest. They are thieves.
I support any President who stands up for working people in this country. This country owes the rest of the world NOTHING. We owe 'refugees' NOTHING. We owe China NOTHING. I am tired of our people going into poverty to help foreigners.
13
Eyes and ears are finally open.
5
@willt26 Huh? Sure on a limited resource planet it should be expected that 5% of the world's population can monopolize more than 25% of the world's resources so they can have the good life, while the rest of the planet suffers.
Many developing countries are going to work like heck to try to have the same lifestyle as the west - only the planet can't handle it. So either we all live a little closer to the ground, and share our space on this planet ... or the conflicts will continue.
Just as early americans stole land from the rightful owners, so too China is going to do everything it can to survive.
4
The Chinese government will huff and puff to their full imperial glory but they should remember that the world is getting wise to their coercive shenanigans.
For 30 years they have taken advantage of the world desire to include them economically but now the previously subtle imperial hubris and arrogance is now in full display.
The CCP world view is an existentialist threat to the freedoms available in the western world. The sooner the West protects ourselves from their predatory depredations the better off the next generations future will be.
14
@Rh
"For 30 years they have taken advantage of the world desire to include them economically..."
Are you serious? Back then US industry was itching to get access to billions of consumers of US goods. They wanted to get the Chinese off their bicycles and into American cars; they did so, with devastating results for the Chines environment. They wanted to sell US building materials, culture, food. They underestimated Chinese ingenuity and the massive labour market that could re-create pretty much anything the US could produce. And now it's come back to bite them in the behind. US companies have made off like bandits and now are crying foul.
How will the US cope when all the cheap Chinese trinkets aren't so cheap anymore? I guess we'll see.
1
Did I interpret this correctly; i.e. we import from China components that are critical for U.S. Navy nuclear reactors? When and how in the world did this happen!?
5
@BD
It's called Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump, with the approval of Congress.
2
If only someone had already negotiated a robust first attempt at a multi lateral partnership agreement of some kind around the whole trans Pacific - hey wait a minute there...
7
Please help me understand China's mindset. "Mr. Xi may have belatedly concluded that changes to Chinese laws demanded by the United States would be an affront to national honor."
Intellectual property theft, patent infringement, reneging on pledges under the WTO's rules, industrial espionage and state-sponsored hacking is not an affront to China's honor? But agreeing to stop these bad practices is an affront to China's honor?
12
@Charlie D.
Try this article if you want to understand the Chinese mindset: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-11/china-u-s-split-on-tariff-removal-purchase-amount-xinhua
It actually quotes Chinese officials, who give specific reasons for why a deal was not reached, instead of relying on speculations from unnamed "others" about what Xi "may have" been thinking.
4
Thanks, I read the Bloomberg article. The comments do not address systemic unethical and unlawful conduct supported by Beijing. Rule of law in China is porous and unpredictable.
1
This sounds like a POTUS argument. I don't that POTUS would give inch to the Chinese and the issue regarding Hawei today doesn't seem that POTUS really wants an agreement. If POTUS wanted a NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT, he hasn't shown the NEGOTIATION actions that are necessary.
A friend of mine told me of the NEGOTIATION of the union he is in with a large national corporation. The Teamsters, the union, demanded a 13% raise for the 4 year contract. The company offered 0% the first year, 1/2% the second year , 2% the third year and 2 1/2 the fourth years. The settled for 3 1/2 % the first year, and 3 1/2 each year after on top of the 3 1/2 each year on top of the previous 3/1/2 % for the 4 year contract. Now, that's NEGOTIATION.
1
"The speed with which the two governments descended into verbal mud-wrestling and new tariffs and counter-tariffs surprised even seasoned analysts."
It should not, however, surprise anyone who is familiar with Donald Trump's utter lack of tact or finesse.
2
This article is background noise.
What's not mentioned is that on April 22 the US declined to renew waivers on sanctions for buying oil from Iran. China imports much of its oil from Iran.
There's no way China will allow the US to dictate terms for their doing business with a third party.
8
One way to tell that a story in the Western press about China is a propaganda piece is to count the number of times it mentions Xi Jinping. This article mentions Xi 18 times. Every reference is speculative: Xi may have, looks as if, no doubt has, could be seen as. No mention of Xi is connected to any known fact. The constant reference to Xi deliberately ignores China’s real political process in favor of an absurd, pro-war fantasy that one man makes every decision in China without input from others. As if that were even possible.
3
If I were chinese I would be very irritated by the enormous hypocracy of the american trade arguments.
In the second half of the 19:th Century american political leaders deliberatly did not introduce any patent protection legislation in order to allow american manufacturers to go to europe, copy the best techniques and then use it free of charge in the United States. In effect steal it. Then tariffs were raised as well.
What the americans are saying to China is: How dare you do what we did 150 years ago! It´s immoral, unacceptable, and we will not stand for it. You cannot be allowed to copy our methods to become a leading economic power in the world. Now that we are the dominant power we will stop you.
This is not to say that the chinese should not change their behaviour but that the arguments should better be directed to their self-interest. The best chinese companies would benefit greatly from better intellectual property protection laws from chinese competitors (and from more import competion).
I would not be greatly surprised if the chinese government instructed chinese financial institutions to stop buying newly issued american T-bills and instead start selling large portions their US government debt. This would hurt both USA and China but perhaps USA more. China obviously consider itself to be in a power struggle with America. If the power balance changes they may be fine with a short term loss.
8
Although China did violate many International Trade laws for its own benefit, I would argue that view is not entirely accurate or even slightly racist. Many comments here implied that the only advantage China has is being “cheap and cheat”, again, not 100% wrong, but it would be wrong to overlook China's investment on its education, healthcare and infrastructure. one cannot simply steal a car and become the best driver in the world.
it has become a cliche to say China is taking jobs out of Americans hands, but, to many Chinese, the issue is China stopped being simply the cheap manufacturing floor. To them, America Is shouting “How could you possibly have a better life without cheating?” Sadly, I don't think the Chinese people are 100% wrong to think that.
Many say Americans dislike China because of its autocratic government. Although I agree with this categorization , and I hate it as much as the next guy , I don't think history points only to politics as the reason for america's China-hating.Japan, Korea,and Taiwan all faced similar backlashes . NYT reported America's opinion of China is at its lowest point since the 70s, which means Americans dislike China now more than they did during the cultural revolution. American's opinion of China really do correlate more with how strong China have became and not with how backward Chinese government is.
5
Best wishes my friend. I hope we both get governments that honorably and well serve all its peoples.
Would have joining TPP avoided all this melodrama? It had strong IP protections and would have expanded trade. It was supposed to keep China in check geopolitically and economically. I understand it had issues but they could have been mitigated with domestic programs—job training for displaced workers.
And instead of pushing or bullying China with tariffs and have them retaliate, TPP would have enticed China to update its laws to join that organization.
1
I hope China realizes the 'trump card' they hold in determining the future of Donald Trump. By waiting until after the 2020 elections to negotiate a trade deal, they will insure the demise of Trump. The people of your country are paying for the high tariffs, not China. I am not a friend of China and I realize that a continued trade war will cause hardships on people all around the world. However, it will be well worth it to rid the planet of Trump and his destabilizing influence. Go China Go!
12
I read in Bloomberg that the Chinese negotiators are claiming that the deal failed because the US suddenly tried to renegotiate a higher amount of purchases than what was agreed in Argentina. Who is right? I don't know. But the other side of the story should at least be reported. Especially when Trump torpedoed last year's agreement at the last minute.
Journalists should not report the official narrative of any government, whether it is ours or China's, as fact, without independent verification.
11
@Aoy
Please do remember, as part of your analysis here, that Potus Trump is a chronic liar.
Oh, and also, Chris Buckley has defined himself for some time as an "anti-communist" of the old school, always misrepresenting China for the benefit of his anti-Chinese government bias. Hardly a reporter that would provide you with "the other side of the story."
Is the U.S. media going to be a big contributor to what appears to be a new round of anti-communism, not unlike the 1950's? No wonder guys like Pompeo and Bolton rising to the surface!
5
This is what happens when the US negotiates alone in a win/lose way. Instead of coordinating with the EU, Japan, S Korea, Canada and other TPP countries as allies, the Trump administration antagonized all of them with tariffs and threatened potential withdrawal from NATO. Rather than working with China as a partner using the WTO process, Trump decided a 1 to 1 agreement was better. This could have been seen as China's ascension to fully developed country status. Instead, it was all about Chinese concessions. You won't win a proud 1+ billion citizen country over that way.
14
This article mainly represents American perceptions. It should not equate Xi's general public rhetoric on strong IP protection, etc, which the Chinese have been saying for some time, with agreement over exact text or how it is politically handled, and thus a retreat from what the Chinese had agreed. It should also not overstate the extent to which the negotiator was directly in touch with Xi on the political and party aspects. We don't know whether the Chinese intended to retreat on the substance or rather hope to find more internally politically acceptable ways to do the same thing within the Chinese political system. Unfortunately, the US accusations of perfidy naturally created a Chinese internal media backlash, even if their leadership is more cautious in rhetoric. It would have been better to have made a deeper effort to understand the Chinese constraints and work around them. Also to have been more restrained instead of prematurely declaring near-victory before it happened. There are so many problems of language, communications, diplomatic styles, and systemic differences, but the most important of them all is the almost zero trust on both sides.
16
China produces over 1 million engineering graduates a year compared to about 230,000 in the USA, many foreign born students. Many Americans can not accept that China produces higher quality products at a lower cost than America. That is free market capitalism. Soon, America will also lose its advantage in advanced technology.
45
@Joseph B for now, the US has quality over quantity when it comes to engineers. Although that may be slipping, too.
1
Joseph, if China is producing so many engineers why does China airlines still fly Boeing and Airbus products? Their market is so large it would make sense to produce their own aircraft. The Chinese technical expertise is a illusion, the best they can do is reverse engineer products from the west.
Even the Soviet Union, although large in land mass that is largely empty has a robust aerospace industry, although they can’t build a turbine engine that will last more than 500 hours, their knockoff of the B757 is powered by western engines.
3
@Joseph B Actually if they can, the Chinese send their children to the US to study. Just look at SDSU or UCLA, Asians are the majority as they emphasize a good education.
3
Great. The deal set and now the people of. Both countries have to suffer huge price increases and taxes, and small businesses put on the brink in both countries because of these arrogant fools. We already knew Trump was one, but Xi severely shot a hold straight through the heart of his reputation.
10
For once, I have to agree with trump balking?
19
Or was Mr Xi just being honest, knowing that any such laws would be bent and subverted at every level of bureaucracy until they were watered down to nothing? Which would have created an even bigger mess than not signing at all - which is where we are now.
The principles of simplicity and results-based verification suggests that the US should focus on currency exchange rate, currently at 6.9 yuan per dollar, a between 9 and 10% appreciation in the dollar vs the yuan since the 6.3 level in March 2018, when the trade war started.
At the same time the dollar appreciated about 8% against a world basket of currencies. This could be an indication lies not only on manipulation of exchange rates, but also because the economic stimulus, raising the budget deficit/ GDP ratio from 3.1% to 3.8% between from 2016 to 2018, has somewhat backfired, attracting foreign money, swelling speculation, and gunning the consumer economy, but also pricing US exports out of competition and swelling the trade deficit.
2
This is all. Bluff on both sides. They reached a deal two weeks ago but want to bring drama to it by acting like there is volatility. Look for smiles and handshakes by June 20th.
5
Joe Biden surged in polls and gave his “come on, man, China can’t compete with us” speech a few days prior. Perhaps China calculated that 18 months of tariffs was a small price to pay for pillaging the next generation of Americans as they have ours.
15
It isn't difficult for the Fuhrer of the Chinese Communist Party to laps into Maoist language, and raise specters of the 19th century. Ineded it is China that is trapped in 19th century history and still sees the world as a combination of the rights of the backward Middle Kingdom to rule that was subverted temporarily by Western Powers that were not backward.
Bush,Sr., Clinton, Bush,Jr., et al, sold the US down the river to get access to Chinese markets and to cheap Chinese labour for the benefit of the very few at the cost of the very many. Trump, for all his faults, finally is moving to rectify a quarter century of policies that created havoc for the American worker.
The US economy developed and grew behind Tariff walls from the time of Hamilton to the present day. Erecting countervailing tariffs to protect the economy and to enhance national security is a good move, one whose time had come.
If Democrats can remember the reality of 2016, Hillary lost in part because she was seen as a free trade enthusiast who cared nothing for American workers. She backed off the TPP, but it was too late, and no one believed her new position. Dems, get serious about policies that are germane to the welfare of the great American public and stop agitating over personalities. Just about any candidate can sell good policies if seen as sincere.
37
@San Ta
You are living in a dream land. US and Nixon’s contacts own 10% of China. China is worried about reliving their past when foreigners didn’t let the Chinese and dogs into the parks. When China exports goods many foreign firms do very well Hillary won the popular vote. The rest was fixed by computer interference.
4
Look, anyone who's done business with the mainland Chinese knows they always make promises, and nod their heads in agreement, blah blah blah, but actually pinning them down with a contract -- and having them actually abide with its terms -- is a whole different ballgame. This behavior seems to be a deeply embedded part of the mainland Chinese culture, so the fact that Xi now wants a "recast" should come as no surprise to anyone with experience negotiating with them. Just ask my American friend who has a large business in Shenzen. When I visited him there a couple of years ago, he bemoaned the fact that this kind of behavior is simply to be expected -- and that even with a signed contract, compliance with its terms is basically honored in the breach by the Chinese.
73
just to be fair, USA withdrew from the Paris climate Accord, arms treaty with Russia, agreement with Iran. All countries will do whatever they deem right at a moment of time.
13
And there's no justice to be found in China's court system.
6
@ALB That depends on who is more eager to do business. And in your friend’s case, it seems to me that your friend is eager to do business there. The same principle applies to the “Alleged” transfer of technology which American companies accused of China of doing! Think! China is a big market and I am sure there are agreements written for both parties. The Chinese is not pointing a gun at your head to sign the agreement. It would arguably a case of “ buyers’ remorse” but in this case, it is “SELLERS ‘ REMORSE.
7
Xi will win, unfortunately, because th US is a weak and divided nation that cannot steer a straight course for more than a few second at a time. It has alienated most of its other trading partners who might be inclined to help contain China. US trade is but a small fraction of China's business and no matter how high Trump raises tariffs, Chinese goods will still be sought after by US condumers. Clueless does not begin to describe Trump and co. They finally have a chance to bankrupt a much bigger money printing machine than a casino.
20
@Jeffrey Nicholls I don't know single person who look forward to buying Chinese goods for any reason other than low price. Americans have come to accept mediocre quality at best, and short product life space at a cheap price from Chinese goods. Make them less cheap through tariffs and no one will seek them out.
7
@Jeffrey Nicholls the possibility exists that the Chinese rich will sabotage their own countries future because of the flight of capital from China.
Xi Jinping own sister is an Australian citizen which seems to be an overlooked fact as is other members of his family. If confidence in his rule would be paramount the family would have happily gone back after openly renouncing their Australian citizenship.
The niece is married to a Brit and they are taking full advantage of the commercial opportunities emanating from this close kinship.
2
How's Australia's democracy holding up under foreign interference from Beijing?
5
Who does this remind you of: "“No doubt Xi has tightened the overall policy atmosphere so few want to voice opposition"
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller??
I was reminded of Trump. Remember when he told congress to make a deal in DACA and he'd sign it - they brought him a deal and he rejected it.
7
Something’s not right with the insights reported in this article.
As someone involved in business with China for 30 years, this doesn’t sound accurate.
While we all know we can’t trust anything that comes out of Trump’s hole, it doesn’t sound right that Liu He was in some way out of step with Xi. Similarly, it doesn’t sound right that the policy responses were not sufficiently coordinated among Chinese institutions. On something so important to China, this doesn’t sound accurate.
It would be very helpful if the NYT took another look at this.
99
@Rex Daley
It sounds like the information was fed from the White House.
25
@Rex Daley. I feel the same. I remember reading something like “the Trump administration is asking that the Chinese government of - no State subsidies - to its companies, whether private or State run”! And the Chinese Government responded that Trump is interfering with it’s internal affairs and that China is a sovereign state.
9
The last minute change, however suggests that Xi does not have full control of China, considering Liu He should directly report to him. I would say Li Zhanshu, the current Chairman of the National People's Congress, is the reason. Li did not go to college and has a really nationalist mind that prevents him to any compromise to US, especially he is one taking charge of making laws in China. Xi won't make the speech before the trade deal went off if he meant to.
4
A few women from China told me the real power is not Xi. It is someone in the background. Maybe you are right.
Well after a another week of Trump bashing turns out Trump was right about China renegading all along.
14
Can you point out a time when trump was right about something? Let’s start with that Ivanka.
5
Why should China allow the US to dictate laws in their country? Trump routinely says that other countries should not tell us what to do. More Trump lies and hypocrisy.
31
Successful commerce requires trust, which is earned. So no trust, no commerce. Walk away.
3
@Charlie D.
The fact that so many American companies (Tesla, Apple, and numerous others) have long-term relationships with China demonstrates that there is no lack of trust on both sides.
3
Isn't there a growing boycott of Apple products in China as a consequence of this trade conflict?
When I was in Shanghai, the Apple store was very popular but the Huawei store was nearly vacant. That was a few years ago.
1
On what basis of fact does the writer conclude this was a mistake by Xi? This set of alternate terms was presented late in the attempt to finalize the agreement. If China then reset its terms, that is a legitimate negotiating tactic, one that Trump has often used. China does not want a bad deal anymore than Trump, and based on the many recent successes in China's international negotiations, it is more probably Xi operating at a level of sophistication far beyond Trump's team.
39
It’s ridiculous to see how American narratives create echo chambers for the readers. China literally passed a new law on foreign investment protection on March 15 2019 in Beijing. Article 22 of Section 3 of this new law clearly stipulates that it is now prohibited to use any administrative forces to compel foreign investors to make transfer of technology.
However this used to be on the opposite. The current WTO law led by US-EU doesn’t prohibit a country imposing technological transfer so that China and the US could make a deal by giving American companies access to Chinese market in exchange for advanced technologies a few decades ago. Now Trump is saying “no more this” and it is understandable why he is doing so.
But now China changed its law on foreign investment protection, obviously one of the compromises made during the negotiations, and now it is criticized reversing all the promises on including the transfer of technology? It doesn’t make sense.
17
@Alexallez let's see how vigorously this law will be enforced.
2
What I want to say is that there is an obvious compromise from Chinese side, whether reluctantly or not. China showed the intention to cool down the situations. Before making laws US would say China should make laws, after making laws US would say that’s not enough. Unfortunately this is not how diplomacy works. Who is trying to turn back on the negotiations is hardly China.
3
The tariffs are a Trump-Republican tax on consumers, mostly middle and low income consumers. If we need to take a tough stand against disingenuous China’s trade practices, it is ok with me, but we need to be honest about what it costs us.
14
One thing that China has that America doesn't have is, if the Chinese government says one thing, then does another, you won't hear the Chinese people complaining like you would if that happened in America. While Trump has certain cards up his sleeves, so does China. Let's remember, Trump didn't start out with trade negotiations, Trump started out with tariffs, not only China, but on the allies, too. Both sides need to learn how to play nice.
5
@Dan O Trump thought that China would cave in like Canada and Mexico! Let’s see how the tariffs on Chinese goods turn out - that we Americans would suffer the most! (Mainly the middle and lower class)!
3
"The official Chinese news media has described the United States this week as an “all-out bully,” a “paper tiger” . . . "
Well, of course, under Trump, the U.S. does always act like a bully, especially in trade negotiations. Canada, Mexico and Europe were also bullied. The Chinese no doubt had concluded that some of the more gratuitously humiliating conditions imposed by Litzinger was over-the-top posturing, and not to be taken seriously.
This escalating crisis is a typical Trumpian fiasco: harsh tactics deployed that will hurt everybody - and in the end, after a lot of misery, there's no progress whatsoever to show for it. If he lost 1 billion dollars of Daddy's money in a decade, I shudder to think how much taxpayer money he'd be willing to sacrifice in the latest scheme.
24
Pardon my ignorance on this topic. How exactly is it a problem for the Chinese that the terms of the agreement have to be put into Chinese law? Isn’t that EXACTLY what a trade agreement requires of both parties?
13
Just because the Chinese government signs an agreement with another country, doesn’t mean that the terms of that agreement become part of Chinese law.
The US wants to see that the terms of an agreement do become part of Chinese law.
This is the issue.
7
@Rex Daley
But - just like when the US signs a trade agreement that then after ratification is turned into US laws and regulations. . Why is that outrageous to expect of the Chinese ? Something is fishy or not explained well by the author about what this is a big deal at all
2
The language complication is interesting. There is a lot of room for interpretation when translating a document. If the translators all worked for China, they would put their thumbs on the scale, so to speak, twice. Once going English to Chinese, and then again when t he revised document is translated back to English.
Imprecisely worded documents are the worst because each side interprets the same words differently. They think they have an agreement, when they are actually envisioning two very different futures. Later when the misunderstanding is discovered, each suspects the other of acting in bad faith.
Consider also, that Chinese officials who are fluent in English are likely to better understand and sympathize with the US perspective. Those who have to wait for the Chinese translation will only see the Chinese perspective and are likely to demand things that seem reasonable to them, but are completely unacceptable to us.
Consider attitudes to Intellectual Property as an example. What we see as theft, might be seen -- in a socialist world view -- as the free sharing of ideas for everyone's benefit.
10
Lack of context renders this pessimistic report fairly opaque.
Recall the thirst within the American electorate for the specific language in the Trans Pacific Partnership documents, and the diversion between what we found and what had been reported.
What, please, are the specific text revisions to China's laws that were in the original document, and what are texts to the revisions requested by the Chinese?
36
Yeah the open open and forthright Chinese are being misunderstood here. laughable.
14
@Stephan Kuttner
How the original document differs from the revisions requested is not germane. What matters is that there was an agreement which the Chinese are now abrogating. Does the word "honor" translate into Mandarin?
Which demonstrates, once again, that "agreements" with China are meaningless. While I find Trump despicable for the most part, taking the hard line with the Chinese is essential and way overdue. That I applaud.
Trump has secret chocolate cake that is the very best and he will use it to convince Xi to make Chi-Na compliant like Canada.
5
I thought Trump hired all of the best negotiators. Even in those rare instances where I agree with Trump's goals, I am supremely confident that he doesn't have the intelligence, sophistication or support system in place to actually accomplish those goals...
36
excepting if course in this case you agreed with Trump and Trump was correct about China reneging.
4
@BoulderEagle...If more Americans shared your view that Trump doesn't have the intelligence or support system to accomplish his goals …they wouldn't have been so foolish as to vote for him. Steven Mnuchin's father just bought a sculpture for over 90 million dollars...I thought Trump was going to Drain the Swamp? No...No...that's not True...I never Believed a Word He Said...or a Promise He Made !! Mexico Never Paid for the Wall....but Steven Mnuchin's father could have paid for it !!
3
One small point: Americans didn’t vote for Trump. They voted for her.
Our system is what made him president.
16
Democrats need to keep complaining that the tariffs are raising costs, at least for a while, on everyone including wealthy contributors to their political campaigns.
5
The interesting thing, to me, about this analysis is that it's stitched together of surmise, logical inference and consultants' conjectures, and ends up describing a process usually attributed to Trump's administration, not the Chinese political establishment. I've got to wonder how much of it is a projection onto The Other of The Familiar?
28
So your saying the Chinese Communist Party has more credibility than Trump for you? Sadly, that is pretty much exactly where things stand.
5
Level of desperation for Xi is about to go up a few notches.
Xi will use jingoism to rally and distract the Chinese people as economics/ jobs situation turns dire. Here's what happens next:
1. Taiwan invasion, or at least a few missiles that way
3. North Korea will test a few more missiles
4. Persecution of muslims in Xiangxiang will double
All of this to distract from the pain that's coming.
28
@MS No, I think Trump just said he wouldn't go after Iran.
Wait, you were talking about Xi! Sorry, my bad, it's just, it looked so similar...
14
MS on my third trip to China this year, Trump's attacks are in fact supporting Xi's policies. the economic slow down that was going to happen is now the fault of Trump not Xi's policies, the USG pays lip service to human rights issues.
4
If China invades Taiwan, it will spark WWIII.
23 million Taiwanese do not want to be part of China.
They want to be left alone. They have proven themselves capable of self-governance for the last 40 years. It is fiercely democratic. Awesome society.
Taiwan is not Tibet.
2
Renege? Isn't that this administration's trump card?
12
Saving face is key here, and Trump's reactions have made that needle more difficult to thread.
17
Isn't it wired that Xi, after making a speech about future cooperation, suddenly changed his mind and rewrote the agreement?
If you ask me between Trump and Xi, who is more likely to change his mind in the last minute, I will definitely vote for Trump.
14
You would be wrong in this instance.
7
Ironically, Trump's tariff response with 25% tariffs on all Chinese imports represent an over $100 billion tax increase on the middle and lower classes. It follows his reverse Robin Hood pattern, take from the poor and give to the rich.
Democrats need to keep hammering this: $100 billion tax increase each year.
86
@JS. The Democrats are in favor of higher taxes?
5
@JS On some levels I see this as a tax for buying items from a country that's government has for far too long gotten away with cheating on trade, technology theft, and gross human rights violations against it's citizens.
27
@JS
That's right JS.
First, we pay more for imports.
Second, we pay for the farmer's bailout.
See, that way we pay twice!
9