Trump/Biden/Kissinger and Xi on China

[Randy W]

From TheHill: China wants removal of US tariffs in first phase of trade deal: report

 

https://thehill.com/policy/international/china/472528-china-eyes-removal-of-us-tariffs-in-first-phase-of-trade-deal

 

Nothing will happen this year if this is for real.

 

 

Exactly! It is!

[Randy W]

Using the rare earth monopoly as a bargaining tool is like using a suicide bomb: you only get to use it once. Now that the P has brought the dependency to the attention of the U.S. and the world, one would expect world-minus-China to take measures that ultimately eliminate that monopoly. Well, one *would*.

 

The array of claims in the trade war (about which I only agree with the middle bunch) are so diverse that the other side seems to only be allowed to agree to all (and seem to capitulate) or disagree (to all) and dig in their heels.

 

I'll just leave it at that.

 

 

I rarely care for the China Uncensored videos, but this one is good - about the rare earths

 

 

China's Threat to Weaponize Rare Earth Metal Exports Backfires

 

[eseum]

There was an article out the other day where the U.S. Military was soliciting proposals for rare earth production. Seems they are looking to partner with processing costs. Seems they finally got the message. Unfortunately DOD doesn't have that good of a track record when it comes to ennvironmental protection.

[eseum]

Of course there was also a tweet out this morning form Trump stating, once again, that the U.S. and China are very close to signing a "big trade deal." Yawn!

[Randy W]

from the Shanghaiist - http://shanghaiist.com/2019/12/14/china-and-us-finally-confirm-trade-deal-but-dont-actually-provide-details/?fbclid=IwAR2Ski-QugzBv6FzvM2npXtWIAwzq0ST4tCz0PVomR8BfEJHJeQxUI9Tm14

 

So far, the one concrete result - "There has at least been one concrete result of this Phase One deal with the US agreeing not to institute new 15 percent tariffs on $160 billion of Chinese goods that had been planned for December 15." - with "Chinese officials somehow managed to be even more vague, dodging questions about how much agricultural products China had pledged to buy, along with any other questions dealing with numbers."

Wait and see.

[Randy W]

from the NYTimes

 

China’s Hard-Liners Win a Round in Trump’s Trade Deal

A year and a half into the trade war, China seems to have a winning strategy: Stay tough and let the Trump administration negotiate with itself.

 

 

President Trump’s initial retreat from his trade-war threats has handed hard-liners in China a victory. A longer, pricklier trade war and stiff Chinese resistance to economic reforms could result.

 

. . .

 

But the deal may be seen by Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, and his hard-line supporters as vindication of the intransigent stance they have taken since the spring, when a previous pact struck by Chinese moderates fell apart. Since then, China has asked that even a partial deal include tariff rollbacks. American officials resisted, debated, then relented.

 

. . .

 

Friday’s announcement makes it likelier that China will resist any further concessions next year, and perhaps beyond. It seems to affirm the belief, held by many Chinese officials, that Mr. Trump will back off from his trade-war threats if markets tumble, or if his supporters in agricultural states suffer too much.

Even before Friday, Mr. Trump had delayed or canceled tariffs four times this year. Such policy shifts could ultimately encourage Beijing to draw out negotiations even further, to reach the best possible deal.

The effects could ripple beyond trade. Friday’s deal essentially forestalls discussion of curtailing the Chinese government’s support for its homegrown industries, which China hawks within the Trump administration see as posing a direct threat to American businesses.

 

[Greg.D.]

I think that Op-ed was/is a little premature since nothing has been signed and no one outside of the room knows what the presumed agreement is. Still, he makes an interesting point: if Xi gets his way (and it seems he has), moderates in the policy making realm will be discredited going forward.

 

And that means more of the same.

[Randy W]

I think that Op-ed was/is a little premature since nothing has been signed and no one outside of the room knows what the presumed agreement is. Still, he makes an interesting point: if Xi gets his way (and it seems he has), moderates in the policy making realm will be discredited going forward.

 

And that means more of the same.

 

 

I think it's based on claims that Trump has made. In any event, expecting that China will buy $200 billion of ANYTHING from us would seem to be a definite stretch. Perhaps we could just give them a $200 billion coupon with a 2 year expiration date. Or the Chinese could insist on an itemized list of goods that they could buy for that amount, and then "negotiate" the price down from there, or tell us what they REALLY want.

[Randy W]

from the SCMP

 

Trade war: China’s trade ministry fails to mention phase one deal as a priority for 2020

• Despite the US publishing significant details on its trade deal with China, Beijing maintains radio silence on the facts
• Former Chinese official said US statements showed ‘impatient’ approach of Donald Trump and that some ‘technical problems’ remain to be ironed out

 

 

Despite the transpacific clamour for China to confirm details of its phase one trade deal with the United States, the Ministry of Commerce made no mention of the agreement in a statement summarising its working priorities for 2020.

A two-day policy-setting conference was concluded in Beijing this week, on the heels of an agreement with Washington announced on Friday. And while the Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom) statement outlined “six priorities, plus one”, including “properly dealing with China-US trade disputes”, there was not a single mention of the deal, nor did the ministry expand on that aim.

 

. . .

 

It has since been hotly disputed whether China has the need or the capacity to buy such a large volume of goods, and whether it would be within the rules of the global trading system.

 

[Randy W]

Xinhua on Xi's phone call with Trump - on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/XH.NewsAgency/photos/a.446942328709816/3180903251980363/?type=3&theater

 

China Xinhua News

· Yesterday · Edited ·

习近平应约同美国总统特朗普通电话 xhne.ws/UeqNF

Xi Jinping should call us president trump on a regular phone call xhne.ws/UeqNF

 

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/XH.NewsAgency/photos/a.446942328709816/3180903251980363/

 

 

Xi Jinping emphasized that the development of Sino-US economic and trade cooperation has made important contributions to the stable development of Sino-US relations and the world economic development. Modern economy and modern technology have united the world, and the interests of China and the United States have become more integrated. There will be some differences in the cooperation between the two sides. As long as the two sides always grasp the mainstream of Sino-US economic and trade cooperation, mutual benefit and win-win, and always respect the dignity, sovereignty, and core interests of the other country, they will be able to overcome the difficulties in the advance and promote the development of Sino-US economic and trade relations under the new historical conditions for the benefit of Two countries and two peoples.

Xi Jinping stressed that we have expressed grave concern over the recent negative US actions on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. These practices interfered with China's internal affairs, harmed China's interests, and were not conducive to mutual trust and cooperation. It is hoped that the United States will earnestly implement the important consensus reached through our many meetings and phone calls, pay close attention to and pay attention to China's concerns, and prevent the relations between the two countries and important agendas from being disturbed.

 

 

[Greg.D.]

"There will be some differences in the cooperation between the two sides. As long as the two sides always grasp the mainstream of Sino-US economic and trade cooperation, mutual benefit and win-win, and always respect the dignity, sovereignty, and core interests of the other country, they will be able to overcome the difficulties in the advance and promote the development of Sino-US economic and trade relations under the new historical conditions for the benefit of Two countries and two peoples."

 

I think the core interests of the western countries (non-communist, non-authoritarian) will now always include protection of IP and trade secrets, so things will not continue on as before. Seems to be some international momentum to force China to play by the rules ... let's see if the non-China countries can stick together on this.

[Randy W]

Last I've heard about the "buy more American products" clause is that it is being watered down for market considerations.

 

from the NY Times

 

Peter Navarro, Trump’s Trade Warrior, Has Not Made His Peace With China

Mr. Navarro is still looking for ways to punish China even as President Trump has embraced a deal that his top trade adviser lobbied against.

 

A deal that removed any of Mr. Trump’s tariffs would make America look weak, Mr. Navarro argued at the meeting two weeks ago, and he assailed those who endorsed the idea as “globalists,” according to an administration official in the room.

It was a familiar argument for Mr. Trump’s top trade adviser, who has spent the past three years fanning the president’s protectionist instincts and encouraging him to embark on a punishing trade war with China. Mr. Navarro’s dark warnings about China’s ambitions and its threat to America have fueled Mr. Trump’s embrace of tariffs, overcoming the objections of other senior advisers.

This time, however, Mr. Trump was not persuaded. With the 2020 election approaching, Mr. Trump dismissed Mr. Navarro’s concerns, opting for an initial deal with China that would reduce some tariffs on Chinese goods in exchange for a commitment from Beijing to buy more American products and a series of promises to resolve other concerns.

. . .

“I would be very skeptical of any significant agreement being made,” said Greg Autry, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business and author with Mr. Navarro of the book “Death by China.” “If you’ve spent any time watching the Chinese, they don’t honor their agreements.”

 

[Randy W]

and . . .

 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3043811/china-will-honour-us-trade-war-deal-promises-talks-progress

 

Beijing will live up to its trade deal commitments but Washington must also honour the one-China policy in relation to Taiwan, according to China’s envoy to the United States.

 

[Randy W]

from Inkstone

 

US-China tensions were easing. Then came the coronavirus outbreak

https://inks.tn/epnt

The pomp of the initial trade deal signing ceremony in mid-January only temporarily papered over the deep cracks in the superpower relationship, and various metrics now suggest that an idea previously existing on the fringes of Trump’s administration – decoupling – enjoys growing support.

. . .

Coronavirus has, then, been added to a basket of grievances that led to Trump’s hardline approach toward China. As the economic fallout deepens, it would not be a great shock if the clamor to divorce grows.

From congressional hearings to various think tank events, many in Washington are now convinced that it is impossible for China and the US to move in the same direction.

 

[Greg.D.]

I've always thought the U.S. (and any country) should secure - through government intervention - energy or materials sources critical to their security. There is decoupling in a wide range of areas between US and China and lately I am hearing the word "reciprocity" when explaining a U.S. move (like throwing out a portion of Communist Party media).

 

Some companies and whole industries have been looking outside of China for a few years now to find cheaper and maybe more stable manufacturing situations. That should probably be left to them. Clearly, items necessary to fight a pandemic will be unavailable if the pandemic starts in China. Shouldn't any country have both a strategic stockpile and available manufacturing capacity for things like health care products (including medicines)?

 

Interestingly, there is money to be made in Africa and India where we would compete with China and we (U.S. businesses) should probably decouple our sourcing from China - or we won't stand a chance.

 

The overhead in China seems so high, I expect more investment and business activity to move out of China.