(G20) Substantive Sino-US trade accord remains a challenge
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
American businesses are bracing for a painful escalation in President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, writes Paul Wiseman of The Associated Press.
Yet they might just get a reprieve.
If history repeats itself — and most analysts are betting it will — Trump and President Xi Jinping will agree to some kind of cease-fire when they meet at the Group of 20 international summit in Osaka, Japan.
Indeed, a senior administration official sought to downplay expectations Tuesday by suggesting that the primary goal for the Trump-Xi meeting is simply an agreement to restart negotiations. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the hard work of finalizing the complex details of any broad new accord would come later, when negotiating teams for the two sides meet.
Under the cease-fire scenario, the two sides’ existing tariffs and counter-tariffs on many of each other’s goods would remain in place. But no additional import taxes would take effect. This would buy time for U.S. and Chinese officials to restart talks that stalled last month after 11 rounds of negotiations.
The last time Trump and Xi met — in early December at a G-20 gathering in Buenos Aires, Argentina — they called a truce. That cease-fire injected some new momentum into the talks.
“Ideally, results at this summit could match the last summit in Argentina,” said Tu Xinquan, director of the Institute for WTO Studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. “That is, to prevent the trade war from escalating.”
“What I’m hoping is that two leaders will recommit to fully engage on the trade talks,” said Myron Brilliant, head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a traditional Republican ally that has been sharply critical of Trump’s use of tariffs. “There’s too much at stake in the bilateral relationship for the two governments not to try to work out the final parts of the trade agreement.”
The administration accuses Beijing of using predatory tactics in a pell-mell push to give Chinese companies an unfair competitive edge in such advanced technologies as artificial intelligence and driverless cars.
Beijing denies the charges and contends that the administration is simply trying to suppress a rising competitor in global trade.
When US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s office ran seven days of hearings this month on the expanded tariffs, the message from American businesses was fairly uniform: Don’t do it. Indeed, economists warn that additional higher tariffs — effectively, a tax increase on consumers and companies — would hurt a U.S. economy that already appears to be weakening.
Consider Celestron, a telescopes and optics company with 80 employees at its offices in Torrance, California, that moved most of its manufacturing to China years ago. Trump’s earlier tariffs hit only about 10 percent of what Celestron brings in from China. The next round would cover the remaining 90% — and it might force company to lay off manufacturing and assembly workers it still employs in California.
“These skilled positions will be imperiled by the proposed tariffs, because the parts and equipment these workers need to do their jobs are sourced in China,” Celestron said in a filing with the government.
Until last month, the Trump administration and Beijing seemed to be edging toward an agreement to end the trade war. Then Trump officials accused China of backpedaling on commitments it had made in earlier negotiations. The talks stopped.
A key reason why analysts say the best to expect from the Trump-Xi meeting is an agreement to resume talks is that a substantive deal remains enormously difficult. The Trump side is demanding concessions that would require China to scale back its aspirations as a global technological powerhouse.
The differences between the two countries’ political and economic systems — America’s free-market capitalist economy versus China state-driven Communist model — are so vast that a resolution to the dispute likely would amount to “a pause in a broader conflict over trade and technology,” said James Green, a former U.S. trade official in Beijing and now senior adviser at McLarty Associates consultancy.
A few months after any deal, Green said, “we will be back talking about this.”
The administration will insist on a means to enforce any agreement, reflecting its contention that Beijing has violated past promises. It will likely insist on retaining some tariffs as leverage. Yet Beijing will want to eliminate all the U.S. tariffs.
“China seems willing to offer Trump many concessions to de-escalate trade tensions,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist and former head of the China division at the International Monetary Fund. “But it is unlikely to cave in to demands that it change its economic model or industrial strategy. Such actions would go against the grain of Chinese leaders and their vision of China’s economic future.”
The senior Trump administration official suggested that the negotiations could go on for “months and months,” noting that both sides have a “long view” about what’s in their best interests.
“Solutions to the outstanding remaining issues can be found as long as both sides have the political will to do so,” said Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. “It’s not entirely clear if that political will is there.”
AP writers Kevin Freking in Washington and Joe McDonald in Beijing contributed to this report.