As the US Congress debates the direction of economic policy in the Pacific, the main country worried about a US-led trade deal has gone nearly silent: China.
Two years ago, the prospect of the deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), evoked fears in China of commercial encirclement, particularly as the initiative followed the strategic turn to Asia by US President Barack Obama’s administration. Meeting with Obama in California in 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) made a point of asking that the US keep him informed on the negotiations, even though Beijing did not want to join the nascent trade agreement.
The tempo of negotiations has accelerated considerably since then, with people involved saying that an agreement is close. US Trade Representative Michael Froman flew to Japan two weeks ago for talks. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met Obama on Tuesday in Washington, and on Wednesday, Abe addressed a joint meeting of the US Congress. The US Congress is deciding whether to give the president fast-track authority for such trade agreements, which would put a deal to a vote without allowing amendments.
Illustration: Yusha
As the deal has come to the forefront again, the Chinese government has changed its view.
Some of China’s leading trade policy intellectuals now say that they have few concerns about the agreement. They also say that the pact could even help China, by making it easier for Beijing to pursue its own regional agreements without facing criticism that it should instead pursue ambitious global free-trade pacts that would require significantly opening its markets to Western competition.
“We don’t think TPP is a challenge to China — we will watch and study,” said He Weiwen (何偉文), a former Chinese Ministry of Commerce official who is now the co-director of the China-US/EU Study Center at the China Association of International Trade in Beijing.
“We are more or less neutral because we have our own agenda, pushing forward ASEAN plus six and the Silk Road,” he said, referring to two of China’s own regional initiatives.
China would make sure its regional pacts complied with global free-trade rules on such deals, he added.
The Obama administration has been trying to strike a difficult diplomatic and legislative balance on the TPP. In part, it wants to reassure Beijing that the pact is not aimed at putting Chinese trade at a disadvantage.
“TPP is open architecture, and TPP is really meant to be about setting high standards for trade — standards that aspire to be equivalent to the United States’,” US Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker said.
Yet congressional leaders say that administration officials have also been happy to portray the agreement, in private, as a geopolitical tactic to strengthen economic links with US allies in Asia like Japan.
The US and many of China’s neighbors have been increasingly worried as Beijing has asserted greater authority in the region. The Japanese government, in particular, has been riled by China’s stance over disputed airspace and islands. Countries like the Philippines have been alarmed that Beijing has turned semi-submerged reefs into military-grade aircraft runways in contested waters of the South China Sea.
“When the administration sells me on this, it’s all geopolitics, not economics: We want to keep these countries in our orbit, not China’s,” US Senator Charles Schumer said. “I agree with that. But I need to be sold on the economics.”
Senior Chinese officials have started to soften on the TPP in recent months. In October last year, Chinese Vice Minister of Finance Zhu Guangyao (朱光耀), said that the pact would be “incomplete” without China, and hinted that China might want to participate someday.
“For the TPP, frankly speaking, there have been internal debates within both the United States and the Chinese government,” Zhu said during a visit to Washington. “But now our position is clear: As China becomes more open, it’s very important for us to be integrated into the global trade system with a high standard.”
Still, the trade deal presents some potential tensions for China.
The US already has free-trade agreements with half the countries in the TPP, notably South Korea. So the most important negotiations in the pact involve Japan and Vietnam, which do not have such deals.
The prominence of Japan in the trade talks has made some Chinese officials and trade experts wary. Japan is China’s main political and military rival in East Asia. The free-trade agreement could give Japanese companies better access to the US market in large, high-tech industries that China wants to dominate, like automobile manufacturing and telecommunications.
By agreeing to open up its financial sector, Vietnam would also gain an advantage in exporting to the US in a range of low-tech goods like shoes and garments. The trade deal could accelerate the relocation of these industries from China, where blue-collar wages have quintupled in the past decade, to Vietnam, where pay has risen more slowly.
The planned trade agreement “is in large part a Japan story and a Vietnam story,” said Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
Others in China are suspicious of how some countries ended up participating in the TPP negotiations and others did not.
“Right now, the TPP has looped in many Southeast Asian countries, like Vietnam and Philippines, whose financial industries actually lag behind China’s,” said Shen Guobing (沈國兵), a professor at Fudan University’s Institute of World Economy in Shanghai. “When they are allowed in, yet China is not, it raises questions of a double standard.”
US administration officials insist that all countries in the trade agreement will meet consistent standards of openness, and say that China made its own decision not to participate.
China has its own reasons for shying away from a trans-Pacific trade deal extending from Chile to Japan.
Because China joined the WTO while still clearly a developing country in 2001, it has been able to maintain high tariffs and other import restrictions. If China did participate in the TPP, it would come under pressure to remove many of its steep trade barriers.
“This is obviously an American trap for China,” Shen said, “a threshold we can’t possibly reach.”
Additional reporting by Jonathan Weisman
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under