US President Donald Trump’s blunt-force use of tariffs in pursuing his “America first” trade agenda has angered many, from company executives to allied governments and members of both parties of the US Congress.
However, there is one effort that has drawn broad support from those who oppose him on almost everything else — his push to force Beijing to change what are widely viewed as China’s market-distorting trade and subsidy practices.
As US-China talks to end a trade war reach their endgame, politicians, executives and foreign diplomats are urging Trump and his team to hold out for meaningful structural reforms in China to address entrenched problems in the relationship that hurt US and other foreign companies, and workers.
Illustration: Mountain People
Trump’s trade war “has let the genie out of the bottle” by lifting expectations that the trade war will force China to reform policies that businesses and foreign governments regard as unfair, said Steven Gardon, vice president of indirect taxes and customs at Lear Corp.
Gardon’s firm is an automotive seating and electrical supplier with plants in 39 countries, including the US and China.
“Now that all these issues have been raised, there’s a lot more domestic political support to address these issues and I don’t think you can pull back from that,” Gardon said at a Georgetown Law School forum this month. “There’s now pressure politically that they have to be addressed for the long term.”
Gardon’s comments reflect a broad shift in US and international business sentiment toward China’s economic and trade policies, one that is aligned with Trump’s goals, if not his tactics.
Trump’s trade team say they are in the final stages of negotiating what would be the biggest economic policy agreement with China in decades.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin are in Beijing to try to accelerate talks with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He (劉鶴). Liu on Sunday is to travel to Washington for another round of negotiations.
Eight months into the trade war that has disrupted the flow of billions of dollars of goods between the world’s two largest economies, it is unclear if a deal acceptable to both sides can be done.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is seen as reluctant to make economic reforms under pressure from the US and Trump has said he might keep tariffs on Chinese goods in place for “a substantial period” even if a deal is struck.
Xi might find it easier to live with the tariffs Trump has imposed on trade than to change China’s model for economic development.
As part of a deal, Beijing has offered to make big-ticket purchases from the US to help reduce a record trade gap. Trump’s team has said those purchases would be worth more than US$1 trillion over about six years.
While big Chinese purchases might be tempting for Trump’s administration, they would do nothing to address what US firms competing in China or against Chinese firms say are structural problems with a system stacked against them.
The US complains that China engages in systematic intellectual property theft, forces foreign firms to give up trade secrets for market access and spends huge sums subsidizing its own industry. Redressing those complaints would require policy reform at the highest level from Xi and the Chinese Communist Party.
A survey released by the American Chamber of Commerce in China late last month showed that a majority of member US companies supported increasing or maintaining tariffs on Chinese goods and nearly twice as many as last year want Washington to push Beijing harder to create a level playing field.
The US tariff demands have even encouraged some reform-minded Chinese officials and private-sector business executives to call for a faster pace of reform in China as it celebrates the 40th anniversary of its first steps toward capitalism.
Lighthizer told lawmakers late last month that Chinese-American businesspeople in particular have urged him to “hang tough” in the talks and not to “sell out for soybeans.”
When Trump delayed a threatened tariff increase well before a March 1 deadline for a deal, he stoked fears that he might be swayed by the big purchase order and leave longstanding structural problems unresolved.
Since then, a steady drumbeat of lobbyists, company executives, foreign diplomats and US lawmakers from both parties have urged Trump to stay the course on his structural demands.
US Representative Kevin Brady, one of the most pro-trade Republicans and a critic of Trump’s tariffs, recently joined that call.
“While we want China to buy more US goods ... it’s even more important for us to hold China accountable to meeting high international standards on intellectual property rights, subsidization, overcapacity, and the other structural ways in which China distorts the global economy,” he said at a US House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee hearing just days after the tariff delay was announced.
Last week, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, a longtime China trade hawk, took to the Senate floor to urge Trump not to “back down” and take a deal based largely on Chinese purchases of US soybeans and other goods.
On Thursday last week, Schumer tweeted: “Now’s not the time to drop $200B in tariffs just because China’s close to a deal, @realDonald Trump.”
EU members, traditional allies of the US, are still smarting about the steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed on imports into the US last year. The EU is also worried that Trump will impose duties on vehicles. However, the bloc shares many of the same frustrations over China’s technology transfer policies and market access constraints.
“We get complaints every day from our companies,” one European official told reporters in Beijing, noting that despite repeated pledges from the Chinese government to make life easier for foreign companies, little had changed.
EU Commissioner of Trade Cecilia Malmstrom’s assessment of China’s behavior sounds almost like it was written by the US Trade Representative’s office, charging that China has abused global trading rules.
China has “blurred the lines between state and private sector. The state has undue influence,” Malmstrom said in a Washington speech this month. “Intellectual properties of companies are stolen. State subsidies, direct or indirect, are common. And these impacts are felt at home and abroad.”
Malmstrom says that while the US and the EU “agree on the diagnosis,” they differ on tactics, and she argues for a more multilateral approach, citing the EU’s work with the US and Japan to address the issues through reform of WTO rules.
Some worry that Europe could lose out if Washington and Beijing strike a deal to purchase billions of dollars more in products to try to shrink the US goods trade deficit with China.
“If China is buying more from America, then inevitably it will buy less from Europe,” a second European official based in Beijing said, adding that could in particular affect large European multinationals.
However, European diplomats and officials acknowledge a begrudging support for Trump’s goals, even if they are repulsed by his blunt tactics. Many are secretly rooting for his success.
“We are against unilateral measures, but nobody is exactly sorry for China. On content we think he does have a point,” said one EU diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity in Brussels. “Beijing has to understand that without reform, the system could just stop working.”
Trump administration officials insist that he has gotten the message and is holding out for “structural changes” to the US-China relationship, along with an enforcement mechanism that holds China to its pledges.
Clete Willems, a White House trade adviser, told the Georgetown Law School forum that Trump is determined to fix problems with China’s trade relationship that he has railed against for years, long before he ever sought office.
“The notion that he’s just going to suddenly accept a bad deal is totally inaccurate. The president is going to walk away from bad deals,” said Willems, who on Friday last week announced that he is leaving the White House for family reasons.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers