The board of China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) had one thing right: Its bid to buy a US oil company was killed by political opposition.
Lawmakers in Congress, with tacit support from the Bush administration, managed to raise enough objections to CNOOC's bid for Unocal to make most investors doubt that the deal would ever pass muster in Washington.
But now that CNOOC has decided to abandon its bid, policy analysts and lawmakers said, the tensions between the US and China that it reflected are not expected to diminish. Indeed, they may well intensify in the months ahead.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
"I think a very serious economic clash is probably in the offing this fall," said C. Fred Bergsten, head of the Institute for International Economics, a policy research organization in Washington.
Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat who was one of the sharpest critics of the Chinese attempt to buy Unocal, argued that the withdrawal "does not change the fact that there are policy questions that have to be answered. When a Chinese government-controlled company tries to buy an American oil company, is it a free-market transaction? The answer is no."
Many economists, while not necessarily disputing that claim, would still say that the political reaction was far out of proportion to the case.
They are particularly dubious about arguments that CNOOC's bid would have jeopardized national security, noting that oil is a globally traded commodity and that Unocal's reserves contributed only about 1 percent of US oil consumption.
But the political acrimony in the US toward China has been rising on several fronts, and the uproar over CNOOC may have been a way to vent other grudges.
"There was nothing wrong with CNOOC taking over Unocal, and for that reason I didn't oppose the merger," said Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, a leading critic of China's currency and trade practices.
"But the furor over China treating American companies and workers unfairly up and down the line is real. And while it led to an incorrect result in this case, it must be dealt with," he said.
Industry analysts and executives predicted on Tuesday that the uproar over CNOOC was unlikely to be the last of its type.
"I don't think this is a one-time deal," said Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers.
Vargo noted that political leaders became anxious about similar spending sprees by oil-exporting countries in the early 1970s and by Japan in the 1980s.
"China is sitting on US$700 billion in foreign reserves and has a lot of money," he said. "They're going to start buying things around the world."
Economic tensions with China are escalating on a number of fronts.
Less than two weeks ago, China attempted to relieve one major source of conflict by announcing that it would stop fixing its currency to the dollar at a rate that had been set in concrete for years. That was welcome news to US officials, who had complained for two years that China's currency was artificially undervalued and creating an unfair trade advantage for Chinese exports.
But the tensions on that issue are already reviving. When Chinese leaders announced last week that they were not necessarily raising the value of their currency by more than 2.1 percent, Schumer and his allies warned that China would have to do more or they would threaten the country with steep tariffs.
By withdrawing on Unocal, Bergsten said, CNOOC may have removed one source of major conflict that could have dragged on for months.
But the tensions over Chinese corporate takeovers is likely to persist.
Patrick Mulloy, a member of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan advisory panel created by Congress, said CNOOC's withdrawal would force US policy makers to look at issues posed by government-owned companies.
"This is good news," Mulloy said of CNOOC's decision. "Don't call this a commercial transaction when it's not a commercial transaction. This is a government-controlled company. There was no ability for an American company to buy CNOOC; there was no reciprocity."
The political uproar began almost immediately. On June 30, the House of Representatives passed two contradictory resolutions -- one that demanded a "thorough review" of the potential dangers to national security, and a second that would have flatly prohibited the Treasury Department from recommending approval.
Those did not become law. But last week, House and Senate conferees added an amendment to the energy bill, which did pass both chambers, that ordered the Energy Department to conduct a four-month review of the deal before reaching a decision.
The amendment would have delayed any government decision by about seven weeks, increasing shareholder uncertainty over whether a CNOOC takeover would win approval.
The prospect of political hostility toward Chinese corporate takeovers worries many trade specialists, who fear it would encourage China and other countries to discriminate against US investors.
"The United States has argued persistently over the course of two decades that governments should not interfere with the ability of companies to invest," said Charlene Barshefsky, who served as US trade representative under president Bill Clinton.
"The concern I have is not only about the severe damage this does to the strength of our position abroad, but about the taking of mirror actions by other countries -- and not only China," she said.
Philip Swagel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former chief of staff on President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said Americans were in danger of losing perspective, thinking that the economic competition between nations should somehow be seen in military terms.
Swagel pointed out that two US banks are interested in buying stakes in state-owned banks in China. While those bids have been encouraged by Beijing, it is doubtful that Washington would be so inviting of similar deals, particularly if they involved changes in control.
"Imagine if a Chinese company tried to take over Citigroup," Swagel said. "It would go to Defcon 5 here."
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS