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."
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS