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."
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS