Home>Top Issues

He Weiwen: China, US should look beyond trade imbalance

Thursday,Aug 10, 2017

From: China.org.cn

 

At the China-U.S. Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED) held in Washington on July 19, the huge U.S. trade deficit with China is of great concern to the U.S. side. [File photo]

At the China-U.S. Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED) held in Washington on July 19, the huge U.S. trade deficit with China was of great concern to the U.S. side.

Although the two countries had reached a consensus on narrowing the gap, and Beijing had agreed to expand imports to help solve the problem, the economic dialogue failed to solve the trade imbalance as Washington had wished.

Why was the dialogue unable to redress the trade imbalance? It’s because the current situation is caused by the United States’ position in the global supply chain, and it’s beyond the two countries’ power to change it.

Of all trade sectors in 2016, the United States saw the largest deficit in the category of computers and electronics, which was over $170 billion, accounting for 24 percent of the U.S. total. Under this category, the deficit with China was $144 billion.

Yet, the goods the United States bought from China involved works of many other countries and regions. For instance, the iPad China exported to the United States involved designs, manufacturing equipment and spare parts contributed by Japan, South Korea, China’s Taiwan, Germany, France and even the United States itself.

Therefore, it’s unrealistic to think that only China and the United States can solve the problem. To change the whole situation, the United States has to change itself first.

Past experience has demonstrated that trade policies alone cannot redress the trade imbalance. Therefore, in the following dialogues, the two sides shouldn’t take it as the focus of negotiation. The pursuit is outdated, and doesn’t suit the current international division of labor.

The U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross attributed the U.S. trade deficit with China to the latter’s subsidies and so-called “unfair play.” But who is practicing unfair play? What practice should be determined as unfair play?

Over the past two decades, the World Trade Organization (WTO) handled 525 trade disputes. Among them, China had 39 complaints, while the United States was complained about in 130 cases, more than triple that of China, accounting for a quarter of the total complaints.

In these cases, the WTO received complaints that the United States had violated WTO rules by providing unfair subsidies, dumping goods at prices below costs, and abusing policy instruments to impose trade bans. It shows that the United States is responsible for the largest number of unfair play cases in the world.

In the near future, the Trump administration is very likely to impose trade restrictions on steel. But will it ensure fair play?

There was a similar case during President Obama’s administration. The U.S. Commerce Department levied massive anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties on China’s cold-rolled flat steel. The duties Washington imposed added up to 522 percent. It pushed the price of the Chinese products up to more than $3,000 per metric ton, several times higher than similar U.S. products. Is that what Washington means by “fair play?”

Washington failed to achieve its goal at the economic dialogue. That’s because it set the goal on narrowing the trade deficit and tried to put the blame of “unfair play” onto China. The problem lies in Washington’s wrong goal and wrong solution, not the dialogue mechanism.

To narrow the deficit, Washington needs to thoroughly study its industrial structure and its position in the global value chain.

In 2016, the United States had a huge deficit in the category of computers and electronics, and in autos and auto parts. Its huge demand for these two categories was propelled by the sudden growth of its domestic industries. Therefore, it needs to identify its competitiveness in the two sectors, and find out ways to cooperate with others, thus to maximize profits. Regarding China, it needs to cooperate with the latter to explore other markets.

China-U.S. economic cooperation should concentrate on higher level issues with broader prospects. Stable mechanisms should be established to promote mutually-beneficial cooperation ranging in all areas, such as trade, investment, R&D, finance, services, IP protection, law, culture, tourism and third-party markets.

The two sides have to manage their differences, and solve their conflicts in a timely manner to explore new methods of cooperation. Long-term, sound communications will bring benefits to both sides and their citizens.

 

About Author
He Weiwen,a senior fellow at Center for China and Globalization (CCG).


 

 

From China.org.cn, 2017-8-4

 

 

  • Wang Huiyao: China reforms immigration rules to attract talents

    China Streamlines the application procedures and regulations for the permanent resident cards, encourage highly qualified individuals to move to the country in 2015. Now the China ministry of Public Security total issued 1576 permanent resident cards to foreigners in 2016 as up163% over previous year (600 in 2015).

  • 【CGTN】Expert: BRI needs global governance mechanism

    At the opening ceremony of the Boao Forum for Asia annual conference, Chinese President Xi Jinping in his keynote speech vowed to “make the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) the broadest platform for international cooperation.”

  • New social classes get bureau

    New social classes get bureau From: Global Times Tweet   New groups highly mobile, scattered and active thinkers China announced Monday it has established a new bureau to unite new social classes, including people working in new media, a move…

  • Battle for the brightest

    The university is not alone in seeking young talents, though its offer is particularly generous. In recent years, an increasing number of universities in China have adopted such methods to lure young talents studying or working overseas.

  • China should focus on mid- to long-term effects with the UK

    The stunning UK referendum result to leave the EU is widely considered to be a black swan event that nobody saw coming.