Archive for the Protectionist Trade War with China Category

“US faces another debacle on Pacific economic treaty” – TPP, fake free trade pact, in trouble [World Socialist Website]

Posted in Anti-China propaganda exposure, Australia, Canada, Capitalism crisis early 21st century, Chile, China, China-bashing, Economic crisis & decline, Economy, Encirclement of China, EU, European Union, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Media cover-up, Mexico, New Zealand, Obama, Peru, Protectionist Trade War with China, Singapore, south Korea, U.K., US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Vietnam on April 5, 2015 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By Mike Head
4 April 2015

Having suffered a decisive defeat in its efforts to block other countries from joining the new China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the US government faces mounting difficulties with regard to its most far-reaching move to dominate the Asia-Pacific region: the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

In Hawaii last month, the latest round of five-year-long TPP talks between the 12 governments involved broke up without any further agreement. For the third year in a row, the White House’s deadline for a final deal looks set to be breached in 2015.

Significantly, the main stumbling block this time was reportedly not ongoing differences between the US and Japan over auto and agricultural markets, but doubts over President Barack Obama’s capacity to get congressional approval for the pact.

Falsely presented as a “free trade” deal, the TPP is the opposite. It is aimed at creating a vast US-controlled economic bloc. In return for favoured access to the US market, which is still the largest in the world, the TPP requires its members to scrap all legal, regulatory and government impediments to American investment and corporate operations.

The TPP is an essential component of Washington’s military and strategic “pivot” to Asia, aimed at establishing unchallenged hegemony over the region, including China, which has thus far been excluded from the treaty. The “partnership” seeks to restructure every aspect of economic and social life across the Asia-Pacific in the interests of Wall Street finance capital and the largest US corporations, particularly the IT, pharmaceutical and media conglomerates.

A similar drive is underway to incorporate the European Union into a Transatlantic Trade and I nvestment Partnership (TTIP) bloc. Like the TPP, the European treaty is being negotiated behind the backs of the international working class amid tight secrecy, with hundreds of the world’s largest corporations taking part.

Obama has resorted to blatant anti-Chinese rhetoric in a bid to overcome opposition to aspects of the TPP from sections of the Democratic and Republican congressional leaderships. In one recent interview, the US president declared: “If we don’t write the rules out there, China’s going to write the rules and the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged.”

Washington is concerned that other imperialist powers, such as Germany, Britain and Japan, could strengthen their positions in China at the expense of the US unless America “writes the rules” for world trade in the 21st century.

Global financial commentators are drawing attention to what is at stake. Under the headline, “Round two in America’s battle for Asian influence,” David Pilling wrote in the London-based Financial Times on April 1: “Washington’s attempt to lead a boycott of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank ended in farce after Britain broke ranks and other nations from Germany to South Korea fell over themselves to join. If round one was a defeat for America, round two hangs in the balance.”

Pilling noted that the TPP’s exclusion of China, on the grounds that its economy was state-owned and centrally planned, was obviously concocted. “In a peculiar display of diplomatic contortion,” he wrote, “Vietnam — a country whose economy is as centrally planned and as rigged [sic] as the best of them — is somehow considered fit for entry.”

The Financial Times Asia editor pointedly added that the TPP was “just as likely to annoy America’s allies in the region as reassure them” because of its intrusive demands, which include the dismantling of state-owned enterprises, tendering restrictions, financial regulations, data protection rules and intellectual property laws.

Washington’s aggressive drive to establish the TPP and TTIP economic blocs marks a reversal of its post-World War II role, when the ascendancy of American industry permitted it to champion the reconstruction of its Japanese and European rivals, albeit always for its own benefit, including via the expansion of markets for its exports.

Today, amid the ongoing decline of US industry, its ruling elite depends increasingly on the parasitic activities of Wall Street, the exploitation of patents by Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the drug companies, and contracts for the supply of military hardware. These rapacious interests will most directly benefit from the TPP.

Many details remain secret, but pro-TPP lobbying efforts highlight the anticipated profit bonanzas. Mireya Solis of the Brookings Institution think tank stressed advantages such as “internationalisation of financial services, protection of intellectual property and governance of the Internet economy.”

US technology firms would benefit from a ban on requiring companies to house customers’ data within a specific country. “If we’re going to serve the customer of Malaysia from, say, a data center in Singapore, the data has to be able to move back and forth between those two countries,” Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, told the Wall Street Journal.

Central to the treaty are punitive Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) clauses, which permit transnationals to sue governments for losses allegedly caused by official policy decisions. WikiLeaks last month published a chapter of the TPP treaty showing that firms could bypass a country’s courts to obtain damages for changes in “environmental, health or other regulatory objectives.”

Apart from the US and Japan — the two biggest partners by far — the other TPP participants are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The willingness of many of these countries to make the required concessions to the US has been undermined by Obama’s failure to secure support for a Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill so that he can sign the TPP and then have it ratified by Congress with a single “yes” or “no” vote. Without TPA, Congress could force amendments to the negotiated pact, effectively rendering the agreement void.

According to a Japan Times report: “Several negotiating partners, including Canada and Japan, have publicly stated they will not put their final negotiating positions on the table until Congress grants TPA for the Obama administration. With a presidential election looming in the United States, further delay creates a real risk of TPP being delayed until 2017.”

Much of the US congressional resistance is bound up with protectionist lobbies, based on national-based industries and their trade unions. In response, the Obama administration is ramping up a campaign that explicitly spells out the expected benefits to corporate America.

On March 30, the White House published letters from former senior economic officials, including 10 ex-commerce secretaries representing every administration, Democratic and Republican, since 1973, urging congressional leaders to give Obama TPA authority.

The commerce secretaries stated: “Once completed, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will give the United States free trade arrangements with 65 percent of global GDP and give our businesses preferential access to a large base of new potential customers.”

This demand for “preferential access” by US imperialism threatens to break up the world economy into the kind of rival blocs that preceded World War I and World War II.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

US preparations for cyber war against China [World Socialist Website]

Posted in Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Assassination, Australia, Corporate Media Critique, India, Internet Global Hegemony, Iran, Israel, Japan, Myanmar, National Security Agency / NSA, New York Times lie, Obama, Pentagon, Philippines, Protectionist Trade War with China, south Korea, US imperialism, USA, Vietnam on February 24, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

23 February 2013

The Obama administration, working hand-in-hand with the American media, has opened up a new front in its aggressive campaign against China. A slew of articles, most notably in the New York Times, has appeared over the past week purportedly exposing the involvement of the Chinese military in hacking US corporations and hinting at the menace of cyber warfare to vital American infrastructure such as the electricity grid.

The Times article on Tuesday based itself on the unsubstantiated and self-serving claims of a report prepared by cyber-security company Mandiant alleging that a Chinese military unit based in Shanghai had been responsible for sophisticated cyber-attacks in the US. (See: “US uses hacking allegations to escalate threats against China”). The rest of the media in the US and internationally followed suit, with articles replete with comments from analysts, think tanks and administration officials past and present about the “Chinese cyber threat”, all but ignoring the emphatic denials by China’s foreign and defence ministries.

This set the stage for the release on Wednesday of Obama’s “Administration Strategy on Mitigation of Theft of US Trade Secrets,” which, while not formally naming China, cited numerous examples of alleged Chinese cyber espionage. In broad terms, the document laid out the US response, including “sustained and coordinated diplomatic pressure” on offending countries and the implied threat of economic retaliation via “trade policy tools.”

US Attorney General Eric Holder warned of “a significant and steadily increasing threat to America’s economy and national security interests.” Deputy Secretary of State Robert Hormats declared that the US had “repeatedly raised our concerns about trade secret theft by any means at the highest levels with senior Chinese officials.”

The demonisation of China as a global cyber threat follows a well-established modus operandi: it is aimed at whipping up a public climate of fear and hysteria in preparation for new acts of aggression—this time in the sphere of cyber warfare. Since coming to office in 2009, Obama has launched a broad economic and strategic offensive aimed at weakening and isolating China and reinforcing US global dominance, especially in Asia.

Accusations of Chinese cyber theft dovetail with the Obama administration’s economic thrust into Asia through its Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)—a new multilateral trade agreement aimed at boosting US trade at China’s expense. The protection of “intellectual property rights” is a central component of the TPP, as the profits of American corporations rest heavily on their monopoly over markets via brand names and technology. Allegations of cyber espionage will become the pretext for new trade war measures against China.

However, the more sinister aspect of the anti-Chinese propaganda is the US preparation of war against China. Under the banner of its “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration has put in train a far-reaching diplomatic and strategic offensive aimed at strengthening existing military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand, forging closer strategic partnerships and ties, especially with India and Vietnam, and undermining close Chinese relations with countries like Burma and Sri Lanka.

Obama’s “pivot to Asia” has already resulted in a dangerous escalation of maritime disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea as Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam, encouraged by the US, have pressed their territorial claims against China. The focus on these strategic waters is not accidental, as they encompass the shipping lanes on which China relies to import raw materials and energy from the Middle East and Africa. The US is establishing new military basing arrangements in Australia, South East Asia and elsewhere in the region to ensure it has the ability to choke off China’s vital supplies in the event of a confrontation or war.

The Pentagon regards cyber warfare as a vital component of the huge American war machine and has devoted considerable resources towards its development, especially under the Obama administration. In May 2010, the Pentagon set up its new US Cyber Command headed by General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency (NSA), drawing on the already massive cyber resources of the NSA and the American military.

US accusations of Chinese cyber espionage are utterly hypocritical. The NSA, among other US agencies, has been engaged in electronic spying and hacking into foreign computer systems and networks around the world on a vast scale. Undoubtedly, China is at the top of the list of prime targets. The Chinese Foreign Ministry claimed this week that at least 14 million computers in China were hacked by 73,000 overseas-based users last year, including many cyber attacks on the Chinese Defence Ministry.

The US has already engaged in aggressive, illegal acts of cyber sabotage against Iran’s nuclear facilities and infrastructure. Together with Israel, it infected the electronic controllers of the gas centrifuges used in Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant with the Stuxnet worm, causing hundreds to spin out of control and self-destruct. This criminal activity took place alongside more traditional forms—the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and other acts of sabotage by Israel.

It is inconceivable that the Pentagon’s cyber capacities are being deployed for purely defensive purposes against the “Chinese threat.” Indeed, in taking over as cyber warfare chief in 2010, General Alexander outlined his credo to the House Armed Services subcommittee. After declaring that China was viewed as responsible for “a great many attacks on Western infrastructure,” he added that if the US were subject to an organised attack, “I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks.”

Last August, the US Air Force issued what was described by the New York Times as “a bluntly worded solicitation for papers advising it on ‘cyberspace warfare attack capabilities,’ including weapons to ‘destroy, deny, deceive, corrupt or usurp’ an enemy’s computer networks and other hi-tech targets. The same article referred to the Pentagon’s research arm, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, hosting a gathering of private contractors wanting to participate in “Plan X”—the development of “revolutionary technologies for understanding, planning and managing cyber warfare.”

This week’s propaganda about the “Chinese cyber threat” provides the justifications for stepping up the already advanced US preparations for conducting cyber-attacks on Chinese military and civilian targets. Amid the rising tensions between the US and China produced by Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, reckless American actions in the sphere of cyber warfare only compound the danger of open military confrontation between the two powers.

Peter Symonds

Article link:

Also see: “US uses hacking allegations to escalate threats against China” [World Socialist Web Site] –

“US looking for excuses for ‘cyber army’ expansion” – New York Times alleges hacking by China [People’s Daily]

Posted in Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Capitalist media double standard, China, Corporate Media Critique, Media smear campaign, New York Times lie, Protectionist Trade War with China, Psychological warfare, Sinophobia, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, vs. Google, Yellow Peril myth on February 5, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

February 05, 2013

The United States is once again claiming to have been attacked by Chinese hackers. This time, the alleged “victim” is Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
In recent years, there have been quite many “victims” that claimed to have been attacked by “Chinese hackers”: Google, arms dealers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NASA… In November last year, subordinate departments of the U.S. Congress even issued an annual report saying China has become the Internet world’s most threatening country.
However, while the United States kept on “flattering” the “Chinese hackers” in such manner, it always seemed vague on presenting evidence. This time, the New York Times and Dow Jones & Company are still making the accusations based on similar grounds as usual – that the IP address of the attacking source is from China.
People with a little understanding of network knowledge would know that attacks of hackers are transnational and hidden in nature, and therefore the IP address cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to confirm the source of the hackers.
National security has become the U.S.’ preferred “fig leaf” to cover the implementation of trade protection and economic sanctions, the ultimate excuse for it to exaggerate the Chinese threat theory on a global scale.

Clearly, by hyping “Chinese hackers”, it can please the people at home, attract political attention, as well as impose more technical restrictions on China.

However, it is a noteworthy fact that, while rendering the “China’s Internet threats”, the United States is also rapidly expanding its network security forces. Just a few days before Dow Jones & Company accused China, media disclosed the news that the United States was going to expand its network security force by five-fold.

There are throngs of commercial spies and network hackers on the Internet, and any national department or enterprise is possible to suffer attacks. Relevant data show that China is one of the countries that suffer most severe cyber attacks in the world. Although from the technical view, a considerable number of attacks are from the U.S. network, China has never made hasty inference or reckless conclusion about the attacking source.

As a major power of the Internet, China explicitly prohibits hacker attacks in the law [sic], severely cracks down on online hacking, and has been participating in global exchanges and cooperation in the field of network security in a constructive manner. In the age of globalized and information-based economy, information security has become a global issue. International cooperation is indispensable in countering hackers. Groundless slander against other countries and the implementation of double standards on Internet governance is not the proper behavior of a responsible big country.

Read the Chinese version at: 美国为“网军”扩编找借口, [see original article for that link]
Source: People’s Daily Overseas Edition, Author: Zhang Yixuan

Article link:

Will China and U.S. fall into limited confrontation? [People’s Daily]

Posted in Bourgeois parliamentary democracy, Obama, Pew Research Center, Protectionist Trade War with China, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War on November 2, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

October 25, 2012

Economy [sic] has always been a major topic for U.S. presidential elections, particularly so for this year’s election. China has been blamed for U.S. economic problems more times than in any other of the six presidential races after the Cold War.

The rising protectionism in the United States is the biggest obstacle to the establishment of fair China-U.S. trade and economic relations. For example, the United States has banned exports of high-tech and dual-use products to China, exacerbating bilateral trade imbalance.

The 2012 U.S. presidential race has three noteworthy points indicating that no matter who is elected president, the country is highly likely to continue its confrontational economic and trade policy toward China.

First, protectionism may take bigger part in the trade policy of the United States no matter who wins the presidential election. Exports account for 30 percent of China’s gross domestic product (GDP), and 15 percent of that of the United States. As China is much more dependent on exports than the United States, the White House is highly likely to continue tough trade policies against China.

Second, the U.S. government and public are most concerned about China’s growing economic strength when it comes to China-U.S. relations. A poll on China policies published by Pew Research Center on Sept. 18 showed that more than 70 percent of Americans consider the large amount of American debts held by China, the U.S. trade deficit with China, and U.S. investment in China to be the most worrying problems.

Republicans and Democrats are equally concerned about China, but 17 percent more Republicans are concerned about China-U.S. economic and trade relations than Democrats…

…Third, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have seldom talked about diplomatic, military, and strategic policies toward China during their presidential debates.

Traditional diplomatic, human rights, and security issues facing China-U.S. relations have been downplayed, indicating that the Republican and Democratic parties have reached consensus on ways of handling these controversial issues, and on continuing tough security policy against China.

It is highly likely for a U.S. government that belittles cooperation with China in diplomatic and strategic fields to favor economic and trade confrontation with China, and to even prepare for limited trade and security confrontation with China.

Read the Chinese version: 美国大选后,中美会局部对抗吗?[access link through link provided below]; Source: Global Times; Author: Zhu Feng

Article link:

China’s state-owned firms not synonym of ‘non-market’ entity [People’s Daily]

Posted in Australia, China, China-bashing, Protectionist Trade War with China, Reform and opening up, USA on April 26, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By Zhong Sheng (People’s Daily)
April 11, 2012

Edited and translated by People’s Daily Online

Recently, some countries have raised a tide of trying to resist products made in China.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing, taking Chinese enterprises’ participation in the construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as an excuse, is requiring the U.S. Congress to make a law to strengthen “purchasing products made in the United States.”

Australia believes that the Huawei Technologies Company is connected with the Chinese government and therefore has refused it to participate in the bidding for constructing the National Broadband Network of Australia.

Not long ago, the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission also held a public hearing on Chinese enterprises and state-owned holding enterprises, which took “how the United States should make corresponding laws to deal with the pressure brought by Chinese enterprises to the United States” as the theme.

All these events reflect a new character of some Western countries’ measures of dealing with trade frictions with China: Western countries are more and more targeting Chinese enterprises while protecting their own interests.

But China is not the only country with state-owned enterprises.

According to statistics, more than 70 percent of the world’s fossil oil resources are controlled by state-owned enterprises of various countries.

It is obviously not reasonable to refuse Chinese enterprises in the name of the so-called “non-market.”

Since the start of China’s Reform and Opening-up, especially in the 10 years after China joined the WTO, Chinese enterprises have carried out in-depth reforms and connected with the market in all aspects. Chinese enterprises have completed the transformation of diversification, many of them have been listed, and some even have been listed in the United States. Anyone who has studied China’s reform a little bit should not ignore this fundamental fact.

For the people who advocate repelling Chinese enterprises, their reason is that Chinese enterprises carry out monopolies. Large-scale state-owned enterprises of China, especially the central enterprises, are actually leaders of many realms in China’s economic development. However, China does not encourage monopolization of its central enterprises and always tries hard to guarantee the fairness of enterprise competitions. Facing the Antimonopoly Law, the state-owned enterprises of China do not have any privilege.

One thing that must be pointed out is that Western countries actually have obtained benefits and shared the fruit while they were dealing with state-owned enterprises of China in recent years…

“Burning the bridge after crossing the river” is not a right thing to do for developing a healthy economic and trade relationship.

Creating difficulties to stop Chinese enterprises from entering markets of other countries actually is a kind of investment and trade protection. It does not accord with the “freedom of trade” spirit and also goes against the general trend of economic globalization.

Read the Chinese version at

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

Everyone loses when US candidates bash China [People’s Daily]

Posted in Black propaganda, Bourgeois parliamentary democracy, China, China-bashing, China-US relations, Economic crisis & decline, Obama, Protectionist Trade War with China, Sinophobia, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR on December 19, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By Wen Xian (People’s Daily Overseas Edition)

Dec. 6, 2011

Edited and Translated by People’s Daily Online

On Nov. 30, the Washington Post published a commentary titled “The Wrong Way to Talk about China” by Eugene Robinson, a senior foreign correspondent and columnist for the newspaper who recently made his first visit to China.

He said that the subtleties and complexities of any society are difficult to grasp. “The way many U.S. politicians talk about China is completely wrong,” and much of the campaign rhetoric Americans are hearing about China is “unrealistic, dishonest or just dumb.”

Robinson’s judgment on China through his first-hand experience is particularly objective, rational and reasonable amid the escalating China-bashing in Washington’s political circles.

Various political ads featuring exaggeration, conspiracy, deception and allurement often emerge during the U.S. presidential elections. Given the sluggish U.S. economy, China has unsurprisingly become a hot topic of debate in the elections.

China’s rapid economic development and the United States’ worries over a possible recession have led to a rare phenomenon that all the Republican presidential candidates must look tough on China, and the incumbent president apparently has decided to be tougher than opponents on China-related issues.

The former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney is regarded as a competitive presidential candidate of the Republican Party, but he often claims that China “steals” technologies from the United States and “invades” the U.S. computers.

He said that if he is elected to be the president, he will define China as a currency manipulator country and increase taxes on products imported from China on the first day he takes office in the White House.

Another presidential candidate of the Republican Country, Texas Governor Rick Perry, is also actively attacking China and says China is like the former Soviet Union.

The Republican speeches designed to curry favor with the public have objectively put high pressure on Obama, who is seeking a second four-year term. Therefore, some political advisers on Obama’s side also keep pressuring him, saying that he must show a tougher stance towards China at the current moment.

A senator of the Democratic Party from Ohio Sherrod Brown said that while talking about the employment and economy, you have to talk about China, and if President Obama does not define China as an exchange rate manipulator country or does not strengthen law enforcement in trade, he will lose votes.

When I interviewed the White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes face to face, Rhodes denied that the United States’ policy change toward China is connected with its domestic politics, instead he quoted Obama’s words and said that China’s progress is slow regarding issues that America is concerned about, such as the exchange rate, intellectual property right and local innovation issues.

It is obvious that such vicious arguments in which China is frequently blamed as the “root of unemployment” has a negative impact on the American people. A public opinion poll conducted by the Columbia Broadcasting System [CBS?] recently shows that as many as 61 percent of respondents believe that China is “generally bad.”

Fortunately, there are some discerning Americans. During my private discussions with all walks of life in the country, almost everyone believed that the deteriorating attitude of the U.S. government toward China is closely related to the domestic politics, namely, the coming 2012 presidential election.

Some U.S. media have pointed out that aggressive speeches may attract public support during the election campaign but will eventually get burned. The intensifying anti-Chinese sentiment has brought damage to China-U.S. relations. No matter who wins the 2012 U.S. presidential election in the end, the winner will pay the price for his extreme speech and have to set out to repair China-U.S. relations eventually.

Mitt Romney recently said, “We can’t just sit back and let China run all over us… People say, ‘well you’ll start starting a trade war.’ There’s one going on right now, folks!” Robinson said after citing these words that he has had a completely different experience in China, and believes that China and the United States are interdependent as the two largest economies in the world and it is unwise to say one country “runs all over” other countries.

Having figured out what is behind the escalated anti-Chinese argument, we ought to watch the performance of American politicians from a distance without anxiety. It is most important for us Chinese to share common goals, eliminate all interferences, including U.S. politicians’ performances and do everything possible to seek development. This is the top priority for China.

Article link:

China warns US over recession [Global Times]

Posted in China, China-bashing, China-US relations, Early 21st Century global capitalist financial crisis' US origins, Economic crisis & decline, Germany, Japan, Protectionist Trade War with China, US imperialism, USA, Yuan appreciation on November 28, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Nov. 22, 2011

by Zhu Shanshan

Vice Premier Wang Qishan addressed US concerns over bilateral trade on Monday, warning that an unbalanced recovery would be better than a balanced recession given the current gloomy world economy.

Speaking at the annual US-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, Wang said that stable development between the two sides would bring positive contributions to the world, and that Beijing is ready to conduct closer and broader economic cooperation with Washington.

“One thing that we can be certain of, among all the uncertainties, is that the global recession caused by the international financial crisis will be chronic,” Wang said, adding that recovery will remain the primary task and that the two sides should form a solid partnership to face the challenges.

In response to mounting US pressure over yuan appreciation and other trade issues, the vice premier, who oversees China’s financial sector, urged Washington to relax controls on high-tech exports, avoid the abuse of trade remedies, recognize China’s market economy status and give equal treatment to Chinese companies that invest in the US.

Zhou Dunren, a deputy director of the Shanghai Pudong Institute for the US Economy, said Wang’s remarks were a warning to US officials that by imposing unreasonable duties on Chinese goods or forcing the yuan to appreciate, Washington might achieve its goal of reducing its trade deficit but in so doing harm both economies and the global recovery.

The vice premier’s statement came after US Commerce Secretary John Bryson, who co-chaired the JCCT with Wang, said Sunday that “many in the US, including the business community and Congress, are moving toward a more negative view” on the bilateral trading relationship.

Bryson also repeated US President Barack Obama’s “frustration” with China’s trade policy.

Washington has been accusing Beijing of deliberately keeping the yuan’s value low to gain a trade surplus, which harms employment in the US. However, China rejects such accusations and blames the US for setting up trade barriers.

According to the US Census Bureau, by the end of September, US trade in goods with China stood at a deficit of $217 billion, about $15 billion higher than the same period last year.

Meanwhile, analysts predict China’s economy is heading toward a soft landing due to a drop in exports and a tightened monetary policy to soak up liquidity. The government is also adopting measures to encourage domestic consumption.

China’s economic expansion has shown signs of a slowdown with GDP growth down to 9.1 percent in the third quarter from 9.5 percent and 9.7 percent in the first and second quarters respectively.

Zhao Zhongxiu, the dean of the School of International Trade and Economics under the University of International Business and Economics, noted that the world should not look to China as a savior because it cannot absorb all their exports.

“Chinese policymakers should strike a balance between growth and economic restructuring, given that we have already witnessed a slowdown in GDP growth. The restructuring should not come at the price of growth, and vice versa,” Zhao told the Global Times.

He noted that the high trade deficit has been a chronic structural problem for the US, and that Washington has made Japan and Germany scapegoats for the problem in the past.

Meanwhile, after the JCCT meeting, the two sides signed five economic and trade agreements related to intellectual property rights, technology, trade statistics, energy and business cooperation.

According to the agreements, foreign automakers are allowed to invest in the green vehicle market without transferring their technology to Chinese enterprises or establishing a local brand.

Bryson told reporters on Monday that China had confirmed that, in the coming five years, it plans to invest $1.7 trillion in “strategic sectors,” such as biotechnology, new-generation information technology, energy-saving and environmentally friendly technologies.

Bryson added that Wang said US and other firms would enjoy the same opportunities as Chinese firms to help these sectors grow.

“We had a very good dialogue on China’s strategic emerging industries, and we welcome China’s commitment that it will create a fair and level playing field for US companies in those industries,” Bryson said.

“Washington has complained that US companies were at a disadvantage while competing with indigenous companies in government procurement. By promising a level playing ground, Beijing is reassuring foreign businesses,” Zhou said.

He noted that if the US exports advanced technologies in these sectors to China, the trade imbalance between the two sides could be eased.

Yang Jingjie and agencies contributed to this story

Article link: