Call for cooler heads in Sino-US dispute
On Wednesday, the United States published a proposed list of imports from China worth around $50 billion in annual trade it has targeted for additional tariffs. Nine hours later, China announced a list of US goods totaling the same value that will be subject to equivalent tariff hikes, fulfilling its promise of “retaliatory measures of the same strength and the same scope”.
The proposed US list is something worthy of our attention. First, it covers approximately 1,300 products imported from China, including industries such as aerospace, information and communications technology, robotics and machinery. Media outlets in both China and the US describe it as “aiming at technology” and mainly targeting the country’s grand “Made in China 2025” plan. The list also shows a desire to “contain” China’s high-tech industries.
Of course, China’s hightech industries are not the primary cause of the US trade deficit with China, so the containment measures won’t help the US narrow the deficit.
Second, it should also be noted that the list, even if eventually implemented, is far from triggering a total “trade war” as fierce as that seen between the US and Japan in the 1980s — a bitter conflict in which the US required Japan to limit its exports to the US. However, if trade frictions between China and the US continue, there might be more uncertainties in the future and China must be prepared for that.
Third, the proposed tariff rate on the listed Chinese products is 25 percent, which is in accordance with US domestic laws, but not international treaties. In other words, for the US, its own domestic laws come before the international treaties that it has signed and ratified. Actually, the US has been adopting such a principle since the 1970s by negotiating with the economies that export to it.
That principle has been increasingly more evident since Donald Trump took office, which in turn deals a heavy blow to the liberal global trade order. China is not the only victim of this strategy. Many alliances that the US enjoys with European countries and other partners have suffered.
Last but not least, the US officials that drafted the proposed list claim to be “minimizing” its negative effects upon US consumers by seeking substitutes of products exported from China.
The problem is, it is hardly possible to find substitutes for all the Chinese products exported to the US, and US consumers are likely to suffer from their government’s newly proposed tariffs. In a word, the US move hurts both the Chinese and US populations, and we hope Washington can reconsider the measures before it is too late.