Trade war shows difference in attitude
The Sino-US trade row has officially started. The trade volume involved has fully demonstrated the different attitudes of China and the US toward international rules and the multilateral trading system, which could determine the driving force and destiny of global free trade in the near future.
Obviously, in this trade friction, China has been abiding by international rules and respecting the multilateral trading system, while the US has been not only ignoring and trampling on WTO rules, but also unilaterally provoking trade disputes with WTO members in accordance with its domestic laws.
Besides, US President Donald Trump even threatened to withdraw from the WTO.
This attitude toward the WTO and the global multilateral free trade system reflects the difference in ideas and orientation between China and the US, the two largest economic powers that influence the international economy and decide the future trends of the entire world.
As a matter of fact, I have no bad feelings about Trump personally. In fact, as early as the 2016 US election, among popular Chinese economists, I was optimistic about Trump’s election and have recognized some of his ideas in a series of articles.
His emphasis on rebuilding the foundation of the real economy in the US is rare among US presidents in recent decades.
He values the improvement of the domestic macroeconomic balance, and he advocates reducing intervention in external affairs and concentrating on building the domestic economy. He was among the first to clearly state that economic security is national security and to incorporate economic security into the four pillars of national security. As the president of the US, he emphasized “America First.”
All these are worthy of recognition and even approval.
The real problem is the trend. Willing or not, economic globalization is already a reality that must be faced. In a world where countries are interdependent, only by operating in an open market can a country maximize its national interests.
Looking at the history of Britain and its imperial preferences, we can see this birthplace of industrial revolution and the flag-bearer of free trade over the past 100 years has lost its ambition to maintain global free trade and has retreated to regional economic integration and concessionary arrangement.
It should not be denied that there are quite a few unsatisfactory rules in the current WTO.
China is not willing to take the lead, not interested in trade hegemony, and not going to form two parallel markets. But China has admitted the irreplaceable role of the WTO multilateral free trade system in the sustainable development of the global economy and trade, and we believe this system still has enormous potential for development.
If history assigns the responsibility of free trade standard bearer to China, China will assume this responsibility. Continuing to open up to the outside world is China’s choice. Its origin and direction are not related to the Sino-US trade row.
However, the escalation of the trade friction means that US-funded enterprises cannot enjoy the opportunities created by the expansion of China’s opening during the period of mutual tariff increases.
The escalation of the trade friction means that USfunded enterprises cannot enjoy the opportunities created by the expansion of China’s opening during the period of mutual tariff increases.