China last month announced that its trade surplus with the US last year grew more than 8 percent to US$275.8 billion, about 65 percent of its total trade surplus. The huge trade imbalance is a political headache for US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), fueling worries over a trade war between the world’s two largest economies. Trump has often threatened Beijing with economic sanctions for Chinese protectionist practices that he has said are hurting US industry.
While China’s phenomenal economic growth has escalated geopolitical and commercial disputes between the East and West, provoking negative media coverage, some stereotypes are to blame for a poorly informed public. One persistent criticism is that US and European media outlets connect China’s trade surpluses with a widespread perception that the Chinese market remains closed to outside investors. The assumption is that if the Chinese market is fully liberalized, US and European trade deficits with China would be reduced or even disappear.
The gradual opening of certain business and industrial sectors in China has yet to lead to a boom in US and European exports to the Far East, because longstanding US and European enterprises are less prepared than their Chinese counterparts to make significant capital investments and technological breakthroughs.
Western politicians often confuse the trade imbalance with China’s trade barriers. Trade imbalance is more affected by ordinary consumers’ saving and spending behavior than by a single country’s commercial policies and trade distortions. Whether there is a causal connection between massive Chinese exports and high unemployment in particular sectors has yet to be proven. If there is, the correlation varies from industry to industry.
The practice of referring to the final balance sheet of bilateral trade, and then demanding certain concessions from China, is a political trick aimed at domestic supporters who feel less secure in a competitive global economy. It does not fully reflect the comprehensive scale of international trade. Then there is the failure of government bureaucrats and economists to agree on a commonly shared set of statistics that reflect the reality of bilateral trade flows. It is not enough to rely on the trading figures gathered by customs officials.
Almost in every industrial sector, much production is conducted as a multidirectional exchange between home companies and international subsidiaries. Taiwanese, US, European and Chinese companies manufacture and subcontract in each other’s markets. A comprehensive picture of Chinese sales in the US and Europe would need to consider the huge amount of products manufactured by foreign subsidiaries in China.
Lumping a variety of bilateral trading activities and assuming false linkages are convenient tactics of rhetorical manipulations that Western politicians use to secure electoral gains. This only reinforces common misconceptions about the complexity of the global economy.
How the US-China economic relationship evolves will garner much attention this year. Facing an economic downturn, Xi is determined to pursue a stable environment for China’s export-driven modernization program. As Trump is keen to reduce the US trade deficit, his administration is not just strengthening ties with regional allies, such as Taiwan, Japan and India, but also implementing a strategy of soft containment toward China, aimed at persuading Beijing to adhere to transnational trade regulations while imposing costs on uncooperative Chinese behaviors.
Only time will tell if the US and China will reconcile their differences and negotiate a fair, comprehensive and sensible bilateral trading arrangement.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is a professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS