Trade War with China

now I read
21:21, 02-Mar-2019
Canada should find a smart solution for Meng's case

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On March 1, the Canadian government announced that it would approve the extradition hearing of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou and officially launch the extradition procedure. This decision marks a new phase in the Meng Wanzhou incident, which once again attracted the attention of global media.

Previously, the Canadian government postponed the extradition hearing from January to early March in order to await the outcome of the Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. One month later, after key progress has been made in the negotiation, the Canadian government is still determined to follow through with the extradition process, which is surprising.

The Meng Wanzhou incident is one of the most complicated international political events in recent years. Canada's use of the U.S.-Canada Extradition Agreement to arrest Meng in Canada is an important reason for it being difficult to resolve. In the past month, China has explained and negotiated with the U.S. and Canada through various channels, demanding that the U.S. withdraw the arrest warrant and extradition request for Meng and ask the Canadian side to release Meng. However, the U.S. and Canada do not seem to be willing to do so.

After Canada announced the launch of the extradition process, the Canadian government is clearly subject to greater pressure than ever before. This pressure comes from the three sides of China, the United States and Canadians. It is difficult for Canada to make choices that satisfy all parties. The initiation of the extradition process does not necessarily mean extradition.

In the process, the Canadian Judiciary will continue to listen to Meng's defense, consider the social and political implications of extradition, and determine whether extradition complies with Canadian laws and procedures. The international community will also judge Canada's judicial independence and its ability to handle such complex international issues from the process of the trial and the final outcome. Therefore, the Canadian government should thoroughly consider the many interests involved in this incident and find a smart rather than a mechanical solution.

Before making a decision, the Canadian government should consider some of the changes that have occurred in the last month.

First, within one month, China-U.S. economic and trade negotiations have made crucial progress. It is expected that China and the U.S. will reach an agreement before the summer to end the one-year tariff war. The Meng incident coincides with the Sino-U.S. trade negotiations, and is widely regarded as one of the U.S. bargaining chips. Now, once China and the U.S. reach an agreement, the nature of the Meng incident will change.

If Canada still insists on extradition of Meng to the U.S. for trial, it will bring irreparable harm to China-Canada relations and may become the primary factor for undermining Sino-U.S. negotiations.

Second, President Trump once again revealed that Meng and Huawei may be included in the Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. The premise of the implementation of the extradition agreement is that the object of extradition does violate the law. The agreement cannot be used to persecute a citizen of another country for political reasons or to become a diplomatic tool.

Trump's statement actually proves that the Meng incident is not a purely judicial case, but has political motives. This is what the Canadian side needs to fully consider. Previously, the Canadian Minister of Justice revealed that the political factors of Meng would be fully considered. According to the procedure, Canada can refuse extradition on the grounds that it involves political motives.

Third, the attitudes of many Western countries towards Huawei have changed. After the Meng incident, the United Kingdom, Germany, and New Zealand also took some unfriendly action against Huawei under the pressure of the U.S. However, in the past month, the attitudes of these countries have changed. The UK announced that Huawei's security concerns are controllable and will not block the company. Germany and New Zealand also announced that they will not take administrative measures to prohibit Huawei from participating in the construction of its domestic 5G network.

China will welcome Canada to adapt to this trend and bring China-Canada relations back on track and even to a new level. However, if the decision of the Canadian government is contrary to other Western countries, it will easily become a target.

Click to expand...

It would be pretty good if Canada could be collapsed.

CMP said:

It would be pretty good if Canada could be collapsed.

Click to expand...

Why is there so much anger in your words? You do realize you are wishing ill to the 37 million people of that country. Perhaps you should show more faith in the Canadian justice system.

now I read
‘Cooperation the best way forward’ as China and US work to end trade war, Chinese official says

• Political advisory body spokesman Guo Weimin says a deal between Beijing and Washington would be ‘good news for the world economy’
• But China is unlikely to meet US demand to scrap all tariffs on agricultural goods, according to analysts

Updated: Saturday, 2 Mar, 2019 11:17pm

A senior Chinese government official said negotiators from China and the United States were working on the next steps to end their trade war, after Washington demanded Beijing remove all tariffs on American agricultural products.

Guo Weimin, spokesman for China’s political advisory body, on Saturday said a trade deal between the two nations would send a positive signal for the global economy.

Guo was speaking ahead of the opening of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference on Sunday. The annual gathering of the largely ceremonial advisory group is being held after the US agreed to suspend a tariff increase on Chinese imports.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump said he had asked China to immediately

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

because trade talks were progressing well.
“I have asked China to immediately remove all tariffs on our agricultural products (including beef, pork etc) based on the fact that we are moving along nicely with trade discussions,” Trump said on Twitter, noting he had not raised duties on Chinese goods from 10 to 25 per cent on March 1 as planned.

“This is very important for our great farmers – and me!” Trump said.

Farmers are a key constituency for Trump’s Republican Party, and the US president’s trade war with China has had a heavy impact on them. Beijing imposed tariffs last year on imports of soybeans, grain sorghum, pork and other items, slashing shipments of American farm products to China.

US Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said this week that US trade negotiators had asked China to reduce tariffs on US ethanol, but it was not immediately clear whether Beijing was willing to oblige.

Trump’s tweet came several hours after the US Trade Representative’s office said that it would delay the scheduled hike in tariffs on US$200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

The notice, due to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, said it was “no longer appropriate” to raise the rates because of progress in negotiations since December 2018. The tariffs would remain “at 10 per cent until further notice”.

The decision was reached after trade officials from both countries concluded their latest round of negotiations in Washington this week.

Guo said China and the US had made “substantial progress” on addressing Washington’s concerns over forced technology transfers, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers and currency.

“China and the United States reaching a mutually beneficial, win-win agreement as soon as possible will be not only good for the two countries, but also good news for the world economy,” Guo said, adding that disputes between the two nations were unavoidable.

“But the common interests override the disputes, and the need for cooperation is larger than confrontation. It is a proven fact that China and the US will both stand to gain if they cooperate, and be harmed if they fight each other. Cooperation is the best way forward,” he said.

Although the two sides have agreed not to raise tariffs for now, they have yet to reach a formal agreement to end the trade war. The US has said the confrontation was not just about trade, but also China’s economic and industrial structure, including its policies of providing state subsidies to companies.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in late March, when the two sides are expected to try to push forward an agreement.
China has pledged to buy more American farm products and to take steps to address other US concerns. But analysts say even though China wants to keep up the momentum to end the deadlock, Beijing may not agree to cancel all tariffs on US agricultural goods.

Wang Yong, director of the Centre for International Political Economy at Peking University, said China was unlikely to scrap the duties.

“Trump’s demand to remove all tariffs is likely to be a negotiating tactic,” Wang said. “While it is not possible that China will remove all tariffs, there is room for tariffs to be lowered on certain products such as beef.”

Wu Xinbo, director of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University, said there needed to be “reciprocity” from both sides, meaning that China would lower the tariffs if the US agreed to do the same.

“There has to be reciprocity since the tariffs imposed by China were only applied in response to the US actions,” Wu said. “Also, the US has only promised to suspend the tariff increase, not to cancel all of them.”

Click to expand...

Max Demian said:

Why is there so much anger in your words? You do realize you are wishing ill to the 37 million people of that country. Perhaps you should show more faith in the Canadian justice system.

Click to expand...

Independent justice system and rule of law in a free democratic Western country?
Sure, if you say so.

China questions Canada’s judicial independence amid SNC-Lavalin controversy



China’s Foreign Ministry grabbed a chance to question the state of judicial independence in Canada on Friday, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government faced accusations at home that it had tried to intervene to stop a corruption trial.

Trudeau’s domestic troubles have attracted attention in Chinese state media due to his previous assertion that his government cannot interfere in the case of a senior Huawei executive arrested in Canada and now fighting extradition to the United States.

READ MORE: China wants Canada to overrule courts and release Meng Wanzhou, but it won’t do that, Trudeau says

China has repeatedly called for the release of Meng Wanzhou, the telecommunication giant’s chief financial officer, arrested in Vancouver in December at Washington’s request. In late January the U.S. Justice Department charged Huawei and Meng with conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions on Iran.

At a regular daily news briefing in Beijing, China’s Foreign Ministry took the opportunity to take Canada to task over possible double standards, by commenting on a domestic Canadian political issue that does not otherwise involve China.

Trudeau has disputed allegations by his former justice minister that government officials inappropriately pressured her to help the SNC-Lavalin construction firm avoid a corruption trial.

Asked by a state media journalist if it was contradictory for Trudeau to say he couldn’t interfere in Meng’s case and yet his government be accused of trying to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin case, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said he “really liked this question.”

“Of course I think that this is a question that should be asked of the Canadian government,” Lu said.

“In fact on this case you have mentioned, people in Canada are paying it a great deal of attention,” he added. “In fact, not only Chinese and Canadian citizens, but the whole world are extremely interested to hear how the Canadian government answers this question.”

READ MORE: Here’s how the SNC-Lavalin controversy has unfolded

Both Meng and Huawei have denied the U.S. allegations.

Ottawa has until midnight on Friday (0500 GMT Saturday) to announce whether it will issue an authority to proceed, which would allow a court in the Pacific province of British Columbia to start a formal extradition hearing.

WATCH: Wilson-Raybould describes ‘consistent, sustained effort’ to interfere in SNC-Lavalin case

China's current soft landing has nothing to do with this fake trade war.
It was China's housekeeping actions upon shadow banking, which cut off major financing channels to startups and tech sector, hence the layoffs and slowdown,

It's laughable if Trump and his base crowd think they can do such changes in less than a year to China , by all means let them.


Trump’s Phony Trade War with China



Reeling from his failure to cut a deal with Kim Jong Un, will the president end his pointless dispute with Beijing?

By ZACHARY KARABELL

March 01, 2019

Zachary Karabell is a contributing editor at Politico Magazine.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

All wars end—eventually.

So it is with the yearlong China-U.S. trade war, which now appears to be in its final stages. Tariffs will be lifted, Beijing will promise to buy more American goods and take a harder stance on technology transfers and industrial espionage, and Trump will declare victory.

Yet any victory will be Pyrrhic, at best. The China trade war has been both phony and costly—managing to unsettle the economies of the United States, China and the region. Trump has sown the seeds of future tension and distrust, while altering the structure of the relationship barely at all except perhaps marginally for the worse. Everything that the two sides are now scrambling to settle before a summit between Trump and Xi Jinping in late March could have been achieved without a year of rather pointless and toothless sanctions.

Trump, as always, is focused on The Deal. “We want to make it a meaningful deal,” he said just before announcing a delay in the March 1 deadline to increase tariffs on Chinese imports to the United States, “not a deal that’s done and doesn’t mean anything. We want to make this a deal that’s going to last for many, many years and a deal that’s going to be good for both countries.”

Yet, as demonstrated by the bizarre spectacle of the president debating in front of the Chinese delegation and in the Oval Office with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer about the meaning of a “memorandum of understanding” versus a “deal,” the optics of all of this remain most important to the White House.

In this phony war, the rhetoric has been much more substantial than the reality. Yes, there are stories galore of how these tariffs are hurting the Chinese, hurting American soybean farmers whose exports to China have plummeted, and undermining Xi’s iron grip on power. No doubt, the very fact of tariffs on a broad spectrum of goods has unsettled the relationship and created tremors in China as people there assess the possible consequences of a real economic rupture.

Yet, some basic math is instructive here. Ten percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods is, well, $20 billion a year; along with the 20 percent tariffs on around $50 billion on other Chinese products, which is $10 billion a year, that’s $30 billion. In the context of a bilateral trade relationship in goods of more than $600 billion a year, plus another $100 billion or so in services, it’s not much. Or zoom out even further: Trump’s vaunted tariffs represented about 4 percent of total trade. In the context of the $30 trillion-plus combined economies of the two countries, that amounts to well, very little.

And what’s more, the tariffs have dented overall U.S.-China trade activity barely at all, according to the official figures of the U.S. government. The run-rate for U.S. imports of Chinese goods—the ones Trump promised would soon be made once again in the United States—has remained fairly consistent. The U.S. trade deficit with China, which defenders of the trade war use as Exhibit A to prove that something has to be done, has actually increased in the past months. That’s because U.S. exports to China are down tens of billions of dollars—which is why those soybean farmers in the Midwest are receiving federal subsidies. So, contrary to Trump’s claims that the Chinese are “paying billions of dollars” to the U.S. Treasury, the primary economic repercussions of the trade war have been that Chinese companies and consumers are spending far less on American goods, while Americans have been paying a $30 billion annual tax, give or take. If the point of all of this was to reverse the trade deficit, force multinationals to shift production back to the U.S. and stop China from intellectual property theft, then it is hard to call this year anything other than smoke without fire.

Nor does it appear that the various and sundry agreements that will be part of Trump’s ultimate deal with Xi, assuming he gets one, are much different from agreements Beijing cut with Trump’s much-maligned predecessor, Barrack Obama. Xi and Obama met multiple times and agreed to end state-sanctioned cyber espionage. Xi also promised, cross his heart, that China would increase purchases of U.S. goods and take a close look at irritants in U.S.-China relations like mandatory technology transfers and rules limiting foreign ownership of companies in China. Beijing already did the easy part: Year by year, China has been buying more U.S. exports. As for the rest, not so much.

The problem with Trump’s phony trade war is that it has been just disruptive enough to cause consternation and insecurity on both sides of the Pacific and not nearly enough to force anyone to change much at all, except where things were changing anyway. Take intellectual property and joint ventures: Under Xi and his Made in China policy, Beijing has been investing heavily in domestic research and development. That has been bearing fruit in areas such as artificial intelligence and a home-grown 5G telecommunications standard, potentially leapfrogging China ahead of the United States. As a result of this success, China has its own reasons to both safeguard its own intellectual property and not rely on the United States—tariffs or no tariffs.

Especially given Trump’s failure in Hanoi, it is highly likely a U.S. president desperate for a win will strike some sort of deal with Xi. Those will include a promise by China to buy more American goods (which they were on course to do before the tariffs), to more strictly enforce intellectual property rules (which they are now doing anyway in order to protect their own domestic IP) and allow for more direct investment in China (which, given the levels of debt in China, they want anyway). Don’t, however, be fooled by Trump’s grandiose claims of success. This was a war America certainly didn’t need to fight, and probably didn’t even win.

CMP said:

It would be pretty good if Canada could be collapsed.

Click to expand...

Please refrain from making such childish and immature statement at SDF.

Max Demian said:

Why is there so much anger in your words? You do realize you are wishing ill to the 37 million people of that country. Perhaps you should show more faith in the Canadian justice system.

Click to expand...

You don't know why Chinese people are angry over this? That's a little bit excess in terms of how stupid questions typically get.

No Chinese has faith in the Canadian legal system anymore. Even if they release her without extradition, that they have gone this far and inconvenienced someone this much for no violation of Canadian law is completely unforgivable. Regardless of the extradition result, unless Canada really goes out of its way to atone for its mistakes and make it up to the Chinese people in an outstandingly fashion, the prejudice against Canadians that this episode has engraved upon me and my willingness to patronize their products/services will likely be life-long.

Equation said:

You don't know why Chinese people are angry over this? That's a little bit excess in terms of how stupid questions typically get.

No Chinese has faith in the Canadian legal system anymore. Even if they release her without extradition, that they have gone this far and inconvenienced someone this much for no violation of Canadian law is completely unforgivable. Regardless of the extradition result, unless Canada really goes out of its way to atone for its mistakes and make it up to the Chinese people in an outstandingly fashion, the prejudice against Canadians that this episode has engraved upon me and my willingness to patronize their products/services will likely be life-long.

Click to expand...

Lol people subconsciously ignore that everyday Taiwan, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, ASEAN wishes not only for the trade war to continue but also for an actual China-US war and Chinese to be ethnically cleansed.

Trump is very popular in those countries for his hardliner stance on China.

There really wasn't much bad blood between China and US/Europe, but there's going to be in the future.

Sorry unrelated issue. But I just came across this bit of information and am curious as to why Canada does not import any Tea from China (directly anyway). I find this very odd and puts doubt on reliability of this source for such basic information. Apparently China is not classified under "Other Asia" on their database. This cannot be possible. Right?