Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.

hkbc

Junior Member
It is very strange that EU did NOT initiate the talk with U.S. in WTO when EU is much larger steel exporter than China to U.S. It gives me the feeling that EU is hiding behind China and have China do the heavy lift work.:rolleyes:

But on a broader and long-term sense, China does look more like a leader of world order than EU in shaping the rules.:)

Well its a little difficult to bring a dispute to WTO when you're not actually the recipient of tariffs, Trump having exempted the EU from the Tariffs in March till May at least, but once the door is opened all members of WTO with an interest can partake. What is the EU suppose to go to WTO with? the US placed tariffs then rescind them, or maybe China should have waited till the EU's exemption times out and follow their lead! Maybe you should have gone with Russia or Japan instead of the EU they've not being exempted either, Nice bit of China aggrandising/EU bashing spin though :rolleyes:
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Well its a little difficult to bring a dispute to WTO when you're not actually the recipient of tariffs, Trump having exempted the EU from the Tariffs in March till May at least, but once the door is opened all members of WTO with an interest can partake. What is the EU suppose to go to WTO with? the US placed tariffs then rescind them, or maybe China should have waited till the EU's exemption times out and follow their lead! Maybe you should have gone with Russia or Japan instead of the EU they've not being exempted either, Nice bit of China aggrandising/EU bashing spin though :rolleyes:
I'd agree with your opinion if EU's tariff was permanently exempted. Without it being permanent, the issue is there to be discussed. One can not and should not wait until the last minute.

For China and anyone, they should not wait for others to fight for them, they should bring it up right away being exempted or not. China did the right thing. And I expected Japan and EU to do the same.

Can you share a link to WTO charter where it forbid/prevent members to bring up a consultation when they are temporarily not under punitive tariff but soon to imposed upon?

Aggrandizing China, maybe I am a bit. Bashing EU and spin, I am far from it because I live here, pay tax here and EU's interest is mine.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
I'd agree with your opinion if EU's tariff was permanently exempted. Without it being permanent, the issue is there to be discussed. One can not and should not wait until the last minute.

For China and anyone, they should not wait for others to fight for them, they should bring it up right away being exempted or not. China did the right thing. And I expected Japan and EU to do the same.

Can you share a link to WTO charter where it forbid/prevent members to bring up a consultation when they are temporarily not under punitive tariff but soon to imposed upon?

Aggrandizing China, maybe I am a bit. Bashing EU and spin, I am far from it because I live here, pay tax here and EU's interest is mine.

Live in the EU too well for the next year or so anyway, paid 30 years of tax if we're counting! It took China 17 days after the imposition of tariffs and 39 days after the announcement of the tariffs to lodge it's WTO complaint. The EU had prepared countervailing tariffs like China but Trump announced the exemption 1 day before the tariffs came into force and isn't in dispute presently because of the exemption.

As for the link(s) you asked for here you go

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Extract
Where non-compliance with the WTO Agreement has been alleged by a WTO Member, the dispute settlement system provides for a relatively rapid resolution of the matter through an independent ruling that must be implemented promptly, or the non-implementing Member will face possible trade sanctions.

As currently the US is not in non-compliance wrt EU there is no dispute

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Extract
Parties and third parties

The only participants in the dispute settlement system are the Member governments of the WTO), which can take part either as parties or as third parties. The WTO Secretariat, WTO observer countries, other international organizations, and regional or local governments are not entitled to initiate dispute settlement proceedings in the WTO.

The DSU sometimes refers to the Member bringing the dispute as the “complaining party” or the “complainant” (this guide mostly uses the term “complainant”). No equivalent short term is used for the “party to whom the request for consultations is addressed”. The DSU sometimes also speaks of “Member concerned”. In practice, the terms “respondent” or “defendant” are commonly used; this guide mostly uses the term “respondent”.

As things stand China is a party and the EU is a 3rd party, since it's not technically in dispute.

Now the EU could have just waited till May 1st, if Trump drops the exemption, to bring it's own case or just let things be if the exemption is extended and we can have a nice debate about how the EU disrespects China or are a bunch of cowards by not joining it's action or it's just a western plot because they're exempted! I guess damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Live in the EU too well for the next year or so anyway, paid 30 years of tax if we're counting! It took China 17 days after the imposition of tariffs and 39 days after the announcement of the tariffs to lodge it's WTO complaint. The EU had prepared countervailing tariffs like China but Trump announced the exemption 1 day before the tariffs came into force and isn't in dispute presently because of the exemption.

As for the link(s) you asked for here you go

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Extract
Where non-compliance with the WTO Agreement has been alleged by a WTO Member, the dispute settlement system provides for a relatively rapid resolution of the matter through an independent ruling that must be implemented promptly, or the non-implementing Member will face possible trade sanctions.

As currently the US is not in non-compliance wrt EU there is no dispute

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Extract
Parties and third parties

The only participants in the dispute settlement system are the Member governments of the WTO), which can take part either as parties or as third parties. The WTO Secretariat, WTO observer countries, other international organizations, and regional or local governments are not entitled to initiate dispute settlement proceedings in the WTO.

The DSU sometimes refers to the Member bringing the dispute as the “complaining party” or the “complainant” (this guide mostly uses the term “complainant”). No equivalent short term is used for the “party to whom the request for consultations is addressed”. The DSU sometimes also speaks of “Member concerned”. In practice, the terms “respondent” or “defendant” are commonly used; this guide mostly uses the term “respondent”.

As things stand China is a party and the EU is a 3rd party, since it's not technically in dispute.

Now the EU could have just waited till May 1st, if Trump drops the exemption, to bring it's own case or just let things be if the exemption is extended and we can have a nice debate about how the EU disrespects China or are a bunch of cowards by not joining it's action or it's just a western plot because they're exempted! I guess damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The first extraction of yours is about What the objective of the dispute settlement is. Not about who is to be in the process.

The second extraction is the key, it is about who is in. The highlighted texts mean it is the disputed member governments. It does not exclude or prevent anyone who is not currently under the effective tariff, does it? That anyone is EU, the 3rd party as you said. The following exclusion sentence in the extraction only exclude (beside WTO organs), observer, international org, regional and local governments. EU is none of the excluded entity as it is a WTO member government?

As of the years of living in EU, no need to compete that. Regardless shorter or longer, one who pay the tax has the right to demand ones government to be proactive in defending the country's or the Union's interest. Here I am who want EU to do so.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
The first extraction of yours is about What the objective of the dispute settlement is. Not about who is to be in the process.

The second extraction is the key, it is about who is in. The highlighted texts mean it is the disputed member governments. It does not exclude or prevent anyone who (the EU) is not currently under the effective tariff, does it? That anyone is EU, the 3rd party as you said. The following exclusion sentence only exclude (beside WTO organs), observer, international org, regional and local governments. EU is none of the excluded entity as it is a WTO member government?

As of the years of living in EU, no need to compete that. Regardless shorter or longer, one who pay the tax has the right to demand ones government to be proactive in defending the country's or the Union's interest. Here I am who want EU to do so.

OK let's assume your approach is "valid" so what dispute do you want the complainant i.e. the EU to bring to WTO for resolution against the US wrt Steel and Aluminium and what form of redress should it take?

There is no dispute to arbitrate, let's say you can lodge a complaint, it will be the quickest resolution ever because there won't be a remedy or need for a remedy because any potential loss of trade in Steel and Aluminium hasn't happened. Let's be absurd and say the EU "wins" and WTO says to the US stop the tariffs against the EU and the US replies what Tariffs against the EU! Should China have just sat back and be a third party to the EU there's really no case to arbitrate dispute.

So should action be based on the the potential of tariffs?

Should the EU just have WTO look at potential steel disputes in 2019, 2020, 2021..........

Are we going to do the whole "Minority Report" thing! Trump's threatened tariffs on European cars, should the EU take that to WTO before it happens because that trade is worth a lot more than steel to the EU.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
China's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
imports from the US dropped 27% year on year in March as a result of the trade frictions between the two countries, while soybean imports from Brazil has increased by 1/3, according to the latest customs data
Contrary to some western media No one is irreplaceable
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Dbl6kHVV4AAImt4.jpg
 

hkbc

Junior Member
Looks like Trump blinked first

Trump sending delegation to China for trade talks

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"I think China is very serious. We're very serious,” Trump said at the White House. “And we have no choice but to be very serious,” he said.
“You know, we've put on very substantial tariffs, and that will continue unless we make a trade deal. I think we've got a very good chance of making a deal."Trump called Chinese President Xi Jinping “a terrific guy and a friend of mine” but said “they trade with us, we can't trade with them.”

The guy does come out with some "great" comments, seriously! :rolleyes:
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
US brands suffer collateral damage in Chinese corporate war

SHANGHAI (AP) — It was looking like a banner year for business in China. The U.S. clothing company was expecting a 20 percent jump in online sales on Alibaba's Tmall, thanks to the e-commerce giant's massive reach.

But executives soon learned that what Alibaba gives, it can also take away.

The company refused to sign an exclusive contract with Alibaba, and instead participated in a big sale promotion with its archrival, JD.com Inc. Tmall punished them by taking steps to cut traffic to their storefront, two executives told The Associated Press. They said advertising banners vanished from prominent spots in Tmall sales showrooms, the company was blocked from special sales and products stopped appearing in top search results.

The well-known American brand saw its Tmall sales plummet 10 to 20 percent for the year.

"Based on our sales record, we should have been in a prominent position, but we were at the bottom of the page," said the brand's e-commerce director, who spoke only on condition of anonymity for fear of further retaliation. "That's a clear manipulation of traffic. That's a clear punishment."

As the Trump administration pushes China to play by fair trade rules, companies are caught in a quieter but no less crucial struggle for fair access to a $610 billion online marketplace, an AP investigation has found.

Executives from five major consumer brands told the AP that after they refused to enter exclusive partnerships with Alibaba, traffic to their Tmall storefronts fell, hurting sales. Three are American companies with billions in annual sales that rely on China for growth.

In a statement, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. said pursuing exclusive deals is a common industry practice and called the charges of coercion "completely false."

"Alibaba and Tmall conduct business in full compliance with Chinese laws," Alibaba said. "Like many e-commerce platforms, we have exclusive partnerships with some of the merchants on Tmall. The merchant decides to choose such an arrangement because of the attractive services and value Tmall brings to them."

Imagine a company twice as profitable as Amazon that each year serves more people than live in all of North America. That's Alibaba. It claims to be the marketplace for nearly $550 billion a year in sales — more than is sold online in the entire U.S. economy.

The trials of the affected companies offer a rare window onto a bruising business culture forged in China that could spread as Alibaba takes its aggressive, innovative and hugely profitable model of e-commerce global. To the extent that their products are manufactured in the United States — and some are — constricting sales in China's critical growth market can also deepen the imbalance of trade between China and the U.S., a gap that is a top concern for the Trump administration.

The competition between Alibaba and JD.com is so infamous in China — and so dirty — it's been dubbed the "great cat-and-dog war," after Tmall's black-cat mascot and JD.com's white dog.

The executives spoke to the AP only on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, but their concerns were echoed by a U.S. industry group, brand consultants and policy makers in China and JD.com itself.

In a speech about cyberspace last week, Chinese president Xi Jinping said ensuring free and fair competition online was a regulatory priority, citing the need "to cultivate a fair market environment, strengthen intellectual property protection, and oppose monopoly and unfair competition," state media reported.

In its months-long investigation, the AP interviewed more than 30 people and reviewed two contracts from Alibaba that contained previously unreported exclusivity clauses. The AP found that the platforms that control access to Chinese consumers online wield such enormous power that even multibillion-dollar foreign companies can have trouble fighting back.

"We urge the authorities to quickly investigate and take steps to ensure such practices are eliminated from the growing Chinese marketplace," said Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, adding that members of his industry group had complained about unfair competitive practices by Alibaba.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
This ban on the chip sale to ZTE is probably blessing in disguise Now China high tech company has no choice but to develop their own chip. But more important is overcoming their reluctant to buy Chinese chip
Chinese tech firms have become increasingly concerned about chips development since the US government imposed a seven-year ban on telecommunications-gear maker ZTE on purchases of crucial American technology.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top