All countries, including Malaysia, losing in US-China trade war

“The US may settle into the malaise it found itself in, during the 1970s, before the present wave of globalization. It may survive but not thrive,’’ said Pong Teng Siew(pic) head of research, Inter-Pacific Securities.

THE International Monetary Fund (IMF) may have identified China as having more to lose in the US-China trade war, but the real loser is the world which has become economically more dependent on China.

The initial impact is seen in emerging economies, where a fresh slowdown in the world economy has been concentrated.

Asian economies, in particular, will feel the pressure from slowing Chinese demand for their exports.

Commodity producing countries will also suffer as prices decline in the wake of sluggish demand from China.

In 2016 and 2017, China’s share of world demand came to 59% of cement, 56% of nickel, 50% each of coal, copper and steel, aluminium (47%), cotton (33%), rice (31%), gold (27%), corn (23%) and oil (14%), said Visual Capitalist that publishes data using visual methods.

While the IMF, in its half-yearly World Economic Outlook, had upgraded its forecast of US growth this year from 2.3% to 2.6%, it had downgraded China from 6.3% to 6.2%.

Growth expectations for emerging and developing economies is now cut, since April, by 0.3 percentage points to 4.1% this year.

China’s economy grew at an annual pace of 6.2% in the second quarter, the weakest in nearly three decades, while exports rose by just 0.1% in the first half.

Throughout the closely linked supply chains, these weak exports which registered the biggest drop to the US, also dampened demand for imports of components used in finished products.

Increasingly vulnerable to any slowdown in China, dubbed the Asian powerhouse, is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) economic bloc, for which China was the biggest trading partner.

Trade between Asean and China hit US$587.87bil last year.

As there are expectations for Chinese growth to slide between 5% to 6%, the rest of Asia which have prioritized trade with China, may have to look elsewhere for growth.

Making matters worse, there will be no more super stimulus programme such as the US$586bil unleased after the 2008 financial crisis, which had a positive impact across the export-oriented region.

“There are, therefore, concerted efforts to try and resolve the US-China trade war,’’ said Nor Zahidi Alias, associate director of research, Malaysian Rating Corp.

But Asean is already a recipient of trade investment diversions from China, and it is likely that Asian countries will ramp up efforts, including improvement in infrastructure and the ease of doing business, to attract foreign direct investments from the United States and China.

In the short term, China, being a large trading nation, may have more to lose but it is already transitioning away from being dependent on trade.

Consumption had contributed to more than 60% growth in China during 11 out of 16 quarters from January 2015 to December 2018, said CNBC, quoting a July report by McKinsey.

Indicating its increased self-reliance, China had exported only 9% of its output in 2017, compared with 17% in 2007, the study found.

The three groups with most exposure to China are the Asian economies within the global supply chain (South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam); the resource rich countries that export to China (Australia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ghana and South Africa); and emerging markets with investments from China (Egypt and Pakistan).

The trade war has complicated China’s efforts to find a balance between sustaining decent growth and tackling problems of high corporate debt and massive shadow banking risks.

As a result, these ‘highly dependent’ countries will probably have to suffer more.

In the end, nobody gains especially those that want to ‘hide’ behind tariff walls, de-globalise and move away from the current global interdependence and integration.

The effects of de-globalisation can be serious.

Think of a 1970s type of scenario, said to be the worst decade for the US economy which, since the Great Depression, had experienced the worst downturn from November 1973 to March 1975.

“The US may settle into the malaise it found itself in, during the 1970s, before the present wave of globalization. It may survive but not thrive,’’ said Pong Teng Siew head of research, Inter-Pacific Securities.

The current wave of globalization is said to feature modern technology and global democratic processes, with increased movement of capital and adoption of free trade.

Consumers will be the ultimate loser; they have to face a decade or more of higher prices (on US and retaliatory tariffs) with little or no compensating increases in employment and income.

The huge job cuts happening around the world, with talk nearer home of layoffs and headcount freezes in the Singapore semiconductor industry, should give us an indication of some potentially alarming consumer downtrends.

By Columnist Yap Leng Kuen, who reckons nobody should be under the illusion that he is the winner. The views expressed here are solely that of the writer.

Source link 

 

Read more:

 

US, China move trade talks to Shanghai amid deal pessimism

 

Related posts:

 

 

  Trump is the biggest threat

Not much help: Despite his use of tariffs to help skew the playing field in favour of US firms, the very industries Trump has tried to h...

Trump's tariffs won't restore U.S. jobs  

Trump is the biggest threat

Not much help: Despite his use of tariffs to help skew the playing field in favour of US firms, the very industries Trump has tried to help have become the weakest links in the otherwise solid economy.

WASHINGTON: At rallies and whistle-stop campaign tours, President Donald Trump proclaims a renaissance in US factories rebuilding the nation with “American steel”, “American heart” and “American hands”.

But in reality, despite his relentless use of punitive tariffs to help skew the playing field in favour of US companies, the very industries he has tried to help have become the weakest links in the otherwise solid economy.

With just over a year to go before he faces re-election, Trump takes credit for the most vigorous economy in the industrialised world, with the expansion entering its 11th year and historically low unemployment.

But while services and office jobs dominate the US economy, Trump continues to promote the factory and mining jobs that were the lifeblood of the economy in the last century.

“American steel mills are roaring back to life,” he declared last month in Florida – the same day US Steel announced it would idle plants in Michigan and Indiana until “market conditions improve”.

And to West Virginians he said, “The coal industry is back.”

But in fact each of the sectors Trump has championed – coal mining, steel, aluminium and auto manufacturing – have been buffeted by a combination of market forces and changing technologies – factors beyond his control – or damaged by the very things he did to protect them, economists and analysts say.

Last month, a national survey of manufacturing activity hit its lowest level in nearly three years – narrowly avoiding slipping into contraction – while regional surveys have also seen record declines.

In March, the number of workers in US manufacturing shrank for the first time in nearly two years and it is now growing more slowly than the rest of the American workforce.

Trump has imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions in imports, renegotiated trade agreements and dangled the threat of worse over China and Europe and Mexico – all while publicly browbeating companies that close US factories or move production offshore.

But weak foreign demand, a strong US dollar and a decades-long evolution away from domestic manufacturing have progressively shrunk America’s industrial sector, said Gregory Daco, chief US economist at Oxford Economics.

Trump’s world trade war has not helped either.

“The policies that have been implemented in terms of protectionism have hurt the very sectors they were meant to protect. There’s no escaping that,” Daco said. - AFP/The Star

Read more

China can effectively sanction US companies who sell weapons to Taiwan: experts

The US is deploying a double standard by calling China's proposed sanctions on US companies for arms sales to Taiwan a "foolish action," Chinese mainland analysts said on Sunday, pointing out that the sanctions could not only cut base material supply to these companies including rare earths but also block their non-military products from entering Chinese markets.


Related posts:

More people around the world see U.S. power and influence as a ‘major threat’ to their country

https://youtu.be/jYs75AzA4xU

The hegemonic anxiety of America First

The World Will Not Mourn the Decline of U.S. Hegemony In the global political landscape looms a superpower with a military and eco...

American anti-China Hawks ignited the trade war, are Trump's advisors

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT US President-elect Donald Trump appointed Peter Navarro, a strident critic of China, as head of the new Nat...

Trump US-China Trade War became Tech War

https://youtu.be/BgTKh4Rx-LI https://youtu.be/rD1EIaTh6_U After Huawei, U.S. blacklists Chinese supercomputers https://youtu.be...

US technology sector faces triple threat

Uncertainty over the future of US-China economic relations has derailed the once high-flying global equity market, which rose almost 15 per .

Open society and closed minds, Trump bragging as UN Laughs at him

 'Leadership has always been about generosity to those who are less well endowed and fortunate than you are. Often, it is not generosity of kind, because that would be buying of votes, but generosity of spirit.' - Tan Sri Andrew Sheng

WHY is it that in the last days of September, 10 years after the failure of Lehman Brothers, the world feels as if it is a dangerous place?

Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia

The filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection by financial services firm Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, remains the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, with Lehman holding over US$600,000,000,000 in assets. Wikipedia

President Trump’s remarkable speech to the United Nations this week was supposed to re-state the New Order that America has envisioned for the world. And all he got was a laugh.

https://youtu.be/Dqao0PqMgnE

But it was an important speech, because it spelt out more clearly what everyone knew since January 2017 – his Administration is dismantling what America has stood for since the Second World War.

Out goes the vision of a liberal rule-based stable world under US leadership. What replaces it is a “no holds barred” reality show of bilateral “Art of the Deal” negotiations supposedly to solve what is paining America. Never mind the collateral damage on everyone else, even if they are ultimately American consumers. What everyone heard is that the White House does not care too much about allies or enemies, only what is good for America First, trumped by the speaker’s ego.

Speeches to the United Nations has never been about foreign policy. Speaking in front of 193 member countries, the national leader is actually addressing his home audience, a photo-opportunity to show that as a member of the United Nations, your voice is heard by the whole wide world. Accordingly, other than the famous 1960 case of Soviet Leader Khruschev making his point by banging his shoe at the podium, most national leader speeches to the United Nations are boring homilies. They tend to praise themselves, pay due respect to the UN, and expound what Miss Congeniality says in all beauty contests, “world peace!”

What we got instead from President Trump was raw and edged, “America’s policy of principled realism means we will not be held hostage to old dogmas, discredited ideologies, and so-called experts who have been proven wrong over the years, time and time again.” That statement made a powerful indictment of “experts”, because his supporters feel that it is the elite experts that have run the country for 70 years who have let them down.

If America is doing so well economically, militarily and technologically, why should her middle class feel so insecure? And it is lashing out at everyone else.

The answer lies in not what the speech said, but what it omitted. Everywhere in the world, not least in America, the greatest existential concerns are inequality and climate change. Almost nothing was said about both issues, which are stressing societies and pushing immigration from poorer neighbours across borders to richer nations with cooler climates.

Instead, what was decided was non-participation in the Global Compact on Migration, withdrawal from the Human Rights Council and non-recognition of the International Criminal Court. There was also a barrage against Opec, which contains some of the US’s strongest allies. If other bodies like the World Trade Organisation or even the United Nations do not do America’s bidding, then the cutting of funds or withdrawal is a matter of time. Does that imply that the US will now veto every World Bank or IMF loan to members that she does not like?

In short, it is all about anti-globalisation. In the same breath that “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” Trump appeals to the passion and pride of nationalism. “The passion that burns in the hearts of patriots and the souls of nations has inspired reform and revolution, sacrifice and selflessness, scientific breakthroughs, and magnificent works of art.”

Never mind if a lot of that sacrifice and selflessness was by immigrants and new arrivals.

Outsiders who used to admire America as an open society founded by immigrants with new ideas on how to build a more just society and free economy find instead one that has an increasingly closed mind to global issues. It does seem strange that American innovation, entrepreneurship and dynamism which drew continuously on new talent initially from Europe and then the rest of the world is now walling up its borders, physically, legally and mentally.

There are 40 million immigrants in the US today, representing 13% of the US population. Immigrants founded nearly one-fifth of the Fortune 500 companies, such as Google, Procter & Gamble, Kraft, Colgate Palmolive, Pfizer, and eBay. Today, much of Silicon Valley talent feel like working in the United Nations, diverse, noisy and creative.

The irony of America drawing on global talent and resources is that she has no need to pay for it from exports, but can easily print more dollars. In other words, the Grand Bargain of global trade was the ability of the US to pay for real goods and services with something that can be printed at near zero marginal cost. Even the Europeans are now creating a separate payment system outside the US dollar dominated SWIFT system to avoid being punished for “trading with the enemy”.

When contracts of trust are being renegotiated, no one can feel at ease. One can never solve global problems unilaterally or even bilaterally, let alone calls for more national patriotism. And as the English writer Samuel Johnson scribbled in 1775, a year before US independence from Britain, “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Leadership has always been about generosity to those who are less well endowed and fortunate than you are. Often, it is not generosity of kind, because that would be buying of votes, but generosity of spirit.

This side of the Pacific, there is awareness that the tensions will not go away with Trump or a change in the November elections. What has happened is that the US establishment has put political interests ahead of economic interests, which means that any settlement will have to go beyond economic considerations.

If trade and political tensions are in for the long haul, can the current US market enthusiasm have sufficient strategic patience?

Now we understand why no one is laughing.

Credit; Think Asian Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective.

Related posts:

 

After laughs at Trump, globalism or patriotism? 

https://youtu.be/rewri7OdEZA https://youtu.be/QqZv3SLx1oI US-ROK trade: 'horrible' to 'wins'? US President Don..

 

Lehman report blames execs, auditor

 

Lehman Sues JPMorgan for Billions of Dollars in ‘Lost Value’

 

Paid to Fail

 

Wall Street shenanigans

 

How will JPMorgan's $2 billion loss affect American banking rules? Senior executives to leave!

China hits back after US imposes tariffs worth $34bn

https://youtu.be/5p5sA5i6XYs


US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods have come into effect, signalling the start of a trade war between the world's two largest economies.

The 25% levy came into effect at midnight Washington time.

China has retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products, also worth a total of $34bn.

Beijing accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".

"After the US activated its tariff measures against China, China's measures against the US took effect immediately," said Lu Kang, a foreign ministry spokesman.

Two companies in Shanghai told the BBC that customs authorities were delaying clearance processes for US imports on Friday.

The American tariffs are the result of President Donald Trump's bid to protect US jobs and stop "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".

The White House said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.

• Live: Trade war begins
• Charting the US-China trade battle
• How a US-China trade war could hurt us all
• Trade row: What has happened so far?

The imposition of the tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.

Tokyo closed 1.1% higher, but Hong Kong fell 0.5% in late trading.

Hikaru Sato at Daiwa Securities said markets had already factored in the impact of the first round of tariffs.



Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.

He has also threatened a 10% levy on an additional $200bn of Chinese goods if Beijng "refuses to change its practices".

The president upped the stakes on Thursday, saying the amount of goods subject to tariffs could rise to more than $500bn.

"You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300," he said.

The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley in a research note issued before Mr Trump's comments on Thursday.

Analysts are also concerned about the impact on others in the supply chain and about an escalation of tensions between the US and China in general.

Timeline

US-China trade war

16 February, 2018

US Commerce Department recommends a 24% tariff on all steel imports and 7.7% on aluminium. It's seen as a policy directed at China, which is the world's largest maker of steel.

22 March, 2018

China says it will impose tariffs on US goods worth $3bn. 

22 March, 2018

President Trump announces a plan to impose further tariffs on Chinese imports worth $60bn but grants temporary exemptions from aluminium and steel tariffs to the EU, South Korea and other countries.

2 April, 2018

China imposes 25% tariffs on 128 US products including wine and pork.

3 April, 2018

The US Government proposes new additional tariffs on Chinese imports worth $50bn. These include: televisions, medical equipment, aircraft parts and batteries.

4 April, 2018

China proposes tariffs on US goods worth $50bn.

5 April, 2018

President Trump announces he's considering additional tariffs on Chinese products worth $100bn.

15 June, 2018

President Donald Trump announces new tariffs on goods worth $34bn will come into force on 6 July 2018. He also proposes a new list of tariffs for imported goods worth $16bn.

15 June, 2018

China says it will respond to these new US impositions with it's own new tariffs on agricultural products and manufactured goods.

6 July, 2018

New tariffs announced by both countries in June come into effect.

Source:  bbc.com/news


Related post
 

China staunch defender of free trade under WTO, meet the 'selfish giant' of global trade

US-China trade war escalates, tariff list aims to hinder China’s high-tech development: expert

Trapped in US-China trade war when 2 elephantine economices fight ...

 

Did Trump just launch a trade war? 

 

American Ban on ZTE offers much food for thought & pain together with ZTE

 

Trump and China’s bumpy ride begins

China staunch defender of free trade under WTO, meet the 'selfish giant' of global trade

Photo taken on April 12, 2018 shows the World Trade Organization headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. [Photo/Xinhua]

China staunch defender of free trade under WTO

There can be no order without rules. And trade is no exception to this. The World Trade Organization regulates the trade between nations to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.

China has spared no efforts in honoring the promises it made to join the WTO, and the country has not only abided by the WTO rules over the past 17 years. It has contributed a great deal to the development of the world economy and is a staunch defender of the WTO trade system.

In contrast, the Donald Trump administration's unilateralism and trade protectionism pose an ever greater threat to free trade. Under the unjustifiable pretext of national security, it has violated the United States' WTO obligations by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and discriminating among its WTO trade partners.

There is no denying that China has benefited a lot as a member of the WTO, which has facilitated its opening-up and reform. Without integrating its economy with that of the world, it would have been impossible for the country to maintain its double-digit economic growth for more than a decade.

Yet the other side of the coin is that as a rule-abiding member of the WTO, China has also contributed to the world economy. Had it not been for China's help and support, it would not have been possible for the US and other major Western countries to have emerged from the devastating effects of the 2008 financial crisis so quickly.

And without China's opening-up, it would not have been possible for so many transnational corporations to benefit from their business in China. And of course, those businesses have provided jobs for China and enabled the country to earn more from international trade.

Free trade is undoubtedly reciprocal. China is a beneficiary of free trade within the framework of the WTO, but it also benefits others. It is a contributor to the development of the world economy and defender of the current world economic order.

Because they fail to appreciate this, some Western countries regard China as simply a free rider on globalization and refuse to recognize China's status as a market economy as they should.

That the US refuses to settle its trade dispute with China within the framework of the WTO only points to its own lack of respect for the WTO trade rules.

China will continue to abide by WTO rules and firmly defend the current world economic order, as it believes that rules-based multilateralism is essential for the healthy development of the world economy.

By China Daily editorial

Related Stories

• White paper: China strongly backs global trade
• China in WTO has boosted world, domestic economy
• Tariff cuts will spur Asian trade
• Beijing vows firm answer to new US tariff threat
• White paper details China's WTO efforts

Amid trade row, US losing international legitimacy

The Trump administration should find a balance between its new strategy, which can be partly reasonable, within the existing highly interconnected world. The US should understand that emerging countries cannot be treated like in the past.

 Meet the 'selfish giant' of global trade

Donald Trump has opened a Pandora's box which, if not shut soon, will cause mayhem in global trade and seriously undermine the multilateral trading system

At a time when globalization needs to be safeguarded and promoted, some countries are doing exactly the opposite by violating even the normative axioms of international relations. In particular, the Donald Trump administration seems hellbent on instigating a trade war with major economies by using anti-globalization and protectionist measures, which are disrupting the international trade order.

Claiming to resolve domestic structural problems and meet global challenges with a combative approach, US President Donald Trump has become the most powerful force behind the wave of trade protectionism. The trade disputes he has stirred up pose a big challenge to globalization, which is based on the division of labor in the global value chain. Trump's protectionist moves would disrupt the global production network, leading to a contraction, if not dismantling, of the global value chain. In fact, he has put the global free trade system and international trade order at great risk of being destroyed.

In his one and a half years in office, Trump has not only expedited investigations by the US International Trade Commission into anti-subsidy, anti-dumping allegations under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, but also used unconventional protectionist measures, such as Section 301 and 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, to order investigations against imports, including those from China, and the trade practices of other economies.

'Trump trap' versus 'Thucydides trap'

No wonder many overseas scholars are more worried about a "Trump trap" rather than the "Thucydides trap", because the former will harm not only China but also the rest of the world.

Essentially, the Trump administration's trade policies are not different in nature from those of the Barack Obama administration. But compared with Obama's trade policies, Trump's policies exhibit some new features.

First, for Trump, his "America First" policy is more important than international rules and the world trade order. Trump has been exhibiting a tendency to either take advantage of or discard the multilateral global trading system to fulfill US interests. The president's 2017 Trade Policy Agenda stresses that the efficiency of the open and multilateral trading system, built by the US itself, needs to be reassessed to realize and promote US national interests.

Apart from complaining about China's so-called restraints on foreign capital's access to some service industries, including telecommunications, banks and healthcare, the US Trade Representative has also accused China of forcing technology transfers despite China gradually opening up these industries in accordance with the General Agreement on Trade in Services of the World Trade Organization.

Second, the US administration has raised economic security to a new level, by incorporating economic and trade policies into national security, with Trump's first National Security Strategy emphasizing that economic security is national security. Declaring that the US would use all applicable tools to defend national security, Trump has said the US will adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward any move it considers unfair or harmful to the US economy.

Third, Trump is trying to weaken, even overthrow the multilateral trading system, a system based on rules that has played a central role in promoting cooperation and opening-up of trade and investment, apart from offering a stable and reliable system for WTO members to resolve trade disputes.

Evidently, the Trump administration is making all-out efforts to skirt and marginalize the WTO, most recently by saying appeals against WTO rulings should not take more than the mandated 90 days to deal with. What it has conveniently ignored, however, is that the delay is caused as the US, from time to time, has thwarted the Appellate Body from starting the procedure of selecting new judges, leading to a paralysis in the WTO's dispute-settlement mechanism.

Trump mantra: Trade good, imports bad

Fourth, Trump is trying to defend fair trade, ironically, through unilateral trade sanctions. The Trump administration has ordered an estimated 94 investigations into so-called unfair trade practices involving dozens of countries in just one and a half years, a year-on-year increase of 81 percent. In fact, the fair trade principle advocated by Trump stresses a kind of equality that promotes a unilateral (as opposed to multilateral) open market and regards trade beneficial but imports harmful.

Generally speaking, the fair trade Trump demands mainly constitutes of even tariffs and competition on an equal footing. Yet the disparity in tariff rates among WTO member states is largely attributable to multilateral trade negotiations. More important, uneven tariffs have enabled smaller economies at a primary stage of development to enter the global trading system.

Since different countries are at different development stages, and have different economic scales, production factors and political sensitivity toward trade liberalization and tariff policies, it is practically impossible to fix a unified tariff rate, which Trump effectively demands.

So, what is the truth behind the uneven Sino-US trade tariff rate? This can be better explained using hard data, instead of selectively ignoring unfavorable facts like the Trump administration has been doing. China's actual trade-weighted average tariff rate is 4.4 percent, which is almost the same as that of developed economies, including Australia that has a trade-weighted average import tariff rate of 4 percent and the European Union 3 percent.

Correspondingly, more than 3,335 of the US' most-favored nation tariff rates are higher than 5 percent and 1,120 above 10 percent.

Also, to prevent others from catching up, the US has invoked more than 125 Section 301 investigations since 1974, causing significant damage to other economies－the EU has faced 27 investigations, Japan 16, and Canada 14.

In January 2017, the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended in a report titled "Ensuring Long-Term US Leadership in Semiconductors" that the US restrain the development of China's technology industries because China's rise in the field of semiconductors posed a threat to the US.

China's high-tech sector a key target

Besides, the US is attempting to thwart the Made in China 2025 plan by launching more Section 301 investigations. And the 578 high-tech products on the US' sanctions list against Chinese imports, which account for 43.36 percent of the total number and 56.15 percent of the total amount of high-tech products, show the US is indeed trying to contain the development of China's high-tech industry.

Trump also is seeking to restrict Chinese investment in the US' high-tech sector, by extending the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US and accelerating the legislation procedure of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act.

Do we need more evidence to prove the US is the most potent destructive force in the global market and technology competition?

Furthermore, Trump seems to be preparing to take new measures in the escalating Sino-US trade conflict to restrict Chinese enterprises from investing or acquiring US companies in strategic industries listed in the Made in China 2025 plan, by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

And as part of its new tax reform, the Trump administration plans to prevent US companies from transferring their operating activities, high-value patents, copyright and trademarks to low-tax countries. Particularly noteworthy is a provision in the Senate version of the tax reform plan, which says a tax of 13.1 percent would be levied on global intangible low-taxed income. The move is aimed at foiling the efforts of US companies such as Apple, Google and Qualcomm to transfer their technologies to or conduct innovative cooperation with companies in other countries.

Trump is trying to instigate a trade war without realizing, rather refusing to accept, that a trade war will hurt all and sundry, including the US. The challenge for and obligation of the rest of the world is to find a way, and find it fast, to safeguard the multilateral trading system and protect it from the assaults of Trump Inc.

By Zhang Monan China Daily.  The author is a researcher at the China Center for International Economic Exchanges.

Related: 

China sends Donald Trump a message about free trade and the WTO

Related posts:

US-China trade war escalates, tariff list aims to hinder China’s high-tech development: expert

Trapped in US-China trade war when 2 elephantine economices fight ...

 

Did Trump just launch a trade war? 

 

American Ban on ZTE offers much food for thought & pain together with ZTE

Western dominance on the global stage coming to an end, entering the era of Chinese influence

China’s President Xi Jinping speaking at the World Economic Forum AP

https://youtu.be/dOrQOyAPUi4

Western dominance on the global stage is coming to an end – we are now entering the era of Chinese influence

China’s economic relations with the Middle East are on a long-term upward trend. Beijing is the region’s largest foreign business partner, now surpassing the US in oil purchases. In the five years leading up to 2009 trade tripled, reaching $115bn

Donald Trump’s inauguration has been described as symbolising the end of the “American Century”. Historians may look back on 2016-17 as the years in which the two greatest forces sweeping the world – the anti-establishment backlash in the West, and the resurgence of Asia – combined to thrust China into a global leadership role. This was seen at Davos, in Beijing’s recent foray into the world’s most contentious conflict – Israel-Palestine – and most recently in Theresa May’s statement that the US and UK will never again invade sovereign countries to “remake the world in their own image”. This suggests that it might not be just a century of American dominance that’s ending, but half a millennia of Western pre-eminence.

President Xi Jinping’s call for the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital occurred just as the Trump White House began early talks over moving America’s embassy in Israel to the disputed city. This is part of China’s conversion of economic weight into diplomatic and geopolitical assertiveness in the Middle East over the last few years.

China’s economic relations with the region are on a long-term upward trend. Beijing is the region’s largest foreign business partner, now surpassing the US in oil purchases. In the five years leading up to 2009 trade tripled, reaching $115bn.

China has begun translating this into strategic influence. In 2008-2009, Beijing sent naval vessels to the region, an action referred to as its “biggest naval expedition since the 15th century”. China has embarked on strategic partnerships with traditional US allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In addition to Saudi Arabia traditionally being China’s top source of oil, Beijing has convinced Riyadh to engage its “One Belt, One Road” initiative and attracted it to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In 2016, the two countries unveiled a five-year plan for Saudi Arabia-China security cooperation. Riyadh also expressed interest in Chinese defence technology.

China’s growing footprint is in part possible due to some of the forces that brought President Trump and Prime Minister May to power. Firstly, Western publics are beyond fatigued by over a decade of war and intervention in the Middle East – much of which was supported by the same Republicans within Washington’s foreign policy establishment that had declared they wouldn’t work with Trump, and the same Labour MPs who sought to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn. Despite Trump’s tough-on-terror talk, the public gravitated to the same anti-regime change positions that were popular with Bernie Sanders supporters. May herself has observed this mood and adjusted her position accordingly. This is combined with a reduction of the US and Britain’s relative power in the region.

Additionally, Washington is less dependent on energy from the region. This is combined with Middle Eastern states themselves reaching out to diversify their strategic partnerships in an increasingly multipolar world. This includes US allies like the Gulf States, as well as those who feel threatened by the West, like Iran.

Beijing's Trump Cards

China has several advantages in the region. Firstly, Beijing mirrors Western public opinion by taking a non-interventionist approach to issues like democracy and human rights. This of course sits well with rulers in the Middle East. China has asserted its view that Middle Eastern countries and their people should be able to decide their own path to development in accordance with “national conditions”. In the past, President Xi has expressed China’s support for Saudi Arabia choosing its own development path. In Qatar, Beijing differentiated itself from the West, pledging to support Doha on issues of national independence, sovereignty, stability, security and territorial integrity. This was received well during a visit to Beijing by Qatar’s Emir who reportedly voiced his “appreciation for China’s impartial stand on international affairs”.

Secondly, unlike the US, China is not bound by well-known and entrenched alliances and animosities. It is obvious who the US supports in the Middle East and who its rivals are. With Beijing there is more flexibility. Shrewd foreign policy advisors in Beijing will be advising President Xi to use China’s burgeoning ties with the Gulf States and Israel to leverage relations with Iran and vice versa.

For instance, China has held positions on Syria and Libya inimical to those of its new partners in the Gulf. In addition to Damascus being a long-time buyer of weapons from China, Beijing has also made clear its support for Moscow’s intervention. China and Russia have consistently worked together to provide diplomatic protection to the Syrian government via vetoes at the UN. Some sources also reported Chinese military advisers being dispatched to Syria and Beijing providing training support to the Syrian army.

While maintaining its tendency to take a soft-spoken approach, Beijing hosted both senior Assad government and opposition figures. In a purposely symbolic move, during the China visit, the Syrian Foreign Minister confirmed the government’s willingness to participate in the peace process. Beyond Middle Eastern states, China’s position on Syria provides it negotiating power with both the West and Russia. Similarly, Beijing’s Palestine announcement allows it to extract more from Israel.

China’s Interests

China primarily sees the region as a source of energy. It is also a continuation of the trade routes it seeks to secure from East Asia, through the Indian Ocean, to the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

The ability to influence the Middle East is also important to great/rising powers like America, China and India in order to disrupt and deny energy to potential adversaries. Greater Chinese involvement will give Beijing some potential leverage over the energy supplies of adversaries like Japan, and potential competitors like India. Beijing’s pursuit of closer ties with Middle Eastern states as part of its “Maritime Silk Road” initiative adds to India’s fears of encirclement by a Chinese “string of pearls”.

Beijing also prioritises stability in the region more consistently than Washington. Recent conflicts cost China. The toppling of Gaddafi in Libya led to losses in energy investments, infrastructure and equipment, as well as evacuation costs. With regard to Syria, Beijing had to abandon its oil investments in 2013 due to the war.

As one of the main theatres for geopolitical competition between great powers, China’s growing strategic role in the Middle East is another step toward what many in the country see as its own “manifest destiny”. This rising Asian power, free of colonial baggage in the region, adds a new ingredient that could help untangle seemingly intractable issues like Israel-Palestine. Furthermore, with its steadfast principle of respecting sovereignty, China’s increasingly loud and distinctive voice in the Middle East may indeed be the final nail in the coffin of Western interventionism.

Sources: Dr Kadira Pethiyagoda is a visiting fellow with the Brookings Institution researching Asia-Middle East relations - independent.co.uk

The Heat: Chinese President Xi speaks at World Economic Forum in Davos PT 1

https://youtu.be/Txa_93q8iak

Related:

China Has Overtaken the U.S. as the World's Largest Economy ...

Donald Trump just forfeited in his first fight with China

 

https://youtu.be/QpnguRCLGFU

Related Posts:

 The world at a T-junction

Jan 22, 2017 ... World thought leader Mohamed El-Erian, whom I had the great fortune to moderate at his ... At a T-junction, you either move right or move left.

 Xi, Trump discuss China-US cooperation

Nov 15, 2016 ... President Xi Jinping said on Monday that "there are a lot of things" China and the United States .... CNY 2017, Xi spreads love, inspires nation .

 CNY 2017, Xi spreads love, inspires nation ...

4 days ago ... President Xi Jinping (pic) struck a warm tone with his annual Spring Festival greeting calling on the whole nation to love their family and friends

TPPA in danger of collapse after its biggest critic wins US presidency

KUALA LUMPUR: The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) faces its biggest challenge with the election of its major critic Donald Trump as US president. The agreement will collapse without the participation of United States, said its prime mover in Malaysia, Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed.

The International Trade and In­­dus­try Minister explained that for TPPA to be ratified, it needs at least six countries, accounting for 85% of the combined gross domestic product of the 12 signatories.

“Without the United States, there will be no TPPA,” he said when met in Parliament yesterday.

He added that failure to carry out TPPA may affect the Malaysian economy.

“We went into TPPA for the overall interest of Malaysia. To be a part of this process, to do more trading, as we believe that this will help trade and investment for Malaysia.

“Among the reasons why we joined was to get access to Mexico and Canada, countries that we haven’t gotten access to,” he said.

He, however, was quick to add that it was too soon to make an analysis on the matter.

Trump’s shock victory stunned capital markets around the world with investors seeking safe haven assets such as gold to brace the period of uncertainties.

In an immediate after-effect Asian stock markets fell, with Bursa Malaysia performing relatively better than most other markets, shedding less than 1%.

The US dollar index, which measures the strength of the currency against a basket of currencies, spiked to more than 1,207, largely due to the weakening of emerging market currencies and strengthening of safe-haven currencies such as the Yen and Swiss francs.

The ringgit fell to RM4.224 against the greenback, a nine-month low since Feb 25. Gold spot prices went up by almost 5% to US$1,337 (RM5,645) as investors sought shelter in safe haven assets in the period of uncertainty.

Ministers and chief negotiators of TTPA countries are expected to meet in Peru soon to take stock on the fate of the agreement.

International Trade and Industry secretary-general Datuk J. Jayasiri, who was Malaysia’s chief TPPA negotiator, said there was no indication so far that Washington under President Barack Obama would not table the Bill in the US Congress for ratification.

“All indications from US Trade Representative Michael Froman is that they are working hard to table it. The US has its own domestic process and for Malaysia we will continue the process of amending our laws,” he said.

Peru will host the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperaton (Apec) summit on Nov 19 to be attended by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. Obama is also expected to attend.

American Malaysia Chamber of Commerce (Amcham) executive director Siobhan Das said US business investments would continue to find a home in Malaysia.

“Amcham supports all efforts that enable free and fair trade between all parties, and looks forward to working with the new administration to grow US business interests in Malaysia,” said Das.

Malaysian Association for Ame­ri­can Studies (MAAS) President Prof Dr K.S. Nathan believed that Trump would try to fine tune but would not scrap the agreement.

“They may renegotiate some aspects of it but I don’t see Trump pulling back on the TPPA or even the North American Free Trade Agreement”.

The US Embassy’s charge d’affaires Edgard Kagan explained it was still possible that TPPA would be approved by US lawmakers.

“There are different views on trade in the US. President Obama is committed to the TPPA and we will just have to see what happens,” he said.

In theory, the TPPA could still be ratified by Congress during its “lame duck” session.

This is the session which takes places after the US presidential election but before the inauguration on Jan 20 next year.

BY Razak ahmad, Neville spykerman, Mergawati zulfakar, Loshana k shagar, Hemananthani sivanandam, Rahimy rahim, Martin carvalho, andd. Kanyakumari The Star/ANN

Related posts: 

Donald Trump Wins US Presidential Election

https://youtu.be/YKIOAMcTuWI NEW YORK, Nov. 9 -- Republican candidate Donald Trump was projected by U.S. media to have won the 270 ...

US media wanted 'special priveleges'

President Barack Obama disembarked from Air Force One in Hangzhou, China, on Saturday. Photo: JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS

https://youtu.be/f6AmvKBrJaQ

The United States' "obsession with special privileges" lies behind several US media organization's accusation that China treated US reporters rudely during the G20 Leaders Summit in Hangzhou, sources said.

The sources, who are close to the matter, responded on condition of anonymity to news reports and opinion pieces in some US newspapers that accused China of failing to meet the US media demands.

They faulted China first with not allowing some US reporters to be close to President Barack Obama as he got off Air Force One in Hangzhou on Saturday.

Obama said on Sunday, however, that his talks on Saturday with President Xi Jinping had been "extremely productive" and that he "wouldn't overcrank the significance" of arguments that took place at the airport upon his arrival.

The Wall Street Journal complained that on Saturday "the Chinese barred Mr Obama from including his traveling press contingent in his motorcade".

The New York Times said on Tuesday that "The White House press corps, which normally has access to the president's public events wherever he travels, has been sequestered in buses 200 yards from the site of the Group of 20, without access to food or toilets."

In response, a Chinese source told China Daily that the US, brushing aside common journalistic practice in multilateral meetings, insisted on having a bus carrying about 20 US reporters follow Obama's motorcade directly to summit hall where closed-door meetings were held.

Normally, however, host countries of major multilateral meetings have journalists gather as a pool in the news center and have them go through routine security checks before they are led to the meeting hall.

Another source at the scene told China Daily that "the bus was of course not allowed to join the motorcade, according to press rules, and we arranged for the reporters to go to the news center. But some of them chose to stay on the bus, while some went to the bathrooms or the press center at the summit."

The New York Times reported that when Xi and Obama took a leisurely stroll after dinner on Saturday, "Chinese security cut the number of US journalists allowed to witness it to three from the original six, then ultimately to a single reporter".

But a second Chinese source said China "had never promised to allow six reporters".

"Because the lakeside path was too narrow for that many reporters, we proposed one on one - one reporter from the US and the other from China. Later, the US agreed it was a good arrangement," the source said.

When asked about the meeting between Xi and Obama and the so-called incidents, Mark Toner, deputy US State Department spokesman said at a news briefing on Tuesday that the "small incidents that took place on the periphery" do not take away from "the strong cooperation that we've had with China on a number of fronts over the past several years of this administration".

A Chinese source said: "It is common to make some demands, but the demands should not cross the line. The US should not be an exception."

The sources added that no other country demanded the privileges that the US sought, and "China had every reason to provide convenient arrangements to foreign reporters" because it wished to successfully host the summit.

By Zhang Yunbi and Wu Jiao(China Daily)

Contact the writer at zhangyunbi@chinadaily.com.cn

Related posts:

G20 2016 concludes with multiple victories; China puts its stamp on global governance

Going green By Wang Xiaoying Carbon commitment Illustration: Shen Lan/GT https://youtu.be/gRUR_ouXAJI G20 SUMMIT ...

Philippine President calls Obama the "son of a bitch", reveals cracks in ties as he refuses to be lectured on human rights

US President Barack Obama and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte expected to meet on the ASEAN Summit and related Summits in Laos in ...

TPPA debate will continue although concluded

Video: http://t.cn/RyEoAkLv http://english.cntv.cn/2015/10/09/VIDE1444344482352696.shtml



FINALLY, the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have concluded. But that’s not the end of the story.

It will be many more days before the text is made public. Until then, there will still be so many questions unanswered.

Enough is known, from media reports and some leaked texts and analyses, to make some preliminary comments.

Firstly, trade is only one part of the TPPA. As important, or more important, are other issues including investment, intellectual property, government procurement, state-owned enterprises, labour and environment.

These other issues are at the heart of the country’s socio-economic structures and policies.

On these issues, the TPPA may have problematic elements for Malaysia. The Malaysian negotiating team has been fighting to lessen the adverse impacts of the main proposals.

It says it won concessions. But what these are, whether they are enough, and the effects are still not clear. What is clear is that “policy space” (a country’s freedom to formulate its own policies) would be very significantly narrowed as a result of the TPPA.

On intellectual property, the blow is perhaps the most obvious. Most patents filed in Malaysia are owned by foreigners. So when patent laws are made stronger, it will benefit foreigners who are the patent holders.

The enhanced monopoly given to patent holders will have adverse effects on Malaysian consumers who will have to pay higher prices and Malaysian companies which cannot make or import generic versions during the patent term.

The renowned medical group, Doctors Without Borders (MSF), condemned the TPPA as the “worst trade agreement for access to medicines”. Patients and treatment providers in developing countries will be the TPPA’s big losers as it will raise the prices of medicines by extending the monopolies enjoyed by the big drug companies and further delaying price-reducing generic competition, according to MSF.

The term of the patent may be lengthened (by adding time taken to register the medicine or approve the patent). Data exclusivity is to be granted for five years (or possibly for more than that, for the new drugs known as biologics), during which the generic companies are not allowed to rely on the test data of the originator firm.

On investment, the TPPA opens the road for foreign companies to be treated as well or better than locals, thus giving them rights of entry and ownership, and free transfer of funds, while prohibiting the host state from imposing performance requirements such as local content, technology transfer and joint ventures.

The TPPA also contains the investor-state dispute settlement system (ISDS), which enables foreign investors to sue the Government in an international tribunal.

Changes in government policies can lead to claims that this is unfair treatment and the foreign investor can ask for compensation for loss of expected future profits.

According to press reports, the TPPA has some safeguards such as diluting the ability of companies to make frivolous claims. Exactly what these are, is not known. The ISDS in any case remains intact as a powerful tool for foreign investors and puts Malaysia in a defensive position.

On government procurement, the space that Malaysia has had to make policies on how the Government does its procurement will be curbed. The preferences given to locals will now give way to national treatment for foreign companies.

Malaysia has been negotiating for more exceptions in terms of the “threshold” of level of expenditure or project value where preferences for locals can still be given, and an exception for bumiputra policy. Details of the final agreement are still not known.

On state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the TPPA will impose disciplines and rules on how these SOEs operate, the subsidies they can or cannot get, and their need to be non-discriminatory when purchasing materials (they cannot give preference to local companies).

The advocates of the SOE chapter seem to want to curb the advantages that SOEs may have, and enable the foreign companies to more effectively compete and take some of their market share. Malaysia has also been fighting for exceptions for some of its SOEs. The final outcome of this is not yet known.

Investment policy, government procurement, SOEs and access to medicines are right at the heart of Malaysia’s political economy and socio-economic structures.

Policies that have been at the centre of the country’s economic and political development have now to be defended as exceptions and flexibilities, and there is a limit to what the other TPPA partners will accept.

The chapters on these issues are bitter pills to swallow and the debate will continue on whether they are worth swallowing.

The direct trade aspects of the TPPA should have such enormous benefit that they more than offset the disadvantages of the other issues. Otherwise, why join the TPPA?

However, Malaysia’s tariffs are on average higher than those of the United States, the main country with whom we do not yet have a Free Trade Agreement.

If tariffs go to zero through the TPPA, Malaysia will thus have to cut its tariffs by more than the US. Whilst we may gain extra exports through the TPPA, we will also have to import more. There is no guarantee that the TPPA will lead to a better trade balance, and there could be an opposite result.

The debate on the TPPA will intensify now that the negotiations have ended. The text should be made available as soon as possible, so that the discussions can be based on the agreement itself. After the TPPA, it will take another two years for the agreement to be ratified and come into force.

Thus, the TPPA is not a “done deal” and the real debate may only be beginning now. It is unfortunate that till now the text is not available.

BY MARTIN KHOR

Martin Khor (director@southcentre.org) is executive director of the South Centre. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Related:

Successful global trade agreements require China's participation

The TPP is not an opportunity China cannot miss. Any global trade framework will not be perfect without China's participation. We have nothing to be insecure about. 

Related post:

TPPA a bad deal for Malaysia, can't isolate China, only trade growth defines merits of TPP

KUALA LUMPUR: United Nations assistant director-general and coordinator for economic and social development, food and agriculture organisa...