File 033365
Trump Hands China an Easy Win in the Trade War - The New York Times (File 033365)
Opinion article by Kevin Rudd analyzing President Trump's trade war strategy with China and its unintended consequences for U.S. negotiating leverage.
Summary
Kevin Rudd, former Australian Prime Minister and president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, critiques Trump's May 2019 tweet ending trade negotiations with China. Rudd argues that Trump's aggressive rhetoric plays into Chinese nationalism, allowing Xi Jinping to mobilize domestic support similar to China's historical May Fourth Movement. The article details how China responded with three public "red lines" that now limit negotiating flexibility, making a trade deal less likely as Chinese leadership questions the value of compromise with the Trump administration.
5/29/2019 Opinion | Trump Hands China an Easy Win in the Trade War - The New York TimesTrump Hands China an EasyWin in the Trade WarThe presidentʼs tough rhetoric plays into Chinese economicnationalism.By Kevin RuddMr. Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, is the president of the Asia Society PolicyInstitute.May 29, 2019When President Trump tweeted on May 5 that the China trade deal was off, the historical echoesin Beijing were loud and clear. Almost exactly 100 years earlier, China’s “May Fourth Movement”of 1919 was a direct response to the actions of President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World WarI. Wilson had promised China, an American ally, that German colonies in Shandong would bereturned to Chinese sovereignty, but instead handed them to Japan. China exploded with anti-American, nationalist sentiment. One of the eventual consequences was the establishment of theChinese Communist Party, which for the last 70 years has ruled the country.Thus, Mr. Trump has handed Xi Jinping a remarkably effective nationalist card to play at a timewhen he has been under pressure at home because of a slowing economy. The Chinese media isnow full of accounts of the country’s economic resilience and appeals to patriotism, even invokingthe spirit of the Korean War, when, according to the official narrative, China was able to staredown the vastly superior American military.And just in case people didn’t get the point, Mr. Xi recently visited Jiangxi, the starting point ofthe Long March in 1934, in which the Communist Party endured many hardships but ultimatelyemerged victorious.I can almost hear members of the Trump administration groaning. Why on earth would they needto take into consideration events in China’s ancient past?The answer depends on what Mr. Trump’s primary objective is. If it’s to sound tough to Americanvoters, he may well have a winning formula. But if it’s to bring about a substantive change inChina’s negotiating posture toward a bilateral trade agreement, one that might usher in changesin China’s trade policy, addressing questions of forced technology transfers, intellectual propertytheft, industrial subsidies, currency manipulation and a phalanx of other non-tariff barriers, I’mnot so sure.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/opinion/trump-china-trade-war.html 1/35/29/2019 Opinion | Trump Hands China an Easy Win in the Trade War - The New York TimesDays after the president’s tweets, China listed three “red lines,” positions the United States hadtaken in the trade talks that were unacceptable: First, that it would keep tariffs in place for aperiod after the proposed trade agreement was signed. Second, that it could impose punitivetariffs if it judged China to be in violation of the agreement, and that China would be forbiddenfrom retaliating with its own tariffs. Third, the ever-inflating expectations of the terms underwhich Beijing would buy American goods under a proposed bilateral purchasing agreement.These “red lines” were new. Before that, China’s negotiating team had a fully flexible remit fromthe leadership. But not anymore. Now that these three lines are in the public domain, there is noway Chinese leaders can yield on them. The leaks of large parts of the negotiating text to theAmerican news media has added a new level of toxicity, making it virtually impossible to returnto the existing text as a basis of negotiations. Together with recent moves against the Chinesetelecom company Huawei presumably intended to pressure Beijing further, the possibility ofnegotiating a revised agreement that is more accommodating to American interests is now veryslim.Instead, what I have seen in Beijing over the last few weeks is a country moving in exactly theopposite direction.RelatedMore on the trade war.Opinion | Michelle CottleDonald Trumpʼs Great Patriotic Wars May 26, 2019Economic analysts, meanwhile, have been calculating the impact of a full-blown trade war,estimating a loss of about 1.2 percentage points to Chinese G.D.P. growth. This figure is nowportrayed in the Chinese media as entirely manageable given China’s capacity to use fiscal andmonetary policy stimulus to support domestic demand and keep growth above 6 percent.Even if a trade deal with the United States is still possible, some in the Chinese leadership arenow starting to ask, why bother? They argue that in technology, investment, foreign policy,national security and human rights, the Trump administration has made it clear that it hasembarked on a more adversarial position toward China. So why should Beijing expend any morepolitical capital on a trade deal? Perhaps it’s better, in China’s view, to cut its losses now and getready for the next Cold War.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/opinion/trump-china-trade-war.html 2/35/29/2019 Opinion | Trump Hands China an Easy Win in the Trade War - The New York TimesIf that’s what the Trump administration wants, its strategy has been a great success. If not, andthe president really wants a trade deal, with reasonable decreases in the bilateral trade deficit,and some substantive changes in Chinese economic behavior, the American negotiating strategyrequires some serious recalibration.Of course, China’s public position is that negotiations can continue. Even within the framework ofthe new “red lines,” there may still be room for a deal. China might agree to purchase moreAmerican goods, with America yielding on the retention of tariffs, and the unilateral right toimpose tariffs later. However, the degree of difficulty in getting to an agreement has nowincreased substantially.The bottom line is that nationalism is not just a factor in Trump’s America. It’s now a big factor inXi Jinping’s China as well, reinforced through the prism of Chinese history. In most of its dealingswith America over the last 100 years, China has seen itself as weak. Today, in Beijing’s view,China is weak no longer.Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, is president of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Weʼd like to hear what you think about this orany of our articles. Here are some tips. And hereʼs our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/opinion/trump-china-trade-war.html 3/3