Ahead of a possible meeting next month between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, the White House tempered any optimism that a trade truce with Beijing is imminent when top economic advisor Larry Kudlow accused China on Sunday of doing “nothing” to defuse trade tensions.
But some Chinese officials and government advisers recently emphasized that China will show patience in addressing American trade demands, postponing if necessary some of its plans to become self-sufficient in high-tech industry.
Raising per capita income from the present US$9,000 a year to mid-five figures over the next ten years or so is the country’s top priority, and the leadership views trade war with the United States as a distraction. China, they believe, is prepared to make concessions to American demands for changes in the country’s industrial policy without changing its long-term trajectory.
Several officials said they hoped that a meeting between Trump and Xi at the Group of Twenty summit in Argentina next month might break the ice. Earlier this year, China encouraged the US to give it a shopping list of items it might buy to reduce the bilateral trade deficit. To China’s consternation, the American side added the demand that China reduce subsidies to a manufacturing industry that competes with the United States.
Support for capital-intensive industry in China rarely takes the form of direct subsidies. Instead, it is embedded in the provision of credit and the control of the supply chain of China’s state-owned enterprises. It is not clear how to measure such subsidies, let alone eliminate them. Washington, to paraphrase an old joke, made Beijing an offer it can’t understand.
China’s “Made in China 2025” plan, which envisions a rapid expansion of domestic high tech industry, figures prominently in the US administration’s complaints about Chinese economic policy. US negotiators accuse China of using state subsidies to gain an unfair advantage against US competitors, quite apart from tariffs, non-trade barriers, theft of intellectual property and pressure on Western joint-venture partners to transfer technology.
China told the United States that it would buy whatever the United States wanted to sell in order to reduce the trade deficit, and is ready to work with Washington on improving intellectual property protection, but the American challenge to China’s economic model is a deal-breaker.
By backing off from the 2025 target, Chinese officials believe, Beijing can placate the US Administration, and give President Trump a coup in public relations while keeping its own industrial program intact. The government is exploring a number of ways to present such a deal.
Last week, a new government draft entitled “Made in China 2030” was released for discussion at government think tanks. Some government advisers mention the year 2035 rather than 2025 as a goal for achieving China’s high tech ambitions. The differences are largely verbal and have little bearing on actual policies.
Some advisers to the Chinese government view the trade war with the United States as the outcome of trends that have been in place since the 2008 financial crisis. China observes that economic liberalization has become less popular with voters in the United States and elsewhere. China’s trade policy has remained the same, and the trade deficit with the United States remains at very high levels. In addition, the United States now characterizes Russia and China as rivals challenging the United States and has begun a technological upgrade of its armed forces.
America’s punitive tariffs may prove a blessing in disguise for Chinese diplomacy, as China seeks to “win friends with neighbors who have been negatively affected by the American trade war,” according to one adviser. But other officials view the field of trade diplomacy as treacherous. The risk, some believe, is that America may lock in the largest industrial nations through bilateral trade deals, forcing China back to trading relationships with the developing world. That would lower the profitability of Chinese enterprises as well as Chinese growth.
A related concern is that the results of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s flagship infrastructure program, have fallen short of expectations. A number of recipients of Chinese loans are pushing back against Chinese programs, most prominently Malaysia, which has suspended Chinese public investment. Poor execution and imperious behavior by Chinese negotiators have cost China a great deal of good will, in the view of some government analysts, and it may be necessary to slow the pace of BRI investments in order to improve the quality of investments.
China, to be sure, is doing its best to take advantage of global discomfort with America’s disdain for a world trading system that it helped to build. Diplomacy, though, isn’t China’s strength. It has a limited pool of negotiators with language skills and overseas experience. The path to prominence in China during the past generation has gone through regional Communist Party organizations or the military, rather than through involvement in foreign affairs. China was surprised by what one official called Trump’s “brutal” economic attack, and unsure of the outcome.
Westerners fail to understand that China still thinks of itself as a developing country, one economist emphasized. With per capita GDP of US$9,000, China isn’t even considered a middle-income developing nation. Although per capita GDP looks stronger on a Purchasing Power Parity basis, China wants to minimize risks to its domestic economic outlook.
It is still too early for China to act like a great power, one analyst said. The United States during the 19th century did not attempt to impose its will on other countries, he noted. Only after the Second World War did the United States act like a major power. China, he concluded, will have to take a more modest role in world affairs “until 2035, when it will be a much more powerful country.”
In the long term, though, China sees the pendulum of history swinging back to Asia. In 1840, before the Western industrial revolution overwhelmed Asian economies, the continent accounted for 60% of world manufacturing. Now Asia is back to 60% of world industrial production and will grow from there.
Chinese officials scoff at the Trump Administration’s claim that the superior performance of the US stock market shows that America is winning the trade war. “The finance sector has higher margins than the real economy,” said one academic. “The US is the largest financial power. You are printing money in return for wealth created by China. Since 2008, the finance sector has been playing a greater role in the US economy. No-one will win in this trade war. This will not be helpful for the development of the real economy in the US.”
China is uncertain about the immediate future, and the Communist Party is reluctant to put at risk the steady improvement in incomes that has kept its hold on power secure. But it is confident about China’s long-term economic direction and not particularly worried about whether China’s emergence as a superpower will occur in 2025, 2030, or 2035. Many Chinese strategists are willing to make substantive concessions or at least concessions that Washington can claim are substantive, in order to protect the domestic economy.
After numerous conversations with Chinese planners, I have the impression that the Communist Party will act swiftly to pre-empt any economic problems that might arise from the trade war and a possible reduction of exports. China has already loosened monetary policy and taken additional measures to encourage lending and is preparing a tax cut as well as increased infrastructure spending.
Internal government discussions emphasize China’s weak points and attempt to identify countermeasures that will correct them. To the extent that the US Administration is counting on China’s economic weakness to force concessions, it probably will be disappointed. Nonetheless, China will look for ways to conciliate the barbarian on its border and prepare for the not-too-distant day – perhaps in 2035 – when it will be the world’s largest economy by far.

False.
False.
If the articles written seem offensive to China its trolls are violently reacting . ASIA TIMES is just practicing fair journalism that both sides of the story is fairly presented with out bias. It presented balance journalism to general public. Kudos Asia Times for your endeavour of fair and balance journalism. Keep up the good work…..
If the articles written seem offensive to China its trolls are violently reacting . ASIA TIMES is just practicing fair journalism that both sides of the story is fairly presented with out bias. It presented balance journalism to general public. Kudos Asia Times for your endeavour of fair and balance journalism. Keep up the good work…..
Jeff you have summed up everything bautifuly.
And you have identified the issue with 100% accuracy.
The main issue of course being the fact that the USA citizens are shellshocked and unable to face the end of shortlived global leadership. Unable to cope with China assuming it’s natural and historically constant primacy, save for the last 150 years.
Jeff you have summed up everything bautifuly.
And you have identified the issue with 100% accuracy.
The main issue of course being the fact that the USA citizens are shellshocked and unable to face the end of shortlived global leadership. Unable to cope with China assuming it’s natural and historically constant primacy, save for the last 150 years.
But China does not have to give the war. Economy is far more important.
Why not simply sit patiently like for the last 30 years and, and let USA burst from within. Americans are already losing their mind from the anger and paranoia.
But China does not have to give the war. Economy is far more important.
Why not simply sit patiently like for the last 30 years and, and let USA burst from within. Americans are already losing their mind from the anger and paranoia.
Simon Stevanovic
China CAN be more agressive, and it doesn’t have to lead to war. If it does lead to war, anyone can win, and everyone can lose; including the entire world. Give another ten years and the outlook will be the same. What gave you the idea that you can predict the outcome of such wars? Not least because you didn’t define what kind of the war you had in mind.
And Russia? Gimme a break.
They have some cool weapons, always have had. But Russia’s total GDP is ~ GDP of California. And RU has ~ 10x smaller military budget than USA. That’s exactly opposite of being able to "compete". And again like with the "war".. the meaning of "could compete" is known only to you.
Simon Stevanovic
China CAN be more agressive, and it doesn’t have to lead to war. If it does lead to war, anyone can win, and everyone can lose; including the entire world. Give another ten years and the outlook will be the same. What gave you the idea that you can predict the outcome of such wars? Not least because you didn’t define what kind of the war you had in mind.
And Russia? Gimme a break.
They have some cool weapons, always have had. But Russia’s total GDP is ~ GDP of California. And RU has ~ 10x smaller military budget than USA. That’s exactly opposite of being able to "compete". And again like with the "war".. the meaning of "could compete" is known only to you.
Hitlet wasn’t smart either, his generals on the other hand were quite adept
China can’t be more aggressive as militarily if it led to conflict they will not win a war with America at this stage. The only country which could compete with America militarily would be Russia. In another 10 years it might be a totally different case for China
China can’t be more aggressive as militarily if it led to conflict they will not win a war with America at this stage. The only country which could compete with America militarily would be Russia. In another 10 years it might be a totally different case for China
Jeff Voek
That’s exactly the way of thinking that leads to wars. When you realize things are not the way you think, you and your kind would have destroyed your and your kids livelihood or even lives, as well as others’ who do not deserve it.
Jeff Voek
That’s exactly the way of thinking that leads to wars. When you realize things are not the way you think, you and your kind would have destroyed your and your kids livelihood or even lives, as well as others’ who do not deserve it.
That’s exactly the way of thinking that leads to wars. When you realize things are not the way you think, you and your kind would have destroyed your and your kids livelihood or even lives, as well as others’ who do not deserve it.
Good news is that China can live comfortably on its own, (China was able to even at its worst time in the 50-60’s), but the US can’t.
The only way the US can be a leader is to restructure itself from within and win. As of now, it’s a parasite and a bully.
Good news is that China can live comfortably on its own, (China was able to even at its worst time in the 50-60’s), but the US can’t.
The only way the US can be a leader is to restructure itself from within and win. As of now, it’s a parasite and a bully.
200 years of colonial history and 2 world wars left you and you alone unscathed didnt give you huge advantage over others for a long time? Print out of ass USD as world reserve currency giving you huge advantages over other eocnomies didnt net you enough advantages? Bring it on and beat you to the dust in your own aggression and teach you a lesson or two on who’s the real one unaware of his priviledges and entitlements.
Most of US’s enemies after WWII are self made. If you didnt split Korea into 2 in the cruicial time of their independence after WWII (which was years ahead of the resultant korean war) you wouldnt have korean war and a NK who hates you today. If you didnt overthrow Iran’s democracy in 1953 and all the chaos Iran had to go through you wouldnt have an Iran that sees you as meddling satan and shouting death to you today. If you just let Soviet union secularize and modernize afghan instead of arming mujahadeen who ended up giving you 9-11 and the resultant 20 year war currently ongoing in the middle east..lol. And if you just stayed clean out of Chinese Civil war instead of transporting the loser to Taiwan and gave them protection you would have a lot less colision to have with China over the years which will result in this incoming war. Plenty of other shitz can be rightfully throw at you too. The only real good you ever did was construct a macro global economic environment for nations to develop which brought a peaceful goal for nations to persue, but dont say you never benefited from it (see prior advantages mentioned) and now your dumptard is coming to apply the stupidest fix possible and throw away even that good will. Have fun!
200 years of colonial history and 2 world wars left you and you alone unscathed didnt give you huge advantage over others for a long time? Print out of ass USD as world reserve currency giving you huge advantages over other eocnomies didnt net you enough advantages? Bring it on and beat you to the dust in your own aggression and teach you a lesson or two on who’s the real one unaware of his priviledges and entitlements.
Most of US’s enemies after WWII are self made. If you didnt split Korea into 2 in the cruicial time of their independence after WWII (which was years ahead of the resultant korean war) you wouldnt have korean war and a NK who hates you today. If you didnt overthrow Iran’s democracy in 1953 and all the chaos Iran had to go through you wouldnt have an Iran that sees you as meddling satan and shouting death to you today. If you just let Soviet union secularize and modernize afghan instead of arming mujahadeen who ended up giving you 9-11 and the resultant 20 year war currently ongoing in the middle east..lol. And if you just stayed clean out of Chinese Civil war instead of transporting the loser to Taiwan and gave them protection you would have a lot less colision to have with China over the years which will result in this incoming war. Plenty of other shitz can be rightfully throw at you too. The only real good you ever did was construct a macro global economic environment for nations to develop which brought a peaceful goal for nations to persue, but dont say you never benefited from it (see prior advantages mentioned) and now your dumptard is coming to apply the stupidest fix possible and throw away even that good will. Have fun!