Trade
What Xi and Biden forgot to mention on the economy
Author: Tom Westland, ANU
According to the official readout, in their virtual summit this week, US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed ‘managing competition responsibly’. For Biden, the talks were a chance to press Xi on China’s actions in Hong Kong and its assertive posture in the Taiwan Strait, as well as human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Xi, for his part, warned Biden against leading the United States into a new Cold War against China.
Missing on the agenda was any serious discussion about the problems facing the global economy as it recovers from the deep recession of 2020.
Aside from some worthy breakthroughs, like the agreement to hold bilateral ‘stability’ talks on nuclear issues, it’s not clear what Xi’s and Biden’s responsibly managed competition will look like. If it looks anything like the managed trade that now governs the economic interactions of world’s two largest economies, then ‘competition’ is a wild misnomer. The trade war between the two countries, and the ensuing ‘Phase One’ trade deal, represent the worst kind of anti-competitive policy kludge, designed to protect politically favoured industries in the United States and kicking out Australian and Canadian farmers and gas suppliers who can produce more efficiently than their American counterparts. In economics as in sport, competition is best managed by neutral umpires, not by the participants themselves.
The failure of the two presidents to discuss what they could do to shore up the economic recovery is a big, missed opportunity. There is a desperate need for bolder leadership that tackles the short-term pressures and – just as importantly – the longer-term structural fault lines. The global economy was looking decidedly sickly even before COVID-19 struck. The Brexit referendum in June 2016, and the election of a populist protectionist to the White House later that year, marked the start of an inward turn in the advanced economies. The yield curve for US Treasuries inverted in May 2019, usually a reasonably reliable harbinger of recession. The structural damage to the world economy inflicted by Britain’s exit from the European Union and the tariffs put in place under President Trump has been masked by the much greater immediate destruction wrought by the pandemic, but as the recovery gains pace, it will become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Though the Biden administration has more or less made peace, though on the wrong terms, with Europe — lifting the Trump-era tariffs but imposing quotas on steel and aluminium exports from the bloc —it has stuck with Trump’s belligerent posture towards China. It has maintained tariffs on a broad swathe of Chinese imports and continues to hold back exports of semiconductors in the name of national security – even though the likely long-run effect will just be to stimulate semiconductor manufacturing elsewhere.
The effect of both of these policies is to restrict the supply of consumer goods in the United States. That isn’t the only reason for the US experiencing the highest inflation rate since George Bush Sr was president. Compared to the ‘Great Resignation’ of workers not wanting to return to low-paying jobs and the logistical issues at American ports, though, it is a problem that is easily fixed – at least in theory. The domestic politics of removing the Trump tariffs might be tricky, but Biden could use his power to issue broad exemptions that would render the tariffs a dead letter. Biden will also remember the political fate of the last two one-term Presidents, both of whom presided over economic contractions that stemmed in part from tighter monetary policy in the face of inflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures, in the United States and elsewhere in the global economy, may be only temporary, and for the most part central bankers are choosing not to overreact by precipitously raising rates and choking off the economic recovery. But the task is made harder by senseless trade restrictions that have not yielded any tangible security or economic benefits to the countries imposing them. Ever since the dismantling of the Corn Laws, economists have known that removing barriers to international trade lowers prices; politicians, though, captured by special interests, often have to be dragged screaming and kicking to recognising it.
Though he touched on it only lightly in the summit, President Xi and his advisers would be well aware of the possible impact on the Chinese economy of policy tightening in the United States…
Trade
Self-Reliance and Openness: Core Principles of China’s Third Plenary Session
The Third Plenum communique from the CCP indicates a prioritization of stability and compromise in response to China’s economic challenges. It highlights the concept of Chinese-style modernization and establishes political guidelines for balancing regulation and market forces.
The CCP’s Third Plenum communique signals a focus on stability and compromise in the face of China’s economic challenges. It emphasises Chinese-style modernisation and sets political directions for balancing regulation and market forces. While not as groundbreaking as previous plenums, it acknowledges the importance of market mechanisms and technological self-reliance, aiming to address issues like high youth unemployment and private sector uncertainty. The communique seeks to navigate the complexities of global competition and domestic innovation, potentially reshaping global supply chains and trade dynamics. Overall, it presents a pragmatic blueprint for China’s economic future.
Source : Self-reliance and openness central pillars of China’s Third Plenum | East Asia Forum
Trade
Trade Prevails Over Political Persuasions in China-Germany Relations
China and Germany maintain a strong bilateral relationship, rooted in economic cooperation despite ideological differences. Recent visits and agreements focus on expanding trade and addressing mutual concerns, navigating challenges while nurturing ties.
Evolving Bilateral Ties
China and Germany share a strong bilateral relationship, rooted in history since 1972. This connection has seen moments of cooperation intertwined with periods of tension. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s April 2024 visit underscores Germany’s commitment to fostering this partnership, reflecting a mutual interest in maintaining economic ties despite ideological differences.
Economic Pragmatism
As the second and third largest global economies, China and Germany’s economic interdependence is crucial. Germany emerged as China’s primary trading partner in 2023, with trade values reaching €254.4 billion (US$280 billion). In response to global scrutiny, Germany has taken a balanced approach, emphasizing economic stability over political discord. This was evident during Scholz’s prior visit in November 2022, where his diplomatic tone contrasted with broader EU sentiments.
Facing Challenges Together
Despite increasing public skepticism in Germany regarding China’s global influence and human rights issues, both nations continue to seek common ground. Their October 2023 Joint Statement highlights intentions to pursue cooperation in areas like carbon neutrality and open markets. To navigate these complex terrains, Germany can utilize its institutional frameworks to enhance dialogue, while also considering supply chain diversification to reduce dependency on China. The intertwining nature of their economies suggests that, despite challenges, both countries will continue to prioritize their substantial trade relations.
Source : Trade trumps political persuasions in China–Germany relations
Trade
Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
Fragmentation in global trade due to the lack of development in multilateral trade rules at the WTO has led to an increase in FTAs. The Appellate Body impasse has further exacerbated fragmentation, requiring a multilateral approach for reform.
Fragmentation in Global Trade
Fragmentation in global trade is not new. With the slow development of multilateral trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO), governments have turned to free trade agreements (FTAs). As of 2023, almost 600 bilateral and regional trade agreements have been notified to the WTO, leading to growing fragmentation in trade rules, business activities, and international relations. But until recently, trade dispute settlements have predominantly remained within the WTO.
Challenges with WTO Dispute Settlement
The demise of the Appellate Body increased fragmentation in both the interpretation and enforcement of trade law. A small number of WTO Members created the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a temporary solution, but in its current form, it cannot properly address fragmentation. Since its creation in 2020, the MPIA has only attracted 26 parties, and its rulings have not been consistent with previous decisions made by the Appellate Body, rendering WTO case law increasingly fragmented.
The Path Forward for Global Trade
Maintaining the integrity and predictability of the global trading system while reducing fragmentation requires restoring the WTO’s authority. At the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2022, governments agreed to re-establish a functional dispute settlement system by 2024. Reaching a consensus will be difficult, and negotiations will take time. A critical mass-based, open plurilateral approach provides a viable alternative way to reform the appellate mechanism, as WTO Members are committed to reforming the dispute settlement system.
Source : Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
- China’s November 2024 Economy: Navigating Mixed Signals and Ongoing Challenges
- Ukraine war: 10% of Chinese people are willing to boycott Russian goods over invasion – new study
- Australia Can Enhance China’s Credibility in the CPTPP
- Gordonstoun Severs Connections with Business Led by Individual Accused of Espionage for China
- China Dismantles Prominent Uyghur Business Landmark in Xinjiang – Shia Waves
- China Expands Nationwide Private Pension Scheme After Two-Year Pilot Program
