US-China Trade: Trump puts a Knife to Beijing's Throat

China has long insisted that it won't negotiate a new trade pact with the US with "a knife at its throat." Over the weekend, US President Donald Trump flipped open the switchblade.

In a series of tweets, he blasted Beijing for taking advantage of the US economy, and threatened to sharply increase tariffs on everything China exports to the United States.

Coming just days before China's top negotiator was expected in Washington for a crucial – and perhaps final – round of trade talks, the tweets threw global financial markets into turmoil for several hours as investors worried that the world's two largest economies might fail to reach a deal for the foreseeable future.


What's the background?

For months, the US and China have been negotiating a trade agreement. Washington wants Beijing to make it easier for American firms to do business in China, cut back on government support for Chinese tech firms, stop stealing US technology, and buy more American agricultural goods.

Beijing sees these demands as part of an American attempt to stop China's rise as a global power. So while China has been willing to make life easier for US firms, it's less enthusiastic about cutting subsidies for Chinese companies or boosting purchases of US goods.

As a negotiating tactic, the Trump administration earlier this year slapped a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, and it has threatened to raise that to 25 percent if China doesn't meet US demands. Trump, unhappy with the pace of progress in negotiations, now says that will happen on Friday.

What's more, he's poised to put a 25 percent tariff on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese exports to the US, and "soon." That would mean higher prices for US consumers on virtually all Chinese goods bought in the United States – furniture, clothes, cars, electronics, you name it.

Why is this happening?

It's probably a combination of these three factors.

It's Trump's style: Making extreme demands and then stepping magnanimously back toward compromise is a long-established Trump negotiating tactic, particularly on trade. With a critical round of negotiations coming up, Trump now wants maximum leverage.

It's Trump's advisers: Hardliners on China within the Trump administration – in particular chief trade negotiator Robert Lighthizer – may have Trump's ear now. Some reports say Trump's tweet storm followed Lighthizer's complaints that China is reluctant to codify the terms of any new US-China deal into law. This – along with the question of how to ensure China actually complies with any new agreements – has long been a sticking point in talks.

It's the economy: Recent data say the US economy is rocking – "killing it" even. This gives the president more room to turn the screws on the US' largest trading partner without worrying about adverse effects, at least in the short term.

What happens next?

Neither side wants to lose face. Barring a massive concession from Beijing – or a dramatically gracious climbdown by Trump out of deference to his "good friend" Xi Jinping – Friday will mark a significant escalation in the trade war between the world's two largest economies, one that could last into the 2020 US presidential election and beyond.

In Italy, stacks of plastic boxes in supermarkets and stores are not garbage - they are collected and reused, thanks to a consortium that specializes in recycling them for food storage. How do these "circular" plastic boxes help reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions?

Learn more in this episode of Eni's Energy SUPERFACTS series.

British economist Jim O'Neill says the global economy can bounce back right to where it was before, in a V-shaped recovery. But his argument is based on a lot of "ifs," plus comparisons to the 2008 recession and conditions in China and South Korea that may not truly apply. Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group's Robert Kahn take issue with O'Neill's op-ed, on this edition of The Red Pen.

Today, we're taking our Red Pen to an article titled "A V-Shaped Recovery Could Still Happen." I'm not buying it. It's published recently by Project Syndicate, authored by British economist named Jim O'Neill. Jim O'Neill is very well known. He was chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. He's the guy that coined the acronym BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China. So, no slouch. But as you know, we don't agree with everything out there. And this is the case. Brought to you by the letter V. We're taking sharp issue with the idea that recovery from all the economic devastation created by the coronavirus pandemic is going to happen quickly. That after the sharp drop that the world has experienced, everything bounces back to where it was before. That's the V. Economists around the world are debating how quickly recovery will happen to be sure. But we're not buying the V. Here's why. W-H-Y.

More Show less

Over the past few years, we've seen three major emerging powers take bold action to right what they say are historical wrongs.

First came Crimea. When the Kremlin decided in 2014 that Western powers were working against Russian interests in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to seize the Crimean Peninsula, which was then part of Ukraine. Moscow claimed that Crimea and its ethnic Russian majority had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries until a shameful deal in 1954 made Crimea part of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic. Americans and Europeans imposed sanctions on Russia. But Ukraine is not part of NATO or the EU, and no further action was taken.

More Show less

Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, provides his perspective on technology news:

Will the new audit of Facebook civil rights practices change the way the company operates?

Yes. It came under a lot of pressure from civil rights activists who organized an advertising boycott. And then an internal audit on Facebook's effect on civil rights came out. It was quite critical. Those two things, one after the other, will surely lead to changes at the company.

More Show less

The United States and the European Union have comparable population sizes, but their COVID-19 death toll trajectories have recently become very different. Since the beginning of July, the average number of both new fatalities and new deaths per 1 million people is rapidly increasing in the US while it remains mostly flat in the EU. We compare this to the average number of new cases each seven days in both regions, where the US trend continues upward but is not surging like the death toll. EU countries' robust public health systems and citizens' willingness to wear masks and maintain social distance could explain the disparity.