Views: 5363|Replies: 7

Does the US realize trade wars are not easy to win? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-9-12 13:53:47 |Display all floors
(CGTN) Is the US-launched trade war against China a quick battle or a protracted war? From the beginning, Washington believed it could score a quick victory and bring Beijing to its knees by pressuring the latter and spilling their trade conflict onto the political and technological fields. But the US has finally realized that its theory had failed.

The trade war has become a protracted war. This is also what Beijing concluded based on US strategies and China's strength when their conflict first emerged.

That's what China believes because the US has been domineering and self-centered. As Washington acts more hegemonic, it is impossible for China to accept US demands at face value.

The trade problems between China and the US have been accumulated over a long period of time. To resolve them, time and strenuous efforts are needed. If Washington insists on charging exorbitant amounts without taking mutual benefit into account, all China can do is to fight back. Beijing's countermeasures remain resolute.

Furthermore, China has a sober awareness of its own comprehensive strength and is turning pressure from the US into a driving force of its economic restructuring, which has yielded remarkable results.

The US, however, has been getting above itself, believing it can reach any goal it wants, since it is the world's top power. US President Donald Trump has been tweeting that "trade wars are good, and easy to win." Washington has clearly underestimated China's capabilities and will to fight back, as well as its national strength.

It took about one and a half years for the US to realize this.

Since July, pessimism has been rising in the US over its previous fantasy that Washington could quickly win the trade war. On July 16, Trump mentioned there's still a long way to go to reach a deal with China. Last Friday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said, "If that (trade negotiation with China) takes a decade, so be it." The US has finally acknowledged that its tension with China could only be sorted out through long-term negotiations rather than quick solutions for temporary US political needs.

The tests China is about to face, after the trade war turns into a protracted battle, will not be easier.

But one thing is certain: The US must have a more profound understanding of China's resilience and endurance under pressure, be it economic or systematic. The world is also getting to know China better.

Which country is more desperate to see the trade war end? US media tends to raise the question with a sense of superiority and confidence. Yet today, they need to think twice. It is not a matter of showing which country is stronger. The point is Beijing and Washington should have a correct understanding of each other, while avoiding misjudgments. China and the US have been deeply integrated, and misjudging each other would mean disaster for not only themselves but the world.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-9-12 19:47:35 |Display all floors
The US does, POTUS doesn't.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured. Mark Twain

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-9-15 18:27:48 |Display all floors

Probably, the US has more Nobel Laureate for Economics than any other country.

Before US initiated China-US Trade War, they seem to believe that the final result will be in favor of none other than US The Great!

Up till today, nations that stay with US are beating themselves from tip to toe for being betrayed by US.

Presume US has the brains but grey matter is shrinking significantly without early warning!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-9-16 09:40:02 |Display all floors
The trade war could have been avoided if the US had sat down upfront with China and asked first for her reasoning on her bottomline before starting its trade tariffs and sanctions on China.

If it had done so, the US would itself have quickly come to an understanding of each other's limiting situation first before starting anything.

That it didn't and instead went ahead with its trade war showed it wanted to wreck havoc through application of naked power. Yet, with power must come responsibility. So the US as the global super-hegemon has only been irresponsible.

Furthermore, there has not been any instance where the entire Trump administration has asked itself how it would have reacted if the US had been China instead.

There was only impatience and lies to over-rule China on her rationale for her policies and actions.

For the US, national sovereignty in an international setting has become an exclusively and therefore, hypocritically, American affair.  As a 300-year old nation, the US is trying to tell a 3,000-year old nation what to do on the basis of rules set by the US to advantage itself permanently even while transgressing against the basic principle of humanity - the right of others to progress. The US talks about how it has been helping the world make progress. Yet it is working overtime creating mischief to stymie China's own progress.

And when others succeed under those rules, the Anglos change them without fanfare through their escape hatch of asymmetric, one-after-another, mischief.

A proper mutual understanding would have cut through all this mess and built a prerequisite foundation to interact with clear common objectives which in turn would have set an example for future administrations on how to engage and cooperate with each other, thereby creating a productive, positive, long-term, and common narrative which would have eased tensions, nipped fractures, and built permanent co-creation for mutual if not global benefit instanced by the business environment stability needed by investors for growth.

Through their jaundiced racist eyes, Trump and his anti-China hawks only saw in China an opportunity to deflect attention from the US' own internal, white-heat, domestic problems by blaming and striking China down instead.

Yet it is instructive to note none of the US' allies which trade with China have similarly blamed China for their own internal domestic problems. Instead they have benefited enormously through trade, exchanges and cooperation with her.  So what makes the US so special?

Today, the entire business world is suffering from business policy uncertainties consequent from Trump's trade war.  Some have gone into recession mode; others have lost what they had earned through hard work and sacrifice.

None has a kind word for Trump and his US, a country whose peoples blame him when their stock market nosedives but blame others when it rises, both depending on his tweets which in turn depends on his moods. How the mighty has fallen.

The world has already concluded the US as an advanced nation is making cold war in all but name on China, a developing nation but with Chinese characteristics of advanced thinking that have been pragmatic for development and progress emulable for others.

Smaller nations whether advanced or developing have therefore drawn the fundamental conclusion on the US' initiated trade war on China - that the US is nothing but a big bully and has dictatorially demanded others to toe its line to its benefit even when its own international practices have been inconsistent with its paraded self-assertions.

What the US is doing onto China, it will only do onto others soon enough after China.

And yet, all live on the same planet, now hotter by the day. Quo vadis?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-9-16 13:02:50 |Display all floors
There are reports circulating that China n US are about to do a mini deal, a sort of temporary deal in which China would resume buying US farm products in exchange for tariffs not going up.  That is probably becuse Trump desperately needs a deal for his re election.  China should not help Trump get re elected, he cannot be trusted to honor his part of any deal, be it mini deal or the final version.  Doing  a mini deal would be handing Trump an election win; China should not help Trump get re elected as he would almost certainly get even tougher with China in his next term!  It is suicidal for China to do that; it should hold back till Trump is gone in 2020!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-9-16 17:47:38 |Display all floors
Trump has consistently displayed himself as an inconsistent dealmaker. He flimflams to a fault. Therefore his words are not worth a dime.

He mistook Bahamas for Alabama and illegally changed the Dorian typhoon weather forecast map to include Alabama in order to cover his mistake, furthermore excoriating the weathermen who tried to correct him. Such is the US potus who had called President Xi a friend, then an enemy, after which a statesman wise about life. And he laconically excused himself by saying that's his way of dealing.

Now this same potus who had called US ex-President Carter in April on China but sanctioned Huawei anyway in May is about to stretch his trade war talk until he can clinch a vote-winning deal before the US elections November next year.  If he is not reelected as president, his state of New York may will be free to lay charges on him on account of his past business misdemeanors.

The 1.5 Billion citizens of both nations should be spared such a nonsensical specimen of a warped personality. His calling himself the Chosen One even if said jokingly does grievous disservice to his fervent believers in the US rustbelt let alone the One above him who, in being all-knowing, would have read and pondered the US Moody's latest Analytic report that said Trump's trade war on China has resulted in 300,000 fewer US jobs so far, becoming 450,000 by end of this year and doubling to 900,000 if the disputes are not settled by next year. In other words, if Trump had not attacked China, the US economy and employment would have performed sustainably much better. Now no one believes the US economic performance can be sustained much longer.

What Trump has stupidly and unwisely done is clowned his way in the international arena on such important matters as national sovereignty and international trade. He tried to play trader using his self-invented leverages but midway raised his tariff ante with new mischief until the entire package of what he demands has now become an incongruous monstrosity, untenable even to the most fault-tolerant nation.

Failing to get China to bite his bait, he has resorted to kidnapping, incitement and fibs over national security in order to continue his lies that China has stolen every year some USD600 billion from the US. Where are the accounts and supporting documents, Mr Potus?

Therefore it is understandable why the recent Democrats presidential candidates debate has palpably edged to a possible consensus - to move away from protectionist trade tariffs which have hurt US interests and towards free trade agreements.

But then the poison left by Trump and his republican hawks in their minds is still to interdict China with other forms of rivalrous actions, possibly on labor and environmental standards or a revival of the US-aborted TPP. But that will expand trade disputes to trade blocs and create global tensions, rivalries and mistrusts, wasting money, time and resources when the world's economies are already challenged by rising inequalities, aging demographics and environment-denuding resource misallocations.

Meanwhile, in view of the drone attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil refineries which has spiked the price of brent oil by 20%, China should not offer to buy US fuel unless its price is favorable in any mini-interim deal. Just focus on food products - in exchange for reduction of US tariffs, removal of sanctions on Huawei etc. plus cancellation of the extradition on Meng.

... so that the major deal by next year can be on how the US - whichever party leads it - and China - can be permanent strategic partners in all matters - trade, commerce, technology, academia, research, environment, co-creation, international peace-keeping, space cetera.

After all, strategic partnerships can only be good. They look out for each other's back. On the other hand, strategic rivalries are bad. They can stab each other in the back.

And that's the heart of any bilateral trade deal. The real heart, not the knee-jerks.

If the US - whether republican or democrat or independent - wants to engage more fruitfully with China and benefit from a new level of relationship with her, it should listen to its war-weary citizens and shaft the xenophobic mistrust crap.

Undoubtedly, they will relish it if and when China invites the US to participate in the development of China's 19 mega-metropolis clusters which will redefine the future of a technology-pervasive and social-economically uplifting 21st century that will usher a new total-experience of the greatest modern age in human history.

The Europeans already know about that. Trump should highlight the word 'if'.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-9-17 05:45:07 |Display all floors
markwu Post time: 2019-9-16 17:47
Trump has consistently displayed himself as an inconsistent dealmaker. He flimflams to a fault. Ther ...

"Undoubtedly, they will relish it if and when China invites the US to participate in the development of China's 19 mega-metropolis clusters which will redefine the future of a technology-pervasive and social-economically uplifting 21st century that will usher a new total-experience of the greatest modern age in human history."

Undoubtedly no-one would relish reading such long, gibberish-laden sentences as this. There is a much more straightforward word that could follow the hyperbole of "19 mega-metropolis clusters". It rhymes with duck.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.