Posted on 03/23/2006 3:57:28 AM PST by John Filson
-- Beijing politely rolled out the red carpet this week as two leading U.S. senators began a fact-finding mission to determine how to punish China for manipulating its currency. But half a world away in Geneva, China's delegate to the World Trade Organization lobbed a rhetorical bomb at the United States, accusing Washington of hyping national security concerns to restrict foreign investment on its home turf.
"By interpreting and applying WTO national security clauses in an excessive way, [the United States] has again seriously undermined the credibility of the multilateral trade regime, over which China is highly concerned," Chinese WTO envoy Sun Zhenyu told his fellow ambassadors yesterday.
The comments appeared to be directed at U.S. political backlash that helped kill a bid last year by China's CNOOC Ltd. to acquire Unocal Corp., a Houston-based U.S. oil and gas producer.
"Recently the United States exerted pressure and imposed restrictions on inward [foreign direct investment] on account of national security, which prevent foreign companies from seeking mergers and acquisitions [there]," Mr. Sun added.
The verbal attack, which coincides with the release of a WTO report on U.S. trade policy, marks the latest flashpoint of an increasingly strained relationship between the two economic and military giants.
China wasn't alone in warning about rising protectionist tendencies in the United States. In comments filed yesterday with the WTO, the European Union urged the United States to strike "a better balance" between security concerns and avoiding "unnecessary and costly burdens" to legitimate business.
Responding to the criticism, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said the Bush administration is "cognizant of the potential for protectionism in the U.S. and we are actively communicating the real world benefits of trade at home." But he pointed out that United States hardly has a monopoly on anti-trade tactics.
"Economic isolationism . . . is not just a phenomenon in the United States," Mr. Portman said in a statement released in Washington.
The recent furor over the proposed takeover of several East Coast ports by Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates has caused concern that the United States may be turning increasingly inward as it wages a global war on terrorism.
In the United States, critics blame China for stealing U.S. jobs and pushing the trade deficit to record levels by keeping the value of its currency, the yuan, artificially low. Last July, China raised the value of the yuan by 2.1 per cent and introduced a system to gradually move the currency away from its peg to the U.S. dollar. But the currency has barely moved since.
In Beijing, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said the next couple of months could be a defining period in U.S.-China relations.
"Our goal is to let the Chinese government realize that the politics of this issue is about to get out of hand," warned Mr. Graham, co-author of a bill with Democrat Charles Schumer that would slap a 27.5-per-cent tariff on all Chinese imports. He said the senators are stressing to leaders in Beijing that "if you think the relations between our two countries are good, you're misreading the tea leaves back home [in the U.S.]. They're not good, and they're getting worse."
Mr. Graham and Mr. Schumer have said they want to push for a vote on the widely popular legislation as early as this month. The senators were slated to meet yesterday with Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China.
The Congressional vote could be the first dust-up in the prelude to next month's U.S. visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao. The White House confirmed yesterday that Mr. Hu would meet U.S. President George W. Bush on April 20.
That's just five days after the U.S. Treasury Department is slated to release a report on whether to officially brand China a currency manipulator -- the first step in imposing sanctions.
Although largely drowned out by the politicians, U.S. business leaders have appealed for calm in the escalating dispute. Caterpillar Inc. chairman Jim Owens warned Congress not to be seduced by tariffs and other retaliatory measures against the Chinese.
"Free trade?" No. Lower tariffs? Usually.
More Bulls*** from China about trade. Notice how they never respond directly when we object to their massive theft of our software, music CDs, and movie DVDs. Instead they make diversionary statements about some insignificant issue to try to change the subject. In China, power talks and Bulls*** walks. It's time to hit them with a 8% tariff on a broad range of manufactured products. They do not respect Americans and they are currently engaged in a deliberate, calculated economic assault on America.
You might have a incorrect conclusion. Boeing and China have had a close relationship since the 1930's. Boeing's first seaplane was designed by a Chinese engineer.
So repeal the bill. What could be the harm?
Chinese government officials also have a really annoying habit of continuous bald-faced and very obvious lying about trade issues. Hey China, you're not fooling anybody. We know when your government is lying, every time. All you're doing is annoying us and bumping the future tariff up by another 2% with all your lies. It's time for China to show some respect for America and the free world.
Seeing that Caterpillar is one of the largest exporters in the U.S., and seeing that you (presumably) do not wish it to sell to China, how many earth-movers are you ready to buy? It'll have some excess capacity if you succeed.
The harm????? We wouldn't be following the mandate of the UN.
The harm????? We wouldn't be following the mandate of the UN.
The US has been getting their pockets picked from China for years.
Table 1. U.S. Merchandise Trade with China: 1988-2000
($ Billions)
Year U.S. Exports U.S. Imports U.S. Trade Balance
1988 5.0 8.5 -3.5
1989 5.8 12.0 -6.2
1990 4.8 15.2 -10.4
1991 6.3 19.0 -12.7
1992 7.5 25.7 -18.2
1993 8.8 31.5 -22.8
1994 9.3 38.8 -29.5
1995 11.7 45.6 -33.8
1996 12.0 51.5 -39.5
1997 12.8 62.6 -49.7
1998 14.3 71.2 -56.9
1999 13.1 81.8 -68.7
2000 16.3 100.1 -83.8
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
How is buying low priced goods from China equivalent to getting our pockets picked?
Do you think trade deficits are bad? Do you think trade surpluses are good?
GOOD!!!!!
He's talking about the way China rips off American companies by tricking these companies into doing largely unpaid R&D work and investment for China without the long-term benefits that China promised when the companies made these deals. Check out the very telling story by Cowboy Jay. Link is posted above.
Not to worry. At this rate, they'll be a completely self-sufficient economy (not to mention military) in a few years and will be able to tell Wal-Mart to go pound sand.
What you're seeing on these theads is the truth emerging about China, without being sanitized by State Department wonks who have a hidden agenda to "maintain good relations with China" and move US manufacturing to China. No wonder there are people in our government who want to shut down FR.
No, he's talking about trade deficits. That's why he included trade figures, imports and exports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.