As the debate intensifies in the United States on its trade with
China, it is necessary to take a look at the direction of Sino-US
trade relations to better understand the issue.
Negotiations and cooperation between China and the United States
have gone ahead steadily in many important areas, such as foreign
affairs, military and anti-terrorism. Frequent exchanges of
high-level official visits also help improve bilateral
relations.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on September 5 that
Sino-US relations are at their best since former US President
Richard Nixon's historic visit to China in 1972.
This view was soon echoed by Wang Yunxiang, China's
Consul-General in San Francisco on September 17.
However, trade relations between China and the United States are
not as sweet as these enhanced political ties.
Since the second half of 2002, signs have surfaced of
intensified trade conflicts.
After a series of disputes over dumping accusations against
China-made color TV sets, over agricultural produce and over the US
call for a re-evaluation of the renminbi, Sino-US trade relations
now stand at a crossroads after a number of US officials recently
expressed their dissatisfaction with China's trade policies.
Several factors are behind the current tumble in Sino-US trade
relations.
One is the high expectation from the United States following
China's accession into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Exports
of agricultural produce to China were once anticipated to double or
even triple.
However, US farmers and exporters have not seen the expected
rocketing revenues after China opened its market one year ago in
line with WTO agreements.
Meanwhile, the trade deficit of the United States to China
increased to US$103 billion in 2002.
This remarkable gap between the reality and expectations offers
more weapons for those who had objected to China's entry into the
WTO.
Actually, the high hopes from the US part have been
overblown.
Before China became a WTO member, its de facto tariff rate stood
less than 5 percent with its tax-deduction policy considered,
roughly at the same level with that of Brazil and Mexico.
The country promised to lower the average tariff of industrial
products to 10 percent by 2005 when it applied to enter the global
trade body.
So US producers may not see significantly more opportunities
into the Chinese market except a limited number of commodities that
are subject to dramatic tariff cuts and therefore see their exports
rise rapidly.
It is therefore only natural that US exports to China will not
rise remarkably in the near future.
Ever since President George W. Bush took office, the US economy
has been haunted by the threat of depression. And the September 11
terrorist attacks in 2001 dealt a heavy blow to its economic
growth.
The unemployment rate in the United States rose to a historical
high along with these economic setbacks, standing at 6.1 percent
this September.
Though the US economy is showing signs of recovery, it needs
time to gather momentum. And the manufacturing industries, where
recovery is especially weak, are heavily affected by
unemployment.
Accordingly, opinion polls showed that the support rate of Bush
dropped to 49 percent, an unprecedented low during his term.
As the election draws close, Bush has limited room for maneuver
in trade relations with China, coming under pressure from
agricultural, manufacturing and labor union interests.
Judging from recent speeches by Bush administration officials
and Washington's policy changes, one cannot be optimistic about the
Sino-US trade relationship.
There is an opinion that these moves are only kite-flying
instead of real turn in US policy on China.
But they can easily become substantial moves if Bush's support
does not stop declining.
If these trade conflicts escalate, they will have a definite
negative impact on political ties.
Joint efforts are needed from the governments of both countries
to avoid such a situation.
For the Chinese Government, the first step is to encourage
domestic exporters to diversify their market. Trying to compete in
the same marketplace will only compromise their own interests.
Second, China could purchase more products made by the United
States in the form of government procurement, such as aircraft and
automobiles. In this way, China's trade surplus can be diminished,
also easing US concerns over the trade imbalance.
Third, China could take more active measures, such as issuing an
annul white paper, to show the remarkable progress it has made in
fulfilling its promises upon WTO entry and its determination to
further open its market. If the US people could see their economy
is really benefiting from, rather than jeopardized by, China's
progress, trade relations may hopefully progress more smoothly.
Fourth, the Chinese authorities should accelerate their reform
of the financial system and get ready to solve the issue regarding
the renminbi exchange rate in a win-win manner.
As to the United States, it should first of all analyze its
unemployment situation with a rational attitude.
Unemployment in the US manufacturing sector is caused by its own
economic structure. To boost employment, it should accelerate its
industrial restructuring, rather than point fingers at other
countries.
The exchange rate of the renminbi should not be linked with the
trade imbalance. After all, a complex of factors has caused the
trade imbalance. Simply blaming China's foreign exchange system
cannot solve the problem.
The US side should understand that a sound Sino-US trade
relation benefits both countries. Low-priced Chinese commodities
help improve the life of US people. And the US$126 billion US
treasury bonds held by China lend a hand to the easing of its
capital shortage resulting from its huge trade deficit.
US President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao will meet at
the APEC summit to be held late this month. Premier Wen Jiabao is
also going to visit the United States before the end of the
year.
These meetings will surely offer good opportunities for the two
sides to solve trade conflicts, helping give a new impetus to the
development of Sino-US trade relations.
The author is a researcher with the School of Politics and
Public Management at Wuhan University in central China's Hubei
Province.
(China Daily October 13, 2003)