US-China Relations - 71. page

Global Times recently reported that, after quitting the Paris Climate Agreement and UNESCO, along with many other organizations and agreements, U.S. President Trump once again decided to continue down this path. Now it is the turn of the Universal Postal Union (UPU). It appears that Trump could not live with the fact that, under UPU rates, China can enjoy a lower shipping rate when sending packages to the United States. UPU coordinates international postal shipping costs with a fair balance between industrialized countries and developing countries. The balance was to improve the economic development in Asia and Africa. Apparently, Trump’s Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Peter Navarro, believes quitting UPU is one of the convenient methods to defeat China and to challenge the “status quo.” Chinese experts expressed their belief that Trump’s new move is not going to fundamentally change the fact that China produces affordable products, and the true victims will be the American consumers. {Editor’s note: The U.S. Postal Service loses money due to UPU lower rates for developing countries.}

Sources:
1. Global Times, October 18, 2018
http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2018-10/13290946.html
2. CNN, October 17, 2018,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/business/postal-treaty-withdrawal/index.html

Major Taiwanese news network Liberty Times Network (LTN) recently reported that many Chinese exporters were found to have changed product’s HTS codes or country of origin markings to avoid the U.S. import tariff. The HTS code is a 10-digit U.S. Customs code associated with each individual product type exported to the United States. The HTS code is a widely accepted product identification system across global import/export transactions. Traditionally, as a common way to avoid the tariff, Chinese exporters have sometimes exported to a third-party country, repackaged the products there and then shipped them to the U.S. market. However, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) recent statistics showed a sharp increase in “suspicious categories” related to HTS code changes (three times more than six months ago). Exporters were found to have changed the HTS codes in the Alibaba Partner Community. For example, Chinese steel plates (high tariff) were exported as “turbine components” (low tariff).

Source: LTN, October 10, 2018
http://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/2576264

Since Vice President Pence delivered a speech on China policy at the Hudson Institute on October 4, Xinhua has published a number of rebuttal commentaries on its website. Below is the translation of one of the Commentaries which is titled “Five Misconception in the U.S. Leaders’ Speech.”

In the past few days, the U.S. government has been expressing negative words and gestures about Sino-US relations, especially the U.S. leader’s speech on China policy, which has arbitrarily accused and maliciously attacked China from a number of viewpoints. All of sudden, the noise of the hawk’s “China Containment Policy” has intensified. The uncertainty of Sino-US relations has risen. People who are hoping that Sino-US relations will achieve long term stability are worried.

The speech of the U.S. leaders collectively reflect the “Anxiety Disorders about China” that many parties in the U.S. have displayed: from complaining about U.S. companies having a lack of “market access” in China to attacking China’s “stealing” of U.S. intellectual property rights; from blaming China for the so-called “propaganda war” to rumors that China is interfering in the U.S. midterm elections and the presidential election. … All of these false claims make people who are familiar with Sino-US relations feel that the U.S. leaders are ridiculous because they disregard the facts. They look foolish because of these unfounded counter-charges. Throughout the history and reality of Sino-US exchanges, these smear claims are simply untenable. At least they are reflected in the following five fallacies.

Fallacy 1: The U.S. leader constantly voices and emphasizes how much China has benefited from the “favors” that the U.S. has given. He claims that the rapid development of the Chinese economy in recent decades can be attributed to assistance from the U.S. He even threw out the ridiculous theory that the U.S. has “re-built China.” China’s development from an impoverished country to the world’s second largest economy relies on the hard work of hundreds of millions of Chinese people. It relies on the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics; it relies on reform and opening up; and relies on mutually beneficial cooperation between China and foreign countries. Over the years, the international community has issued countless positive and objective evaluations on “China’s miracle achievement” and the U.S. has been blind to this. The U.S. claims the results from decade of the bloodshed and sweat of the Chinese people is attributable to its own glory and there is no more contradictory fact than this. There is no logic funnier than this.

Fallacy 2: The U.S. leadership constantly claims that China is continuing a so-called “military expansion.” It is a false claim because China was exercising justice to safeguard its core interests and territorial sovereignty. It is the U.S. that has repeatedly manipulated the Taiwan issue and sold firearms to Taiwan. It also uses the so-called “freedom of navigation” and frequently has broken into the territory adjacent to the South Island Reef. All these practices show the U.S.’s hegemonic mentality and arrogant stance with which it disregards the rights and the interests of other countries.

Fallacy 3: The U.S. leader constantly states that China and the U.S. need “fair trade” and complains that the U.S. has been suffering “losses.” However, they turn a blind eye to the huge profits that the American companies and people gained in the economic and trade exchanges between the two countries. Sino-US economic and trade cooperation has promoted China’s economic development and the improvement of people’s livelihood. It has also enabled the companies from the U.S. to obtain a large number of business opportunities to invest in and to enter the Chinese market. It has played an important role in US economic growth, consumer welfare, and economic structural upgrading. The rendering of the theory that “the U.S. is suffering a loss” is more about playing dumb and concealing the essence of the mutual benefit between China and the U.S.’ trade exchange.

Fallacy 4: The US leadership has constantly questioned China’s reform and opening up, but has turned a blind eye to China’s efforts and actions to comprehensively deepen reforms and expand openness. For a period of time, there were efforts to streamline administration, delegate powers, and improve regulations and services; reduce taxes and fees on companies; speed up the implementation of the “negative list system,” loosen up market access, and reduce tariffs. … Even if the external environment changes, China will still follow its own plan and pace and firmly promote opening up and reform efforts. China’s recent series of measures to deepen reform and opening up have fully proven China’s determination and sincerity in promoting the cause of reform and opening up. The door to China’s opening up will not be closed, but will only open even more than before.

Fallacy 5: The US leader constantly accused China of “exercising its influence” in the U.S. and attempting to “interfere” in U.S. elections, but it does not talk about how, under the U.S. law, foreign countries can purchase media advertisements or television time. While flaunting the so-called freedom of the press, they are worried that the American people will gain more understanding from the truth. More importantly, China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and is unwilling and uninterested in interfering in the “domestic affairs” of the U.S. Even U.S. Homeland Security Minister Nelson and the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and other mainstream U.S. media have admitted that the U.S. has no real evidence of China’s involvement in the interference in elections.

At the end of the speech, the U.S. leader said that he hoped that Sino-US relations would be “based on fairness, reciprocity, and respect for sovereignty,” but forgot that his entire speech was almost a deviation from this statement. It should be noted that behind the recent intensive U.S.’ criticism of China, it is the U.S. that feels uncomfortable with China’s rapid development, the current international power structure, and the evolution of the international platform. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that in dealing with China, the Trump administration “thinks too little about diplomatic relations and thinks too much about hostile relations.” This trend has caused deep concern in the international community.

Sino-US relations are one of the most important bilateral relations in the world today. China has always been committed to working with the U.S. to uphold the concepts of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, Win—Win Cooperation, and to enhance mutual trust, expand cooperation, control differences, and safeguard the healthy and stable development of Sino-US relations. U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo said during his recent visit to China that he is looking forward to establishing a “constructive, results-oriented” bilateral relationship with China. However, it must be made clear that this “result” should not be a result that is unilaterally designated by the U.S., but only the result of joint consultation and mutual recognition between China and the U.S.

Next year is the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the U.S. The development history of the past 40 years has repeatedly proven that a good relationship between China and the U.S. will benefit both countries. The U.S. should objectively and rationally view the reality of China’s peaceful development, respect the development path that the Chinese people have chosen, and abandon the mentality that the U.S. is the “savior” and stop the wrong practice of rejecting or accusing China. The U.S. should work with China towards the same goal and make the due efforts of big countries for the common well-being of the two countries and the people of the world.

Source: Xinhua, October 12, 2018
http://www.xinhuanet.com/2018-10/12/c_1123551875.htm

The Well-known U.S. Chinese language newspaper, World Journal, recently reported that the University of Michigan suddenly closed its Chinese Data Center (CDC), citing cost issues. The CDC former chief said the Center has been financially sound and that neither the U.S. government nor the Chinese government funded the operation. The University spokesperson explained that the closure was the result of an internal management decision, with no political background, that the Center needs a major technical upgrade. However, the University found that this Center may not be the best place for new capital investments. The mission of the CDC was to allow the world to understand China better. However, the data that the Center offered were all sourced from China. Some staff of the CDC just opened a new online data service, hoping to continue the service the CDC used to provide. However, some customers, such as Christoph Steinhardt from University of Vienna, refused to trust the new online service because it lacked the support of a well-recognized academic organization like the University of Michigan.

Source: World Journal, October 6, 2018
https://bit.ly/2QxWH1A