本帖由 9981 于 2018-05-04 发布。版面名称：渥太华华人论坛
What China Needs to Understand About Trump
He’s only voicing a widely shared resentment about Chinese double-dealing in economic policy.
Read more opinionFollow @PennyPritzker on Twitter
It was late November 2016, and my Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier Wang Yang, was visiting Washington, D.C. Over the course of my tenure as U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the vice premier and I had developed a warm and candid relationship. Since this was to be our last official meeting, I decided to do something a bit different: take him to rural Virginia for a traditional Thanksgiving meal.
While we were surrounded by our usual phalanx of security, we effectively sat alone, with the exception of our two closest aides. Shortly after we were seated, the vice premier leaned in close and almost whispered to me, “Can you explain what just happened in your presidential election?” Clearly, the Chinese were just as surprised by the results as we were.
I told the vice premier that we were still trying to understand the outcome ourselves, but that it was important for him to appreciate that China had played a significant role in the election. As the translator spoke into his ear, he shot me a somewhat surprised look. I explained that then-candidate Donald Trump’s “tough on China” rhetoric had tapped into an underlying strain of thought in the U.S. that Wang and other Chinese leaders needed to understand.
For years, Americans were told that China was a developing country and shouldn’t necessarily be held to the same standard as developed nations such as the U.S. But China’s success had severely undercut that line of reasoning. The Chinese economy was growing at 6 percent or more annually. Chinese cities, roads, ports and bridges were rising seemingly overnight. The world’s low-cost manufacturer was rapidly becoming a global technology hub. And the Chinese government was investing billions of renminbi in support of its “Made in China 2025” industrial plan. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality was profound and growing by the day.
At the same time, Americans felt that at least some of China’s success had come at their expense. They were seeing their middle-class jobs and once-prosperous lifestyles disappearing. China wasn’t playing fairly; it was consistently violating its international commitments and tilting the playing field to advantage Chinese firms. Economic complexities aside, the fact that Americans were, in part, paying the bill for such behavior had begun to sink in with millions of my fellow citizens.
Candidate Trump, of course, didn’t create these imbalances; he was simply very effective at tapping into this growing resentment. With or without Trump, the U.S.-China relationship was moving quickly toward a crossroads.
The point I was making to the vice premier is that, as China has risen to become a global power, the dynamic between the two countries has unquestionably changed. Meanwhile, too many Chinese actions and policies have not.
In fact, Chinese officials still frequently rely on the outdated rhetoric that China is merely a developing country. The developing nation narrative is clearly at odds with the observable reality of modern China, and it logically runs counter to China’s lofty goal of establishing a “new model of great power relations” between the U.S. and China — a dynamic focused on fostering cooperation and competition but avoiding confrontation, which, historically, has been the defining feature of relations between existing and rising powers.
It is hard to be both a poor, developing nation and the other party to a “new model of great power relations.” The formulation assumes the existence of two great powers. In the modern world, though, being a great power requires leadership. It requires being a good steward of the global economy, not just benefiting from it. It requires playing by the same rules and competing fairly, not relying on state resources to support domestic industries and innovation. If China wants to be the world’s other great power, it is manifestly in its interest to start acting like one.
To be fair, we have seen China emerge as a global leader on certain issues — such as climate — and, in recent months, President Xi Jinping has spoken consistently about China assuming a larger role in world affairs. In other areas, however, particularly those tied to economic and trade policy, the rhetoric continues to surpass the policies.
In part, it was this disconnect between words and reality that gave Trump his political resonance in the U.S. China is a great power. China has risen and, in so doing, has lifted 800 million people out of poverty. But, if China doesn’t change its approach to economic competition, I fear that today’s trade war will be nothing compared to the heightened tensions to come. Frankly, our domestic political system will demand action and President Trump will look like the mild first incarnation of a trend rather than an outlier.
The irony, of course, is that in so many important respects the economic and personal ties between the U.S. and China are deeper than ever:
The U.S. hosted roughly 130,000 Chinese graduate students during the 2016-2017 academic year. On average, each of those Chinese students spends more than $26,000 per year in the U.S.
Chinese direct investment in the U.S. expanded dramatically to $46 billion in 2016, before a steep decline in 2017. That investment has hyper-charged a range of sectors in all corners of our country.
In less than 10 years, spending from Chinese tourists in the U.S. has more than quadrupled to over $20 billion annually. Xi and then-President Barack Obama agreed to offer new 10-year tourist visas to citizens of both countries, so we can expect that number to grow.
In large part, China’s progress wouldn’t have been possible without the stable global economic order that the U.S. has underwritten and secured for the last 70 years. In that time, this system has limited conflict and led to the greatest increase in prosperity the world has ever seen. Without question, particularly over the last two decades, China has reaped the benefits of this rules-based order not just by competing aggressively but, it must be said, at times exploiting the existing system. That must change.
If it doesn’t, I fear that the stated goal of this “new model of great power relations” — competitive cooperation — will fall victim to China’s inability to change course. Then the politically plausible options for navigating China’s rise over the decades to come will be narrowed down to one: confrontation
文章来源: 中央社 于 2018-08-14 08:17:12 - 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
打印本新闻(被阅读 20146 次)
美国商务前部长普里茨克（Penny Pritzker）。 欧新社
Preliminary U.S.-Mexico trade deal leaves trail of questions unanswered for Canada
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Freeland heads to Washington today in effort to restart negotiations
The Associated Press · Posted: Aug 28, 2018 8:43 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House on Monday. Trump was quick to proclaim an apparent breakthrough in trade talks with Mexico as a triumph, but many questions remain over the future of NAFTA. (Leah Millis/Reuters)
U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration of victory Monday in reaching a preliminary deal with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement raised at least as many questions as it answered.
Can Canada, the third member country in NAFTA and America's No. 2 trading partner, be coaxed or coerced into a new pact?
If not, is it even legal — or politically feasible — for Trump to reach a replacement trade deal with Mexico alone?
U.S.-Mexico trade deal welcomed - but industry players want details
Freeland 'very encouraged' by reports of NAFTA progress
And will the changes being negotiated to the 24-year-old NAFTA threaten the operations of companies that have built sophisticated supply chains that span the three countries?
"There are still a lot of questions left to be answered," said Peter MacKay, former minister of justice, defence and foreign affairs, who is now a partner at the law firm Baker McKenzie. "There is still a great deal of uncertainty — trepidation, nervousness, a feeling that we are on the outside looking in."
Trump was quick to proclaim the agreement a triumph, pointing to Monday's surge in the stock market, which was fuelled in part by the apparent breakthrough with Mexico.
"We just signed a trade agreement with Mexico, and it's a terrific agreement for everybody," the president declared. "It's an agreement that a lot of people said couldn't be done."
Freeland bound for Washington
Trump suggested that he might leave Canada out of a new agreement. He said he wanted to call the revamped trade pact "the United States-Mexico Trade Agreement" because, in his view, NAFTA has earned a reputation for being harmful to American workers.
But first, he said, he would give Canada a chance to get back in — "if they'd like to negotiate fairly." To intensify the pressure on Ottawa to agree to his terms, the president threatened to impose new taxes on Canadian auto imports.
The clip we tried to show you isn't available.
Error 1With outgoing Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto on speakerphone, U.S. President Donald Trump announces U.S.-Mexico deal and says he'll invite Canada to negotiate 'fairly' to join it. 1:17
Canada's NAFTA negotiator, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, is cutting short a trip to Europe to fly to Washington on Tuesday to try to restart talks.
"We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class," said Adam Austen, a spokesperson for Freeland, saying "Canada's signature is required."
Talking to reporters, the top White House economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, urged Canada to "come to the table."
"Let's make a great deal like we just made with Mexico," Kudlow said. "If not, the U.S.A. may have to take action."
Trilateral agreement 'imperative'
Critics denounced the prospect of cutting Canada out a North American trade pact, in part because of the risks it could pose for companies involved in international trade. Many manufacturers have built vital supply systems that depend on freely crossing all NAFTA borders.
Noting the "massive amount of movement of goods between the three countries and the integration of operations," Jay Timmons, president of that U.S. National Association of Manufacturers, said "it is imperative that a trilateral agreement be inked."
Trump has frequently condemned the 24-year-old NAFTA trade pact as a job-killing "disaster" for American workers. NAFTA reduced most trade barriers between the three countries. The president and other critics say the pact encouraged U.S. manufacturers to move south of the border to exploit low-wage Mexican labour.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, front left, and Mexican Secretary of Economy Idelfonso Guajardo, front right, walk to the White House on Monday ahead of Trump's announcement. (Luis Alonso Lugo/Associated Press)
The preliminary deal with Mexico might bring more manufacturing to the United States. Yet it is far from final. Even after being formally signed, it would have be ratified by lawmakers in each country.
The U.S. Congress wouldn't vote on it until next year — after November midterm elections that could end Republican control of the House of Representatives. But initially, it looks like at least a tentative public relations victory for Trump, the week after his former campaign manager was convicted on financial crimes and his former personal attorney implicated him in hush money payments to two women who allege they had affairs with Trump.
Before the administration began negotiating a new NAFTA a year ago, it had notified Congress that it was beginning talks with Canada and Mexico. So Monday's announcement raises the question: Is the administration authorized to reach a deal with only one of those countries?
A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said yes: The administration can tell Congress it had reached a deal with Mexico — and that Canada is welcome to join.
But other analysts said the answer wasn't clear: "It's a question that has never been tested," said Lori Wallach, director of the left-leaning Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
Mexico will have a difficult time selling 'Trump's deal' back home if Canada does not think it is a good deal.- Daniel Ujczo , trade lawyer
Even a key Trump ally, Rep. Kevin Brady, the Texas Republican who chairs the House ways and means committee, expressed caution about Monday's apparent breakthrough. Brady said he looked forward "to carefully analyzing the details and consulting in the weeks ahead to determine whether the new proposal meets the trade priorities set out by Congress."
And the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, while hailing Monday's news as a "positive step," said Canada needs to be party to a final deal.
"A trilateral agreement is the best path forward," Cornyn said, adding that millions of jobs were at stake.
There are political reasons to keep Canada inside the regional bloc.
"Mexico will have a difficult time selling 'Trump's deal' back home if Canada does not think it is a good deal," said Daniel Ujczo, a trade lawyer with Dickinson Wright PLLC. "It will appear that Mexico caved."
Delay over 'sunset clause'
Indeed, Mexico has said it wants Canada included in any new deal to replace NAFTA.
"We are very interested in this being an agreement of three countries," said president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. At the same time, Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray told reporters that "Mexico will have a free trade agreement regardless of the outcome" of U.S.-Canada negotiations.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said Mexico had agreed to ensure that 75 per cent of automotive content be produced within the trade bloc (up from a current 62.5 per cent) to receive duty-free benefits, and that 40 per cent to 45 per cent be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. Those changes are meant to encourage more auto production in the United States.
Trump announces U.S.-Mexico trade deal to replace NAFTA, and says 'we will see' if Canada can join
Bank of Canada governor has eye on NAFTA talks as he weighs when to raise rates
For months, the talks were held up by the Trump administration's insistence on a "sunset clause": A renegotiated NAFTA would end after five years unless all three countries agreed to continue it. Mexico and Canada considered that proposal a deal killer.
On Monday, the Trump administration and Mexico announced a compromise on that divisive issue: An overhauled NAFTA would remain in force for 16 years and would be reviewed every six years.
Trade deal to restore US, North America as a manufacturing powerhouse: Navarro
Detroit should be happy about US-Mexico trade deal: Peter Navarro
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on the trade deal reached between the U.S. and Mexico.
President Trump announced a tentative trade deal with Mexico on Monday.
“We’re going to restore this country and North America as a manufacturing powerhouse,” White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs. “There are a lot of bells and whistles in this agreement, but what drives the engine here is the rules of origin and really tough labor provisions.”
Navarro believes the deal will bring back auto parts and the auto industry from the rest of the world, which he says has been stealing it from both Mexico and the United States.
“This is a rebalance that works for both countries that is the beauty of this deal and Detroit should be very happy tonight along with the rest of the country,” he added.
Navarro says a key part is protecting intellectual property.
“The agricultural provision means were are going to export more agricultural products,” said Navarro. “We are going to have more protection. It has the best intellectual property protection we have seen in a free trade agreement and when people steal our stuff, that helps drive the deficit as well.”
Navarro says at the root of the agreement is solidifying the manufacturing base and supply chain.
He believes the deal will appeal to congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
US moving ahead ‘with or without’ Canada: Wilbur Ross
Canadian economy can't survive well without a US deal: Wilbur Ross
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on the trade deal with Mexico and the outlook for trade negotiations with Canada.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Tuesday that President Trump is “fully prepared” to move ahead on trade “with or without” Canada’s involvement.
“This deal is pretty well put together with Mexico,” Ross told FOX Business’ Dagen McDowell. “So the president, as he’s indicated, is fully prepared to go ahead with or without Canada.”
Canadian officials said Monday they would only sign a new trade agreement if it benefitted the country and its middle class.
“We are in regular contact with our negotiating partners, and we will continue to work toward a modernized NAFTA,” a spokesperson for Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement. “We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class. Canada’s signature is required.”
Ross said the administration is hopeful Canada will come in to the trade agreement.
“I think it’s a good idea if they do,” he said. “There’s really not much they should object to. But if not, they will then have to be treated as a real outsider.”
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Tuesday that he thinks a trade deal with Canada could be completed this week.
“I think our objective is to try to get Canada aboard quickly,” he said during an interview on CNBC.
The U.S. and Mexico reached an agreement on Monday to enter a new trade deal, which will be called “The United States-Mexico Trade Agreement.” The trade pact will likely be signed by the end of November, according to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The previous deal between the two countries will be scrapped, according to Trump.
“It’s a big day for trade, it’s a bid day for our country,” Trump said when announcing the deal from the Oval Office. “A lot of people thought we’d never get here because we all negotiate tough – we do, so does Mexico.”
President Trump’s Twitter jab at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—in which he publicly called the leader of an allied country “meek and mild,” plus “dishonest & weak”—spawned a mini–cottage industry of articles (including my own) on the fate of the U.S.-led Western world order. And at first glance it’s puzzling why Trump would pick a fight with Canada, of all places, just as he was departing a summit meeting there.
But in the same tweet he was pretty explicit about the source of his beef: It’s dairy. Referring to steel and aluminum tariffs he has imposed on Canada, he wrote: “Our Tariffs are in response to his of 270% on dairy!” He has a point. But Trump’s complaint obscures the fact that Canada has in the past been open to allowing in dairy imports in exchange for appropriate concessions; that Canada complains that the U.S. subsidizes its own dairy industry; and, perhaps most important, that while Trudeau, like all Western leaders, might need a close relationship with the United States, he needs to appeal to domestic political realities even more.
At issue is the Canadian supply-management system, which covers dairy, eggs, and poultry products. The system sets domestic production quotas and keeps prices stable, thereby guaranteeing farmers a steady income. And, in order to keep the supply stable, Canada blocks imports from other countries, including the U.S., by imposing tariffs—up to 270 percent on dairy products. About 80 percent of Canada’s dairy farmers are concentrated in two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, both of which are crucial to Trudeau’s political fortunes. (The system is by no means universally popular in Canada.)
Nikki Haley Warns That Iran Could Become ‘the Next North Korea’
The Populist’s Guide to Scandal, Jeremy Corbyn Edition
The World Isn’t Prepared to Deal With Possible Genocide In Myanmar
The Choice Facing a Declining United States
“It’s not about Trump and Trudeau,” Stephen Kelly, who served as the U.S. consul general in Quebec City and the deputy chief of mission in Ottawa, told me. “This has been an irritant for many years.”
Decades, in fact—and not just for the United States, whose dairy farmers would like access to the Canadian market, but also their counterparts in New Zealand and elsewhere. New Zealand had opposed Canada’s entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the supply-management system, but Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister at the time, agreed to dismantle the system in exchange for TPP membership. When the U.S. withdrew from the TPP, one of Trump’s first decisions as president, Canada withdrew that concession—other countries withdrew their concessions, as well—in the hopes that it could be put back on the table in the future if the U.S. rejoins the pact and demands compromises from the others.
The Canadians aren’t entirely opposed to negotiating on the dairy industry if they are getting something in return: In its Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, Canada agreed to import European cheese without tariffs. From Canada’s point of view, it is worth it for nearly tariff-free access to the 28-member bloc that is the world’s largest economy.
“In a multilateral context, there was more to trade off. Now the problem is that Trump is dealing with this in a bilateral context where trade barriers are generally very low,” Christopher Sands, the director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies, told me. “Most tariffs are down to zero anyway. So, there’s not much for the U.S. to give in return for the change.”
Sign up for The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily.
Learn what happened each weekday in five sentences, find out what our editors are reading, and more.
Email Address (required)
Thanks for signing up!
It doesn’t help that the U.S. subsidizes its own dairy industry heavily—up to $22 billion in 2015, according to one study. “The Canadians say, ‘Hey, wait a minute. You subsidize milk, too,’” Kelly, who is now a research scholar at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, said. “You’ve got all sorts of support programs for milk.”
In other words, Canada props up its dairy industry through quotas that cap the amount produced, and imposes heavy tariffs on imports. The U.S. subsidizes its dairy industry, resulting in lower costs for U.S. consumers, but a supply glut.
“From a geopolitical point of view, the trouble with supply management is it's kind of in your face: ‘You cannot enter our market. You foreigners cannot enter our markets unless you pay tariffs of like 200 percent,’” Kelly said. “Whereas subsidies are more insidious. They … probably are anti-trade in some sense, but they’re not as glaring. … We do it more subtly.”
Those subsidies exist in the U.S. for the same reason Canada has a supply-management system: domestic politics.
Harper’s conservative government could make a concession on the TPP because, Sands said, his party had almost no parliamentary seats in Quebec, the province with the greatest concentration of dairy farmers; he was dealing with a budget surplus with which he could simply provide the farmers with cash payments; and, in return, he could offer Canadian dairy farmers access to foreign markets. Trudeau, on the other hand, doesn’t have these advantages: Quebec provides Trudeau his second-biggest bloc of seats, including his own, making him politically vulnerable if he infuriates dairy farmers. He has no obvious olive branch to offer the dairy industry. Perhaps most importantly, he's in a budget deficit.
“He doesn't have the maneuverability,” Sands said, “which isn’t to say that we couldn’t reach an agreement here, but the politics have changed and the dynamics have changed.” As have U.S. relations with Canada.
Sands said Trudeau took a strategic decision when Trump was elected that he was going to work with the U.S. president. The Canadian public, despite their dislike of Trump, supported their prime minister.
“He got lots of praise for that in that first year or so, but he got nothing in return: NAFTA is still unsettled, steel and aluminum tariffs are hitting him, softwood lumber tariffs are hitting him,” Sands said. “And I think what he's judged is ‘I'm getting nothing for being nice.’”
saying his country was “not going to be pushed around” on trade by the Americans. And in his now-famous news conference after the G7 summit, he reiterated that Canadian tariffs on U.S. products would go into effect July. 1. “Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around,” he said. By all accounts, Trudeau’s response has been widely welcomed in Canada—even by his political rivals.
“I don't want to say panic is setting in, but there has been a strategic shift, and … so that's why Trudeau escalated, and Trump responded to the escalation by escalating again. It’s that classic Trumpian brinkmanship,” Sands told me. “We’re on a very bad track because I don't really see Trudeau having a lot of room to retreat, and Trump can change his mind any time, but he doesn't seem like he wants to right now.”
Trump threatens tariffs on $267 billion in Chinese goods, expanding the trade war to all Chinese imports entering the U.S.
By David J. Lynch
September 7 at 3:00 PM
President Trump said on Air Force One Friday that he is ready to impose tariffs on $267 billion in Chinese goods, on top of the additional $200 billion that he said will likely be hit with import taxes in a matter of days.
If eventually carried out, the president’s latest threat could result in tariffs on all Chinese goods entering the United States, an unprecedented escalation of Trump’s trade war with China.
The U.S. in July began imposing tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese industrial imports as the president moved to confront Beijing over a range of policies that have long vexed American leaders.
"We’ve taxed them $50 billion — that’s on technology,” the president said. “Now we’ve added another $200 billion. And I hate to say that, but behind that, there’s another $267 billion ready to go on short notice if I want. That totally changes the equation."
Stocks dipped after Trump's comments became public. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was off about 130 points or 0.5 percent in early afternoon trading.
The tariffs that Trump has imposed, and threatened to impose, total $517 billion -- more than the $505 billion in Chinese goods that entered the country last year. The president says the tariffs are needed to force China to stop stealing U.S. technology and coercing American companies to surrender their trade secrets in return for access to the Chinese market.
It's not clear why the president cited the specific figure he used.
So far this year, U.S. imports from China are running roughly 8 percent higher than last year during the same period. If that pace continued for the remainder of this year, Chinese imports would top $548 billion -- leaving Trump a bit short of complete coverage of Chinese goods.
The office of the U.S. trade representative finished accepting comments Thursday on the next round of tariffs, which could be applied to up to $200 billion in Chinese products any day. Included in this batch are many products purchased by consumers, such as refrigerators, spark plugs and furniture.
Trump's decision to double-down on his uncompromising stance toward China means little chance of an early resolution of the standoff between the world's two largest economies. Additional U.S. tariffs are certain to trigger Chinese retaliation, though China's lower volume of imported American goods means that it can't match Trump's tariffs on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Chinese officials may respond by subjecting American companies operating in China to unexpected tax audits, custom inspections or even consumer boycotts.
"The end game in the U.S.-China trade war has now become even more difficult to discern as both sides step up their attacks and counter-attacks," said Cornell University economist Eswar Prasad, former head of the International Monetary Fund's China division. "Trump’s remarks confirm his intention to continue escalating trade sanctions until China capitulates, and China has equally clearly signaled it has no intention of doing so."
Aboard Air Force One, the president noted to reporters that the Chinese stock market is suffering. The Shanghai market is down roughly 23 percent in dollar terms so far this year while the Dow has risen nearly 5 percent.
Trump Wants $200 Billion in China Tariffs Despite Talks, Sources Say
President Donald Trump instructed aides on Thursday to proceed with tariffs on about $200 billion more in Chinese products despite his Treasury secretary’s attempt to restart talks with Beijing to resolve the trade war, according to four people familiar with the matter.
But an announcement of the new round of tariffs has been delayed as the administration considers revisions based on concerns raised in public comments, the people said. Trump may be running low on products he can target without significant backlash from major U.S. companies and consumers, two of the people said.
The threat of fresh tariffs roiled financial markets. U.S. stocks erased gains, dropping to session lows, while the dollar strengthened versus the Chinese offshore yuan by the most in two weeks. Technology shares led declines, with Apple Inc. falling as much as 1.7 percent. The iPhone maker last week warned that new tariffs could increase the cost of its products.
The White House didn’t immediately comment.
Trump met with his top trade advisers on Thursday to discuss the China tariffs, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the people said. Mnuchin has led a recent overture to the Chinese to re-start trade talks.
Read more: Can Trump Win If He Escalates His China Trade War?
Trump was asked during the meeting whether he was concerned about the impact of the new tariffs on negotiations with China. He responded that he wasn’t, two of the people said.
The public comment period for a list of tariffs on about $200 billion in Chinese goods closed last week, and Trump said the duties would be imposed “soon.” The new round would be in addition to $50 billion in Chinese goods that already face a 25 percent duty.
The Chinese have retaliated with tariffs on an equivalent amount of U.S. exports, and have promised to match future rounds of U.S. duties.
Before his meeting on Thursday, which didn’t appear on his public calendar, Trump boasted on Twitter that he has the upper hand in the trade feud with Beijing and feels “no pressure” to resolve the dispute.
His comment tempered cautious optimism among investors over the U.S. government’s proposal for another round of talks with Beijing. Disclosure on Wednesday that the U.S. sought to renew the talks rallied U.S. stocks and emerging-market assets.
Trump threatened a third tranche of tariffs on another $267 billion of Chinese imports last week, which would mean levying duties on nearly everything China exports to the U.S. Trump said at the time those tariffs were “ready to go on short notice,” but the administration hasn’t yet published a list for public comment.
It has become tricky to find additional products for duties that won’t more obviously impact American consumers, according to two people. There was no decision made during Thursday’s meeting regarding when to issue the $267 billion round.
Apple said last week the $200 billion round of tariffs could hit some of its most popular goods such as the Apple Watch and AirPods headphones. Retailers such as WalMart Inc. and Target Corp. risk being swept up in an escalating trade war if further tariffs hit a broad range of consumer goods, from TVs to sneakers.
Efforts to end the trade dispute have fizzled so far. Officials from both countries have met four times for formal talks, most recently in August, when Treasury’s undersecretary for international affairs, David Malpass, led discussions in Washington with Chinese Vice Minister Wang Shouwen.
The White House has sought to pressure Beijing to reduce its trade surplus with America and protect intellectual property rights of U.S. companies, which it says are abused in China.
— With assistance by Justin Sink, Andrew Mayeda, Shawn Donnan, and Jeremy Herron