On April 5, US President Trump asked the Office of the US Trade Representative to impose tariffs on US$ 654.38 billion worth of goods imported from China according to the "30 1 Investigation".
Earlier, the U.S. government announced that it would impose a 25% tariff on imported goods originating in China, involving about 50 billion U.S. dollars of China's exports to the United States, based on the unilateral investigation results of the 30 1 survey.
On April 4th, the State Council Customs Tariff Commission decided to impose a 25% tariff on the products 14 106, such as soybeans, automobiles, chemicals, etc. originating in the United States, which involved about 50 billion US dollars imported from the United States in 20 17 years.
In this Sino-US trade friction, there are two high-frequency words: "30 1 investigation" and "232 measures". What exactly do these two words mean? What forces can provoke trade friction between China and the United States?
"I think both the 30 1 investigation and the 232 measures are aimed at curbing the rapid rise of the United States against China, and the overcapacity problem of China steel targeted by the 232 measures is just an excuse." Zhao Ping, director of the International Trade Research Department of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, said in an interview with a reporter from China News Service that this is a through train.
232 measures
It is understood that the US 232 investigation refers to the investigation conducted by the US Department of Commerce according to Article 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 on whether the import of specific products threatens US national security.
2065438+On April 20, 2007, at the request of the President of the United States, the US Department of Commerce launched a 232 investigation on imported steel products; ? 2065438+On April 27th, 2007, at the request of the President of the United States, the US Department of Commerce launched a 232 investigation on imported aluminum products.
On February 6th, 20 18, Washington time, the U.S. Department of Commerce released a report on the national security investigation of steel and aluminum products imported from the United States (232 investigation), which believed that the imported steel and aluminum products seriously damaged the domestic industries of the United States and threatened the national security of the United States. According to this, the US Department of Commerce proposed to Trump to impose import restrictions such as tariffs and quotas on imported steel and aluminum products.
On March 8, 20 18, US President Trump signed an announcement that imported steel and aluminum products threatened US national security and decided to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum products from March 23 (that is, 232 measures).
However, in Zhao Ping's view, launching an investigation on steel and aluminum is only an excuse for the United States to provoke trade frictions. "Indeed, the United States is the world's largest importer of steel, while China is the largest exporter and producer of steel. However, using global steel overcapacity as an excuse to provoke trade frictions against China is actually just a cover-up. "
She further analyzed, because steel overcapacity is a problem facing the whole world, not just China. For example, Japan, India and other countries have the problem of steel overcapacity, and the World Iron and Steel Association also said that steel overcapacity needs to be faced by the whole world. The United States pointed its finger at China, on the one hand, because of the high steel tax revenue, on the other hand, it also wanted to use this as an excuse to provoke Sino-US trade friction.
At the same time, among the 232 measures implemented since March 23, steel and aluminum tariffs of the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and other economies were temporarily exempted. In Zhao Ping's view, this is also a means to isolate China diplomatically.
Bai Ming, deputy director of the International Market Research Institute of the Research Institute of the Ministry of Commerce, also believes that an important condition for these economies to be exempted is to join the sanctions against China steel and aluminum with the United States. "In order to protect their interests in the United States, they had to give in to Trump. This development will not only be a trade friction between the two countries. "
The list of goods taxed in China under the investigation of 30 1 published by the United States is based on 30 1, which is the common name of Article 30 1 of the United States 1974 Trade Law. Generally speaking, "30 1 clause" is a legislative authorization clause in American trade law about taking unilateral action against foreign legislation or administrative acts that violate the agreement and harm American interests.
According to the statistics of Peterson Institute for International Economics, so far the United States has lifted the "big stick" of 30 1 more than 120 times.
The presidential memorandum to China signed by Trump at the White House on the 22nd local time was the result of "30 1 investigation".
In Zhao Ping's view, the real purpose of launching the 30/KLOC-0 survey and signing the presidential memorandum in the United States is because with the continuous development of strategic emerging industries in China and the gradual landing of the Made in China 2025 strategy, China's industry has changed from the original heavy chemical industry to a technology-intensive industry with higher value and high technology content. In this development process, the United States has a sense of crisis. "The reason why the United States waved a' big stick' to China's intellectual property-related issues is actually to curb the development of China and prevent the gap between China and the United States from getting smaller and smaller in the process of peaceful rise, and even catch up with the United States one day in the future."
America's fears are not unreasonable. As early as 20 13 published by Tsinghua University Institute of National Studies, the calculation of the proportion of comprehensive national strength between China and the United States in the world showed that in the past 20 years, China was a country with rising comprehensive national strength, that is, "going uphill", while the United States was a country with declining comprehensive national strength, that is, "going downhill". The proportion of China's comprehensive national strength in the world has increased from 4.03% in 1990 to 16.57% in 20 13 years, an increase of 12.54 percentage points. In the same period, the United States dropped from 22.7 1% in the world to 20 13/6.32%, a decrease of 6.39 percentage points.
According to the calculation of the Institute of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, if calculated at the market exchange rate, China's GDP in 20 18 is likely to reach 2/3 of that of the United States, and the gap with the United States is gradually narrowing.
"Especially in recent years, in the international market, the growth rate of the number of patent applications in China is obviously higher than that in the United States, which makes the United States, as the only superpower in the world, feel more crisis. It hopes to provoke more trade frictions through unconventional means such as 30 1 investigation, as well as anti-dumping and countervailing actions, which will worsen China's terms of trade and thus curb China's development. " Zhao Ping said that the United States did this because of its successful experience. Historically, during the trade friction between the United States and Japan, Japan's economy continued to rise, and Japan's scientific and technological development level and innovation ability gradually narrowed the gap with the United States. From the textile trade in the 1960s to the mechanical and electrical products trade in the 1970s, the United States constantly increased its trade friction with Japan, and finally signed the Plaza Agreement at 1985, forcing the yen to appreciate, which made Japan's terms of trade deteriorate rapidly.
Therefore, the United States hopes to achieve the strategy of suppressing China economically and isolating China diplomatically through this trade friction. Thus forcing China to compromise and accept its negotiation conditions, just as the Japanese did at that time.
However, according to Tu Xinquan, president of the WTO China Research Institute in university of international business and economics, this move by the United States is an "old brain", and it is a misunderstanding of the times and China to move the old methods of the 1980s to the present. China does not depend on the United States economically, and will make its own decisions.
Zhao Ping further analyzed that, first of all, China is different from Japanese. Although foreign trade accounts for a relatively high proportion in China's GDP, as Japan is an island country, there are few domestic resources available for integration, leaving little room for manoeuvre. China is a big country, not only with a large economic aggregate, but also with a vast territory and a large space for economic gradient development. Therefore, when dealing with trade frictions and disputes, China can make more use of the domestic market to absorb external pressure.
Secondly, from a diplomatic point of view, the situation in China and Japan was different at that time. As an ally of the United States, Japan has always been attached to the United States, while China has been developing independently. More importantly, China actively participates in global governance, providing more public goods to countries around the world, such as the Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS countries, so that more countries can enjoy the fruits of China's development. China's development is a peaceful rise, and it participates in global governance in a way of * * * * *, which is very different from the unilateralism of the United States and the concept of global governance above the United States. "So I think it is wishful thinking for the United States to repeat the history of US-Japan trade friction in Sino-US relations."