Much detail, little progress in U.S.-China talks, sources say

[rooster59]

Much detail, little progress in U.S.-China talks, sources say

By Michael Martina and David Lawder

 

A Chinese man adjusts a China flag before a news conference attended by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing September 5, 2012. REUTERS/Feng Li/Pool/File Photo

 

BEIJING/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-China trade talks this week were heavy on details but short on progress as U.S. negotiators outlined cases of American firms harmed by Chinese practices and China argued it was meeting its WTO obligations, people familiar with contents of the discussions said.

 

The two days of talks in Washington led by mid-level officials did little to resolve a worsening trade spat between the world's two biggest economies and ended on Thursday without a joint statement.

 

Washington separately held hearings during the week on another round of proposed tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports that appear increasingly likely to take effect in late September or early October.

 

And while factions on the U.S. side have given conflicting signals on how hard to press Beijing during the trade dispute, officials from the Treasury Department, which led the talks, and the U.S. Trade Representative, which has taken a harder line, were aligned in their messaging, the people said.

 

The talks took place as the two sides followed through on threatened tit-for-tat tariffs on $16 billion worth of the other's goods.

Beijing has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization about the U.S. duties.

 

During the talks, Chinese negotiators repeatedly invoked what they said was Beijing's compliance with WTO rules, an argument that did not impress the U.S. side.

 

One of the sources described the U.S. response as: "We're not going to care about the WTO as you fuel overcapacity, wreck industries and steal IP (intellectual property). We're not going to sit on our hands."

 

All of the sources declined to be identified given the sensitivity of the matter.

 

Washington is demanding Beijing improve market access and intellectual property protections for U.S. companies, cut industrial subsidies and slash a $375 billion trade gap.

 

In a brief statement on Friday, China's commerce ministry said both sides had a "constructive" and "candid" exchange over trade issues, and will stay in touch on the next steps.

 

U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, had downplayed expectations for the talks.

 

No further talks have been announced.

 

Chinese negotiators brought up the lack of U.S. market access for items including Chinese cooked chicken, one of the exports that was agreed last year as part of a 100-day plan, demonstrating Beijing is still seeking some U.S. concessions in the talks.

 

"The Chinese are stuck in the mindset that they want something in return. That's not going to fly in Washington anymore," another source briefed on the talks said.

 

U.S. negotiators brought up the case of Micron Technology, which was temporarily barred by a Chinese court in July from selling its main semiconductor products in China, citing violation of patents held by Taiwan's United Microelectronics Corp (UMC).

 

In December, Micron had filed a civil lawsuit in California accusing UMC and its state-backed Chinese partner of stealing technology.

 

One of the people said the talks focused on systemic issues related to Washington's "Section 301" probe into China's intellectual property and technology transfer practices.

 

There was little, if any, focus on more purchases by China of U.S. commodities. During the previous round of talks, in June in Beijing, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross unsuccessfully sought to secure major Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans and liquefied natural gas.

 

In an editorial late on Friday, the Global Times, a nationalist Chinese tabloid run by the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily, said it was clear that the two days of talks did not yield significant progress.

 

"An escalation in the US-China trade war is becoming obvious," it said, citing U.S. congressional elections in November as a key reason for the tough U.S. stance.

 

"So far, neither side shows signs of extending the trade war to other areas. We hope that both sides can stick to the 'rule' and keep the trade issue within limits," it said.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-26

[lovelomsak]

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

The Chinese are stuck in the mindset that they want something in return. That's not going to fly in Washington anymore," another source briefed on the talks said.

 

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

One of the sources described the U.S. response as: "We're not going to care about the WTO as you fuel overcapacity, wreck industries and steal IP (intellectual property). We're not going to sit on our hands."

 

I am starting to really like this. 

 China is going to have to start facing reality that their take and no give days are over.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"The Chinese are stuck in the mindset that they want something in return.

Isn't that a basis for any negotiations?

[Tailwagsdog]

The trouble is the bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics spoiled China for years with the MFN 'Most Favourd Nation' status that gave them priveleged access to the US market. China has returned that favour by stealing secrets and dumping into the US, silly americans and spoilt brat chinese. So here we are in 2018.

[Srikcir]

8 minutes ago, Tailwagsdog said:

The trouble is the bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics spoiled China for years with the MFN 'Most Favourd Nation' status that gave them priveleged access to the US market.

Check history vs your apparent political bias.

Since 1980 and through 2017, China enjoyed ''most-favored-nation'' trade status with the U.S., which is subject to annual review by the White House. To reverse the President's approval, the House and Senate would have had to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. Obviously during this time span, China's MFN status continued to exist despite both Republican and Democrat controlled congresses and presidencies. That's not to say that during that time there weren't changes and unresolved complaints to the US-China commercial relationship.

[lovelomsak]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Check history vs your apparent political bias.

Since 1980 and through 2017, China enjoyed ''most-favored-nation'' trade status with the U.S., which is subject to annual review by the White House. To reverse the President's approval, the House and Senate would have had to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. Obviously during this time span, China's MFN status continued to exist despite both Republican and Democrat controlled congresses and presidencies. That's not to say that during that time there weren't changes and unresolved complaints to the US-China commercial relationship.

So what is your point? They had chances to change it and didnot. Is that not just the long way to re say what tialwagsdog said?

 

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

. Obviously during this time span, China's MFN status continued to exist despite both

What you said here just confirms what Tailwagsdog said.

  So really why did you bother to post this

Edited August 26, 2018 by lovelomsak

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

So what is your point? They had chances to change it and didnot. Is that not just the long way to re say what tialwagsdog said?

 

What you said here just confirms what Tailwagsdog said.

  So really why did you bother to post this

tialwagsdog blames the MFN on "bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics." If there's blame, it belongs to the whole of American politics. But tialwagsdog's being a political divisionist. That plays well in Trump's world where there has to be clearly defined enemies.

[lovelomsak]

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

tialwagsdog blames the MFN on "bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics." If there's blame, it belongs to the whole of American politics. But tialwagsdog's being a political divisionist. That plays well in Trump's world where there has to be clearly defined enemies.

Pretty weak excuse to go after him when you yourself proves with your post both parties were in power during those times. It was more to do with the times than any thing else. and I think that is what tailwagsdog was referring to.Trump wasnot even around for that whole time why bring him into it.

 Your post comes off to me as more baiting than making any point.

Edited August 26, 2018 by lovelomsak

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Pretty weak excuse to go after him when you yourself proves with your post both parties were in power during those times. It was more to do with the times than any thing else. and I think that is what tailwagsdog was referring to.Trump wasnot even around for that whole time why bring him into it.

 Your post comes off to me as more baiting than making any point.

Of course that was not what he was referring to, why mention 'bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics'.

[lovelomsak]

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Of course that was not what he was referring to, why mention 'bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics'.

That's what we all were in those times probably that's why

[samran]

Where is the ‘great negotiator’ in all of this? 

 

Probably still struggling to find China on a map, while his advisors resort to giving him is daily briefings in the form of Pictionary cards. 

[stevenl]

12 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

That's what we all were in those times probably that's why

No, cheap excuse.

[lovelomsak]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No, cheap excuse.

I take it that is your humble opinion huh.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 8/26/2018 at 4:13 AM, lovelomsak said:

 

I am starting to really like this. 

 China is going to have to start facing reality that their take and no give days are over.

 

On 8/26/2018 at 8:12 AM, Tailwagsdog said:

The trouble is the bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics spoiled China for years with the MFN 'Most Favourd Nation' status that gave them priveleged access to the US market. China has returned that favour by stealing secrets and dumping into the US, silly americans and spoilt brat chinese. So here we are in 2018.

I think you guys should look at what's really happening.  ?

Trump is making it look like that he is getting tough on China, that's because he said he would do this during the election campaign. Let's get real here.  America will continue to have a load of cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, regardless of what the White House says. We're not going to see factories in America churning out the same Chinese goods.

China imports a huge amount of food products from America's farmers. It's absurd to think that Trump is going to risk such a huge and valuable market for American farmers. And what's the point of this trade war with China ?  Destroy jobs in America's farming sector (by the way, the farmers are the very people who backed Trump) just to slap taxes on the cheap Chinese goods entering America ?  This just bumps up the price of goods in Walmart, it makes everybody a loser. Not a good idea.

Edited August 27, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[lovelomsak]

38 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

I think you guys should look at what's really happening.  ?

Trump is making it look like that he is getting tough on China, that's because he said he would do this during the election campaign. Let's get real here.  America will continue to have a load of cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, regardless of what the White House says. We're not going to see factories in America churning out the same Chinese goods.

China imports a huge amount of food products from America's farmers. It's absurd to think that Trump is going to risk such a huge and valuable market for American farmers. And what's the point of this trade war with China ?  Destroy jobs in America's farming sector (by the way, the farmers are the very people who backed Trump) just to slap taxes on the cheap Chinese goods entering America ?  This just bumps up the price of goods in Walmart, it makes everybody a loser. Not a good idea.

That is your perception of what is really happening does not it mean that is what is really happening.

    China cannot grow enough food to feed its people. They need food simple as that.A starving nation is not a happy nation I would think.It needs American foods.

  On the other hand America does not need many cheap consumer items  Walmart sells. Also I feel  a large percentage of Walmart customers do not work live off tax dollars and produce nothing for the nation. So what if they cannot buy cheap crap.may save on taxes for the working class. Get a job and help the economy. and buy American made .would be best. Perhaps a new job created because of this  trade war.

[stevenl]

54 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

I think you guys should look at what's really happening.  ?

Trump is making it look like that he is getting tough on China, that's because he said he would do this during the election campaign. Let's get real here.  America will continue to have a load of cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, regardless of what the White House says. We're not going to see factories in America churning out the same Chinese goods.

China imports a huge amount of food products from America's farmers. It's absurd to think that Trump is going to risk such a huge and valuable market for American farmers. And what's the point of this trade war with China ?  Destroy jobs in America's farming sector (by the way, the farmers are the very people who backed Trump) just to slap taxes on the cheap Chinese goods entering America ?  This just bumps up the price of goods in Walmart, it makes everybody a loser. Not a good idea.

Agree with your last lines, but unfortunately this does not mean 'Trump is not going to risk such a huge and valuable market for American farmers'. He is already doing that, subsidies to hit farmers have been promised.

[Credo]

45 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree with your last lines, but unfortunately this does not mean 'Trump is not going to risk such a huge and valuable market for American farmers'. He is already doing that, subsidies to hit farmers have been promised.

This is only one part of the problem.   He can subsidize farmers, but it will result in a glut of farm products in the US market.   

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

This is only one part of the problem.   He can subsidize farmers, but it will result in a glut of farm products in the US market.   

Another part of the problem - the subsidies are unlikely to address the long-term risks farmers face of losing their lucrative export markets.

“Our emphasis continues to be on trade and restoring markets, and we will continue to push for a swift and sure end to the trade war and the tariffs impacting American agriculture,” said Zippy Duvall, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/31/trumps-12-billion-bailout-no-i-remedy-for-farmers-caught-in-trade-war/