What's new

Targeting U.S. automaker signals possible China retaliation over Trump talk

Saifullah Sani

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
China's plan to punish a U.S. automaker accused of price-fixing is a sign of how Beijing could retaliate if President-elect Donald Trump upends decades of relations between the two nations.

Trump's assertion that the United States need not be bound by the policy that Taiwan is part of "one China" would erode a bedrock of U.S.-China ties that has underpinned the vast increase in trade and cooperation between what are now the world's two largest economies.

Few expect the disagreement will lead to outright military confrontation, nor even the kind of economic war that many feared could be launched by Trump's threat during the U.S. presidential campaign to slap tariffs of up to 45 percent on Chinese imports.

However, a rising China has plenty of other ways to push back hard if Trump presses on the Taiwan question, which most analysts see as the most sensitive part of the U.S.-China relationship.

In what might be a shot across the bow of the Trump administration, due to take office on Jan. 20, the official China Daily newspaper quoted a state planning official saying China will soon penalize an unnamed U.S. automaker for monopolistic behavior. While the official said no one should read "anything improper" into this, shares of General Motors Co and Ford Motor Co skidded.

Auto industry sources have told Reuters this specific investigation was already underway before Trump's recent comments.

However, the manner in which it was announced, by saying only that it was a U.S. automaker before a formal announcement of fines, has raised questions around whether officials might be seizing on the case to send a shot across the bow of the incoming Trump administration.

Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump, said on Wednesday Trump's team was aware of the report but it would be premature to comment.

In Washington, a Democratic congressional aide said China's threat to fine the automaker was a "good sharp reminder" to Trump that "they have cards to play too and that if he is thinking that he can enter into negotiations - be it on Taiwan, trade, North Korea, whatever - as if the United States is the sole global superpower ... then he is going to need to think again."

China's state planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, did not responded to Reuters requests for comment on the China Daily story. China's Foreign Ministry said it did not know any details about the case.

"China welcomes foreign companies, including American ones, to invest in and operate in China. At the same time they must respect China's laws and rules. This point is very clear," ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said when asked if this was China sending a message to Trump.

Pressure on other U.S. companies, such as Boeing Co (BA.N) and General Electric Co (GE.N), with large interests in China could be one of the most tangible tools of retaliation, together with new limits on access to the country's huge markets. U.S. business interests in China are estimated at more than $500 billion.

Wider economic steps - such as China, America's biggest creditor, selling a significant part of its $1.16 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, or weakening its currency - seem unlikely, the first because it would slash the value of China's U.S. bond portfolio and the second because it could accelerate capital flight, experts said.

Beijing could speed up a military build-up that had begun to slow along with Chinese economic growth, carry out naval exercises close to Taiwan - which it regards as a renegade province - and withhold diplomatic cooperation on issues such as Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

"Taiwan policy is what China considers a core interest ... and it's prepared to go to great lengths to defend it," said Eric Altbach, senior vice president at the Albright Stonebridge Group consultancy in Washington and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs.



A ROCKY FIRST YEAR?

The consensus within the Obama administration is that Trump, who irked China by taking a phone call from Taiwan's president, was not fully aware of the potential backlash from Beijing over his questioning of the "one China" policy, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The hope is that by the time Trump takes over from President Barack Obama, he will recognize that China has advanced so far economically, diplomatically and militarily that it is unwise to pick fights with Beijing over such a bedrock principle, he added.

A former senior U.S. official took a more pessimistic view.

"Trump has basically guaranteed that the first year in the China relationship will be a combative, competitive one, and the question is how bad it will get," he said. "The Chinese now are basically putting together their list on how to retaliate."

There are at least three ways in which the matter could play out, U.S. China experts said. Trump could backtrack over time, much as former U.S. President George W. Bush did.

A second track would be if Trump goes on questioning the "one China" policy without taking concrete action. The third, considered unlikely by U.S. officials past and present, would be a drift toward military confrontation.



'JUST CAUSE TO DISPATCH TROOPS'?

Asked if Trump's "one China" stance could lead to this, a source with ties to the Chinese leadership told Reuters: "We will see what Trump says and does after he becomes president."

A second source with leadership ties said they expected tensions with the United States over Taiwan. But the source said Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has sounded a more nationalistic line than his recent predecessors, could also use the issue to further cement his grip on power.

"If (Taiwan) is emboldened by the U.S. support and does something drastic, it could be an opportunity for us. There will be just cause to dispatch troops," the second source said.

While the possibility of Taiwan declaring independence and hence triggering a Chinese invasion seems low, the mere softening in the U.S. commitment to the policy would likely play out in China's defense posture.

"It will alter Chinese defense priorities. I think that’s inevitable now," said Dennis Wilder, a former CIA China analyst. He said Xi may increase Chinese military spending for 2017 and place new emphasis, over time, on gaining the amphibious capabilities necessary to actually invade Taiwan.

"Xi Jinping has to respond to this internally, domestically, and while he doesn’t want an open fight with Trump, he will have to show ... resolve," he said, citing higher military spending, more defense exercises and tougher rhetoric on Taiwan. "We can anticipate that unless this issue is taken off the table."


(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Howard Goller and Lincoln Feast)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...37c&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
 
.
I will give Trump my first A+ the moment he begins to drop bombs, along with Russia, on the terrorists in Syria, regardless of their shades of color (non-moderate, semi-moderate, moderate) and regardless of their backers (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Jordan).

Until then, I will judge Trump by his Twitter performance in terms of likes and re-tweets.
 
.
The Americans causing more and more trouble all over the place.

I will give Trump my first A+ the moment he begins to drop bombs, along with Russia, on the terrorists in Syria, regardless of their shades of color (non-moderate, semi-moderate, moderate) and regardless of their backers (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Jordan).

Until then, I will judge Trump by his Twitter performance in terms of likes and re-tweets.

LOL Right on the money. Trump is a Twitter chief.
 
.
Pressure on other U.S. companies


I think it's a normal anti-trust investigation, not broadly targeting US companies in general. The targeted company is a JV in which GM's share is 50%, other 50% owned by state-owned SAC. Though only 50% stake, due to the size of China market (23 million vehicles per year, largest in the world), any such news would make noise in US.

Wider economic steps - such as China, America's biggest creditor, selling a significant part of its $1.16 trillion of U.S. Treasuries


There is no "retaliation", Trump or not US is always the same country, it's not day one "frenemy" (if not enemy) of China.

There won't be big sudden firesale, but the fact is PBoC has been divesting from US treasury bills for quite some time since October 2013, it was gradual, started way before the Fed rate hike announced yesterday or even way before last December. I'm not sure how much are embedded in Euroclear (Belgium) or Caribbean banking center, but I expect the unloading process of treasury bills from PBoC will just continue, while commodities reserves, sovereign welfare funds, will continue loading.

 
Last edited:
.
guess chinese stockpile of gold back central bank job are done

that was quicker than i thought
 
.
I think it's a normal anti-trust investigation, not broadly targeting US companies in general. The targeted company is a JV in which GM's share is 50%, other 50% owned by state-owned SAC. Though only 50% stake, due to the size of China market (23 million vehicles per year, largest in the world), any such news would make noise in US.




There is no "retaliation", Trump or not US is always the same country, it's not day one "frenemy" (if not enemy) of China.

There won't be big sudden firesale, but the fact is PBoC has been divesting from US treasury bills for quite some time since October 2013, it was gradual, started way before the Fed rate hike announced yesterday or even way before last December. I'm not sure how much are embedded in Euroclear (Belgium) or Caribbean banking center, but I expect the unloading process of treasury bills from PBoC will just continue, while commodities reserves, sovereign welfare funds, will continue loading.


Definitely agree. The usual media sensationalism just as they created over Trump tweets or phone calls. They do definitely matter, but not enough to generate a policy action that may be called a "retaliation."

That still feels too dramatic.

Sometimes media personalities mistake long-trend events for short term reactionarism; China's unloading of US T-bills is a historical trend predating Trump, but the media may take it as a sign of China reacting this or that.

The fact is that China government does not at on short term score making impulse. China's vision definitely is cast much further than Trump's granddaughter's time, let alone Trump himself.
 
.
Trump is an entertainer. For an entertainer, good news or bad news is still good publicity. He is making things interesting. I just hope that it doesn't come back to haunt him.

American exceptionalism is gone; now big corporations and bankers are calling the shots in US. Some studies showed that up to 80% of the laws passed in Congress benefited the bankers and big corporations, not the average Joe on the street. I don't think these big corporations (and their bankers) will allow their interests to be harmed.

Twenty or even ten years ago, US can call the shots. (For e.g. they have unilaterally invaded countries.) But this is getting increasingly difficult when you are no longer the undisputed number one. IMO, a multi-polar world is definitely better for humanity.

Also, the next Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) will be pandering to "big oil" interests. He is currently the Exxon-Mobil Corp chairman and CEO, enough said.
 
.
Trump is an entertainer. For an entertainer, good news or bad news is still good publicity. He is making things interesting. I just hope that it doesn't come back to haunt him.

American exceptionalism is gone; now big corporations and bankers are calling the shots in US. Some studies showed that up to 80% of the laws passed in Congress benefited the bankers and big corporations, not the average Joe on the street. I don't think these big corporations (and their bankers) will allow their interests to be harmed.

Twenty or even ten years ago, US can call the shots. (For e.g. they have unilaterally invaded countries.) But this is getting increasingly difficult when you are no longer the undisputed number one. IMO, a multi-polar world is definitely better for humanity.

Also, the next Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) will be pandering to "big oil" interests. He is currently the Exxon-Mobil Corp chairman and CEO, enough said.

It will then be, "drill, baby, drill," in Alaska.

Russia has a tough competition coming up.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom