Let me try to translate USTR-designate Katherine Tai's opening statement before Senate Finance Committee:
"I previously served as America’s chief enforcer against China’s unfair trade practices":
I've taken WTO cases against China, and won (see rare earth).
/1
"I know firsthand how critically important it is that we have a strategic and coherent plan for holding China accountable to its promises and effectively competing with its model of state-directed economics":
Trade agreements are not just for soybeans. There will be more.
/2
"I know the opportunities and limitations in our existing toolbox".
I will make full use of the existing tools: trade remedies, Sec 301, national security...you name it.
I will also beef up the existing rules.
/3
"And I know how important it is to build what the President has termed 'a united front of U.S. allies'.”
We will gang up on China with allies. Expect the trilateral process to continue and grow.
/4
"China is simultaneously a rival, a trade partner, and an outsized player whose cooperation we’ll also need to address certain global challenges."
We will cooperate with China on climate & other issues.
/5
"We must remember how to walk, chew gum and play chess at the same time."
Good luck to the @USTradeRep! This is what happened when someone tries to do that last time.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
MOFCOM just issued some interesting clarification on the Chinese Blocking Statute: 1. Injunctions prohibiting firms and individuals from recognizing, enforcing and complying with foreign sanctions only apply to Chines entities, NOT foreign entities;
2. Entities harming interests of Chinese entities by complying with foreign sanctions only include Chinese entities; 3. But entities benefiting from foreign judgments include both Chinese and third-country entities.
To illustrate with examples: 1. US issues sanctions against Chinese entity A dealing with third-country entities B. MOFCOM issues injunction against compliance with the sanction. Only Chinese entity C is required to comply with the injunction. But not third-country entity D.
MOFCOM just issued its first order for 2021: Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures. Key message:
We are going to prohibit firms from complying with foreign laws prohibiting transactions with Chinese firms.
Key provisions: 1. The legislative basis is National Security Law; 2. Chinese firms and individuals are required to report foreign sanctions; 3. MOFCOM may issue injunctions prohibiting firms and individuals from recognizing, enforcing and complying with foreign sanctions.
4. Chinese firms suffering loss from another party's compliance with foreign sanctions can sue for damages in Chinese courts.
Thanks @loyaladvisor for this. This would be the most detailed info on the #CAI before the text is out. Here are a few gems I found in the internet sector:
1. Cloud services "will now be open to EU investors subject to a 50% equity cap". Good for EU but they are late to the Party, as Amazon AMS has been in China since 6 years ago;
2. The ‘technology neutrality' clause, which ensures that equity caps imposed for telecom VAS won't be applied to other online services such as financial, logistics, medical etc. AFAIK these have never been regarded as VAS to start with and never been subject to VAS equity caps.
The decision is hardly surprising, but there are two interesting points in the panel report: 1. Whether the Phase 1 deal constitutes a mutually agreed solution; 2. whether the US tariffs could be justified under the public morals exception.
The first one was easy, while the second one is more tricky, as the US measures were allegedly taken against IP theft, misappropriation and unfair competition by China. The Panel ruled against the US, not because the US couldn't do so, but due to the lack of nexus and necessity.
I'm most amused by the argument by China that the criminalization of a conduct under domestic law doesn't really provide sufficient justification for invoking public morals exception. I wonder if its lawyers ever realized that this argu could be used against China in another case