Time to compare notes again: This morning @USTradeRep@AmbassadorTai had a phone call with Chinese vice Premier Liu He.
The two readouts from @USTradeRep and MOFCOM both emphasized two points: 1. They had a “candid exchange”; 2. They will have "future discussions".
Translating the diplomatic speak into normal language: 1. There are many disagreements; 2. They had so many disagreements that they have to wait until the next time to try to sort out the issues.
Now let's play the game of "spot the difference": 1. @USTradeRep: @AmbassadorTai discussed the "guiding principles of the Biden-Harris Administration’s worker-centered trade policy and her ongoing review of the U.S.-China trade relationship, while also raising issues of concern".
2. MOFCOM emphasized that the two sides had "pragmatic and constructive exchanges in a spirit of equality and mutual respect. Both sides consider it very important to develop bilateral trade".
Simply put, the US is more concerned with the bilateral trade deficit, China's alleged violation of WTO rules, etc; China considers it important to maintain trade relations with the US, but it must be done in an equal and respectable manner.
Let me try to imagine what happened:
Tai:
Hi, I'm calling to check how you've implemented the phase 1 deal. Let me see, you only fulfilled some 60% as per the calculations of @ChadBown.
Liu:
We'd be happy to implement the deal if you could remove the additional tariffs first
Tai:
Don't get me started! You failed to do this and that... I got a long list here...
Liu (interrupting Tai):
We Chinese people don't eat this stuff (and you should know better as a Chinese)! Stop lecturing us and just remove the tariffs!
A thread on U.S.-China Joint Statement Addressing the Climate Crisis. Eng version: state.gov/u-s-china-join…;
Chinese version: xinhuanet.com/world/2021-04/… 1. Finally we have a statement where the English and Chinese versions mirror each other rather than speaking their own languages.
2. But this doesn't mean that we can't learn anything from the joint statement. Instead, we can learn a lot from this!
Let's compare, for example, the last sentence of the first paragraph:
Eng: Both countries recall their historic contribution to the development, adoption, signature, and entry into force of the Paris Agreement through their leadership and collaboration.
Chn: 双方回顾两国气候变化领域的领导力与合作,为巴黎协定的制定、通过、签署和生效作出历史性贡献。
"firmly safeguard the normal economic and trade cooperation between China and Iran and its legitimate rights and interests"
"If the extraterritorial application of relevant foreign laws and measures violates international law and basic norms of international relations,
and damages the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens, legal persons or other organizations, China will carry out relevant work in accordance with relevant legal provisions, and firmly safeguard national sovereignty, security & development interests"
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
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.