In recent years, trade relations between China and the United States have encountered increasing tensions, prompting concerns about the potential consequences for the global economy. This issue is multifaceted, with significant economic policy implications and broader geopolitical implications. While negotiations between the two countries are ongoing, it is uncertain whether a lasting solution to the trade tensions can be reached. The interplay of international economic friction and individual leaders’ decisions raises the specter of a full-scale global trade conflict and the possibility of a financial crisis in the short term. In the long run, this ongoing power struggle between the two economic superpowers could potentially marginalize the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Additionally, these trade dynamics have implications for the European Union (EU), which must carefully navigate its economic interests, security concerns, and core values.
The Origins of Protectionist Policies One of the driving forces behind the current direction of U.S. trade policy is the globalization of the international economy, which has not evenly distributed its benefits among all segments of society. Economically, reducing trade barriers and customs regulations can lead to financial prosperity for a nation through factors like specialization, economies of scale, and innovation. However, these benefits have not been distributed equitably within society. In the U.S., globalization has disproportionately impacted unskilled workers, whose real income has remained stagnant for decades due to increased competition from lower-wage labor markets in Asia and Latin America. While technological advancements and automation have also contributed to job losses in certain industries, it is often more politically expedient to blame other nations for economic challenges. Therefore, international trade has played a pivotal role in the U.S. economy’s success, but it has posed a significant threat to the livelihoods and incomes of a specific social group.
Media coverage of the U.S.-China trade tensions has largely centered on President Donald Trump, but it is important to note that protectionist sentiments were not exclusive to his administration. For instance, in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton reversed her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which she had previously endorsed as Secretary of State under the Obama administration. While Clinton cited substantive flaws in the final agreement as the reason for her change of position, it also reflected evolving public sentiment on free trade. Notably, trade policy has garnered criticism from figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who identify as “democratic socialists.” Thus, a shift away from trade liberalization in the U.S. appears to be a broader trend rather than an isolated effort by one individual.
Trump’s Approach to Trade Nevertheless, President Trump’s personality and negotiation style have played a significant role in shaping U.S. trade policies. As a seasoned businessman, Trump initiated negotiations from the outset of his presidency. While the U.S. withdrew from the TPP without hesitation, Trump sought revisions to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the 2012 U.S.-South Korea trade agreement, arguing that these changes were necessary to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and bring jobs back to American soil. Although formal agreements were reached with both treaty partners, questions linger about the substantive impact of these modifications. Trump’s emphasis on showcasing his deal-making abilities and promoting an “America First” message often took precedence over the specific content of these trade agreements.
Trump’s rhetoric and policy measures have significantly influenced the focus of the U.S.-China trade tensions. On the surface, the issue appears straightforward: China exports more to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to China, resulting in perceived losses in profits and jobs for the U.S. Trump’s approach included imposing tariffs and other restrictions with the goal of attracting investments to the U.S. and reducing reliance on Chinese production. This approach was justified on national security and human rights grounds. However, the complex economic ties between the two nations underscore the mutual dependence of their economies. This interdependence is exemplified by the sanctions imposed on Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, and the subsequent easing of these restrictions. Even the U.S. President cannot disrupt the value chains that have evolved between the two nations without causing economic disruptions. Simultaneously, Huawei relies on high-tech components manufactured in the U.S.
While the U.S. economy as a whole continues to perform well, some states crucial to Trump’s reelection prospects, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have experienced mixed results. On one hand, Chinese retaliatory measures and high tariffs have adversely affected American agricultural exports to China, significantly impacting U.S. farmers. On the other hand, tariffs on Chinese imports have made U.S. companies that rely on Chinese inputs for their final products less competitive, particularly in industries like automotive manufacturing that heavily depend on Chinese steel.
Concerns Over China’s Trade Practices China is not immune to legitimate trade policy criticisms. China’s practices, such as intellectual property theft and state subsidies, have been sources of contention. Intellectual property theft, including industrial espionage and technology transfer through joint ventures with foreign companies, has played a pivotal role in China’s economic development. State aid issues arise when Chinese central government regulations and financial injections provide an advantage to domestic businesses in global competition.
These challenges in trading with China are not exclusive to the U.S. Europe, as another major center of innovation, faces similar risks. The U.S. and the EU also share specific concerns, such as overreliance on China’s information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure and emerging technologies. With the rise of political populism in Europe, which has similarities to the socioeconomic demographics of Trump’s supporters, the broader trade policy concerns of the U.S. and the EU align more closely than ever.
Impact on the EU and the Global Economy Rather than promoting transatlantic cooperation, President Trump has favored a unilateral approach to China, aligned with his “America First” principles. Concurrently, trade tensions have also emerged between the U.S. and the EU. French Minister of the Economy and Finance Bruno Le Maire astutely observed that China emerged as the winner in the EU-U.S. trade disputes. Nevertheless, Europe faces a difficult decision in choosing sides in the trade war between the U.S. and China. Supporting China seems implausible, given shared concerns and security alliances with the U.S. However, endorsing the U.S. approach would conflict with the EU’s principles, founded on a rules-based and multilateral trading system. Additionally, China represents a promising foreign market, making it unwise to provoke tensions. A neutral stance may be the EU’s hope, as mutual Sino-U.S. sanctions might make European products more competitive in both markets. However, Europe must also prepare for the possibility of redirected goods between the two antagonistic sides potentially causing oversaturation in its own market, which could pose challenges for local producers.
In summary, the economic impact of the trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies is complex and has far-reaching global consequences. Imposing trade restrictions inherently leads to economic slowdowns, as they require additional resources for collection, and non-tariff trade barriers, such as quotas and stringent product standards, can disrupt trade flows. Furthermore, trade sanctions imposed by one country often trigger retaliatory measures from the other, potentially causing an economic crisis as products and services are hindered from crossing national borders. Several economic forecasting agencies have already adjusted downward their growth projections for the coming years, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD.
The Role of the WTO in Resolving Trade Disputes To prevent conflicts in the international economy, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established in 1947. GATT negotiations contributed to a significant reduction in international tariffs. However, as international trade evolved in the 1980s, the GATT’s dispute resolution mechanisms proved inadequate. This led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, equipped with more robust dispute settlement mechanisms. In recent years, the WTO has encountered challenges stemming from its initial goal of convening nearly all countries at a common negotiating table. As trade negotiations operate on an all-or-nothing basis, the Doha Round, launched in 2001 with a focus on development, remains unresolved due to opposing interests between developed industrial nations and developing countries. As a result, many countries have pursued bilateral trade agreements, permitted under WTO rules as long as they do not increase trade barriers with third parties.
The Dominance of Bilateral Agreements The proliferation of bilateral agreements presents both opportunities and risks for the multilateral trading system. Some economists argue that such agreements can support global trade liberalization. Recent EU free trade agreements with Canada and Japan serve as examples of closer economic integration, addressing areas like the protection of geographical indications and human rights, where multilateral consensus would be challenging to achieve. This may motivate other countries to join existing trade associations to share in the benefits of trade liberalization. However, a significant number of experts believe that bilateral agreements could fragment and polarize world trade, impeding multilateral progress. The fear is that the WTO could become a bystander where countries engage in discussions but fail to reach agreements.
Amid the U.S.-China trade tensions, bilateral approaches have gained prominence in both trade negotiations and trade conflicts. Conversely, the WTO seems to capture the attention of major powers only when it aligns with their interests. President Trump has frequently criticized the WTO for what he perceives as unfair treatment of the U.S., leading to the blockage of new appointments to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). With only one judge serving from December, while three are required for decisions, the DSB’s functionality may be in jeopardy. Nonetheless, Trump welcomed the WTO’s decision to permit the U.S. to impose significant tariffs on EU goods, following allegations of illegal state aid to Airbus by European countries. These tariffs, including 10% on EU aeronautical products and 25% on selected agricultural exports, have substantial implications within the context of developed nations.
The Airbus state aid dispute underscores the WTO’s limitations in addressing long-standing trade issues. The conflict dates back to 2004 when the U.S. accused the EU of subsidizing Airbus, leading to a reciprocal complaint about U.S. state aid for Boeing. While the WTO ruled in 2010–11 that both parties were guilty of unfair subsidization, the precise extent of allowable countermeasures was only recently determined. The U.S. was granted the authority to impose customs tariff countermeasures, with the EU expected to reciprocate in the near future. Ultimately, both sides find themselves both winners and losers in this prolonged dispute.
In addition to the slow decision-making process, the WTO appears ill-equipped to resolve fundamental trade issues with China. While statistics show that the U.S. has secured favorable rulings in the majority of its complaints against China, underlying problems persist. Intellectual property disputes have persisted since the Clinton administration, with limited resolution through legally binding commitments or WTO obligations. These disputes boil down to differing views on the role of the state in the economy, and while China is willing to compromise on specific issues, it remains steadfast in its economic model’s fundamentals.
The Future of International Trade As we contemplate the future of the WTO, the need for reform remains a central topic. While political will from major powers is necessary for reform, changes in the global economy’s systemic dynamics must also be considered in crafting a new solution. According to economist Richard Baldwin, the WTO was designed to regulate 20th-century trade, characterized by cross-border product sales and market access. In the 21st century, trade involves a two-way exchange of goods, services, knowledge, investments, and professionals. Developed nations are now effectively sharing their factories with developing countries, enabling them to industrialize, while expecting reforms to safeguard private company assets. A one-size-fits-all solution to 21st-century trade challenges appears unrealistic. Baldwin suggests that the WTO could continue to resolve traditional disputes but should rely on bilateral agreements to address more complex issues.
China’s stance in trade negotiations has centered on gaining market access in exchange for Western factories and technology without substantial reforms. This tension has escalated into conflict. Two broad approaches have been proposed concerning China: either the West or China must change fundamentally. The first approach acknowledges China’s vital role in the global economy and treats it exceptionally. The second approach seeks to pressure China and limit its benefits from closer economic integration.
In this context, on October 27, 37 U.S. and Chinese economists, including Nobel laureates like Joseph Stiglitz and Michael Spence, issued a joint statement. They argued that resolving trade conflicts with China requires an alternative approach, one that offers China a compromise between adherence to multilateral trade rules and flexible interpretation. This approach, they believe, preserves most of the benefits of trade between the two economies without presuming convergence in their economic models. It aligns with the current multilateral trading system while extending the rights of both the U.S. and China under existing WTO rules. This statement highlights the complexity of implementing WTO rules with respect to China and advocates for more flexibility within the WTO system, in line with the ideas of Harvard professor Dani Rodrik, who calls for greater political space for countries to pursue their domestic economic priorities. China’s unique development logic cannot be coerced; rather, the framework of trade relations needs to become more adaptable to accommodate it.
As we navigate the complex landscape of global trade, it is essential to recognize that the dynamics between major economies are evolving. The outcome of the U.S.-China trade tensions, the role of the WTO, and the future of international trade are subjects of ongoing debate and negotiation. Ultimately, the path forward will require innovative solutions, adaptable frameworks, and a willingness to address the complex economic and geopolitical challenges that lie ahead.
