How the U.S. and China
Settled on a Trade Deal Neither Wanted
By Bob Davis in Washington and Lingling Wei
in Beijing (WSJ)
Jan. 13, 2020 11:07 am ET
The world’s two
largest economies will sign a compromise Wednesday that calms their trade
war—here’s the back story
U.S. talks with China to complete a first-stage trade deal
had hit an impasse around Thanksgiving, raising fears a nascent accord would
collapse again—and with it, hope for a halt to the nearly two-year-old trade
war.
Looking for a direct route to the president, Chinese
Ambassador Cui Tiankai spoke with President Trump’s
son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, say people familiar with the episode.
The U.S. offer didn’t roll back enough tariffs, he told Mr. Kushner.
It was time to settle, Mr. Kushner responded. If not, on
Dec. 15 the president was ready to proceed with new tariffs on about $156
billion in Chinese imports, including smartphones and toys. “Don’t think in
terms of tariff reduction,” he advised. “Think in terms of what will happen if
you don’t make a deal.”
To Chinese negotiators dealing with a president they
considered erratic, Mr. Kushner’s words at least offered certainty, say the
people familiar with episode. They also recognized an opportunity: The
agreement wouldn’t force them to make economic-policy changes Washington had
long insisted on.
About two weeks later, both sides announced the compromise
set to be signed at a White House ceremony Wednesday. “This is an attempt to
work together and solve problems,” says Clete
Willems, a former Trump White House trade negotiator who had worked on China
issues. “It’s not everything the U.S. set out to do.”
Adds a Beijing regulator who has knowledge of the
negotiations: “Hopefully, this deal can help prevent the bilateral relationship
from getting much worse.”
Step by Step
The accord promises increased purchases of U.S. goods and
services, greater access for American firms to China’s banking, insurance and
other financial sectors, an end to tariff threats—and a chance to reset
relations between the world’s largest economies. The two sides also have agreed
to semiannual meetings to discuss trade and economic issues.
Even so, the deal isn’t what either side said it had wanted.
The U.S. doesn’t get the fundamental reforms in Chinese economic policy it
sought to help American businesses. And levies remain on about $370 billion of
China’s exports.
Two days before Christmas, Chinese leader Xi Jinping dined
with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the Great Hall of the People, where
Mr. Abe said he hoped the so-called phase-one deal would encourage China to
liberalize its economy further, say people familiar with the exchange.
China has already opened up significantly, replied Mr. Xi,
trumpeting a World Bank survey showing China’s improved business environment.
“It’s good to have the phase-one agreement,” he said, but added many issues
remained unresolved and a deal “can’t solve everything.”
Trump on a warpath
This account of how the limited deal came together is based
on interviews with policy makers in both capitals and people who have been
consulted on the negotiations, and reveals the little-seen pragmatic side of a
publicly fraught relationship.
As Washington and Beijing sweltered last summer, Mr. Trump
was losing patience. Outraged that Beijing hadn’t come through with what he
claimed were promised purchases of soybeans and other commodities, he
threatened in August to raise tariffs on half of what China sells the U.S. and
impose new tariffs on the other half. China, denying it made a purchase
promise, retaliated by suspending buying U.S. farm products.
The president took to Twitter on Aug. 23 and “hereby
ordered” U.S. firms “to start immediately looking for an alternative to China,
including bringing…your companies HOME.”
By September, both sides wanted to pull back from the brink.
In Washington, a succession of CEOs paid calls on Mr. Trump and his economic
advisers, warning of the tariff battle’s dangers.
After the president’s tweet, Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas
Sands Corp. CEO who contributed $20 million to Mr. Trump’s presidential
campaign and whose Macau casinos depend on Chinese goodwill, warned the
president new tariffs would hurt the economy and Mr. Trump’s re-election
chances by increasing consumer prices.
Trump had long claimed China was paying the cost of tariffs.
Executives from Best Buy Co. were among those pointing out the burden falls on
U.S. businesses and customers. A spokesman for Mr. Adelson confirmed his
lobbying. Best Buy declined to comment.
Beijing, which worried about the trade war’s impact on its
economy, also signaled through U.S. business representatives that it wanted to
negotiate. For China’s leaders, 2019 was supposed to focus on celebrating on
Oct. 1, the 70th anniversary of Communist Party rule and its success in lifting
hundreds of millions from poverty. Instead, the trade war threatened to tank
the economy, as unrest in Hong Kong and other challenges highlighted Mr. Xi’s
domestic problems.
Premier Li Keqiang and other top officials stressed to
visiting American executives the importance of engagement to help prevent
tensions from spinning out of control, figuring they would relay those views to
the White House.
By mid-September, China was cracking down on shipments of
the addictive drug fentanyl, a Trump priority. It also said it would exempt
some U.S. soybeans and pork from tariffs. The U.S. responded by delaying tariff
increases.
Best deal available
Behind the scenes, the U.S. also was debating how to
compromise. Mr. Trump had long instructed his chief negotiator, U.S. Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer, to get a “great
deal.” Now, Mr. Lighthizer was after the best deal
available.
In May, the U.S. and China had been close to a comprehensive
agreement. But it would have required China to change as many as 60 laws and
regulations covering intellectual property, regulatory review panels, financial
services and other areas. It fell apart when China’s lead negotiator, Vice
Premier Liu He, couldn’t get the top leadership approval.
DEAL POINTS
·
Highlights of the U.S.-China trade deal as
described by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer
and his staff; Chinese officials haven’t yet given a detailed summation.
·
Buy American: Beijing to ramp up purchases of
U.S. goods and services by at least $200 billion over the next two years, using
2017 as a benchmark.
·
Tariff relief: The U.S. to cut the tariff rate
in half—from 15% to 7.5%—on levies it imposed Sept. 1 on roughly $120 billion
in Chinese products, including shoes and apparel. The U.S. also agreed not to
impose tariffs of 15% on roughly $156 billion in consumer products.
·
Technology transfer: China to stop forcing
foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese companies as a condition
for market access.
·
Intellectual property: Unspecified measures to
address intellectual property concerns.
·
Financial services: Removal of barriers to help
U.S. banking, insurance and other financial services companies expand in China.
·
Currency measures: Measures aimed at stopping
China from devaluing its currency.
·
Dispute resolution: An arrangement for both
sides to resolve disputes through consultations.
Mr. Lighthizer, White House
economic adviser Larry Kudlow and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
now sought to “pocket the gains,” as they called it, from prior negotiations
even if that meant jettisoning for now demands for China to eliminate subsidies
and revamp state-owned firms.
They counseled Mr. Trump to show restraint. During Oval
Office meetings in August, the president had threatened to double to 50% the
tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods. In the past, Mr. Lighthizer
had urged him to increase rates to pressure China. Now, he joined the other two
to persuade the president to threaten just a 5-percentage-point increase—as a
warning to Beijing but small enough it wouldn’t disrupt negotiations. The
president later delayed putting the increase into effect.
“Bob Lighthizer isn’t an
ideologue. He is a realist,” says former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon. “His
client wanted a deal, as good a deal as you could get to close.”
Negotiators on both sides started exploring a settlement
with different phases, the first focused on agriculture purchases and other
less contentious issues. That had long been China’s strategy. Since 2018,
Chinese negotiators had pushed what they called a 40-40-20 plan: They said 40%
of American demands were doable because they involved reforms China planned
anyway, 40% were negotiable and 20% were off-limits, impinging on national
security.
Mr. Lighthizer and other
negotiators had earlier privately derided the effort because Beijing
categorized as off-limits issues the U.S. considered priorities. That included
further opening China’s cloud-computing market. Now the U.S. essentially was
ready to accept China’s framework.
Chinese negotiators focused on three areas important to the
U.S. team, starting with increased purchases of U.S. farm goods—a priority of
Mr. Trump’s. China had largely stopped buying U.S. crops to retaliate against
tariffs, hitting his supporters in farm states.
Beijing also offered compromises on the deal’s enforcement,
a priority for Mr. Lighthizer, and financial
liberalization, an issue for Mr. Mnuchin.
When Mr. Kudlow sketched out a possible deal for Mr. Trump
in early October, the president responded, “I could be for that,” though he
wanted to see what the Chinese offered.
The two teams of negotiators met Oct. 10 at Washington’s
Metropolitan Club, a Lighthizer haunt, going over the
outline of a deal. The next day, the president invited Mr. Liu into the Oval
Office and with television cameras present announced what he called a
“tremendous” deal.
“I’d suggest the farmers have to go and immediately buy more
land and get bigger tractors,” he said. Beijing would buy $40 billion to $50
billion annually in agricultural products, he said, about twice what it has
ever bought from the U.S. Mr. Liu didn’t contradict him but didn’t confirm the
claim.
Both sides wrangled over deal details during
videoconferences over the next two months. Chinese negotiators continued to
insist on what they called a balanced deal, not wanting to be seen as caving to
foreign pressure.
To that end, enforcement provisions were relabeled
“bilateral assessment and dispute settlement,” according to Xinhua, the Chinese
state news agency. That put the emphasis on planned consultations to settle
disputes rather than U.S. insistence it could impose tariffs if unsatisfied.
Beijing also wanted the U.S. to roll back tariffs sharply.
Again, Chinese negotiators divided U.S. demands into hundreds of items and
calculated their offer covered 72% of the demands, which they argued should be
matched by commensurate tariff reduction.
No way, Mr. Lighthizer responded,
the Chinese offer was worth maybe half that. On Oct. 31, the president tweeted
their offer covered 60%.
Back and forth went the argument over percentages. Mr. Lighthizer offered to cut 15% tariffs on $120 billion of
Chinese imports to 10% and drop plans to impose new tariffs. That represented
the first U.S. offer to scale back tariffs since the trade battle started. But
it left 25% tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese imports, about half what China
sold to the U.S. Mr. Xi wanted all tariffs eliminated or at least a schedule to
reach zero tariffs.
The Chinese ambassador relied on Mr. Kushner for a better
read on what Mr. Trump wanted. To Beijing, Mr. Kushner was a trusted
intermediary who had helped arrange a Mar-a-Lago summit between Messrs. Xi and
Trump a few months after the president’s inauguration.
After listening to Mr. Kushner’s counsel, the Chinese side
was ready to settle if Mr. Lighthizer approved one
more compromise—reduce the 15% tariffs to 7.5% instead of 10%. Both sides could
live with that and worked to clear remaining issues.
The U.S. side was exultant and started providing deal
details on Dec. 12.
Beijing’s silence
The Chinese side was silent. The following workday in
Beijing, none of China’s state-owned media outlets or government agencies
commented on the negotiations.
First, Mr. Xi had to approve the deal, which he did. Then,
Beijing had to decide how to spin the agreement to fend off any domestic
criticism China made too many concessions.
Near midnight Dec. 13 in Beijing, about 90 minutes after Mr.
Trump tweeted the sides had reached “an amazing deal,” a half dozen vice
ministers held a rare press conference. They confirmed the deal but didn’t give
details.
Negotiations continued, particularly over how to translate
the text into Chinese, which could give Beijing wiggle room on commitments.
China’s state media has stayed largely quiet about the deal.
“Because of the remaining uncertainty, we’re being told to be
standing by,” said a senior editor at a state-owned news agency in Beijing.
“But no news is good news,” the editor added. “It shows the top leader here
wants to get it done.”
Before heading to a New Year’s Eve celebration at
Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump told reporters he would head to Beijing in 2020 for talks
on a second-phase deal and hinted Mr. Xi might travel to the U.S.—a suggestion
the president had made before.
Beijing didn’t confirm any travel plans. Chinese diplomats
say their priority is preparing for Mr. Xi’s planned state visit to Japan this
spring.
The U.S. is counting on remaining tariffs to compel Beijing
to continue negotiating and agree to economic-policy changes. Failing that,
Washington could use other pressure points, such as limiting the ability of
Chinese firms to list shares in U.S. markets.
Still, Chinese officials feel they have little to gain from
a phase-two deal forcing Beijing to ease state control of the economy, and Mr.
Trump recently said that a phase-two agreement probably wouldn’t conclude until
after the Nov. 3 election. The Chinese government continues to plan for a
future where the two economies would be less intertwined and China would
develop technology rather than rely on American imports.
When Mr. Xi met with a group of foreign luminaries including
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Treasury Secretary Hank
Paulson in a November forum in Beijing, say attendees, he told them: “We did
not start the trade war, but we won’t flinch from confrontation.…Why should we
change policies that are working?”
Write to Bob Davis at
bob.davis@wsj.com and Lingling Wei at
lingling.wei@wsj.com