HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033366.jpg

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: News article printout
File Size:
Summary

This New York Times opinion piece discusses the escalating trade war between the US and China, detailing three new "red lines" set by Beijing regarding tariffs and purchasing agreements that make a deal increasingly difficult. The author observes that recent US actions, including leaks and sanctions against Huawei, have pushed China toward a more adversarial stance, with leadership now questioning the value of a trade deal and preparing for a potential Cold War.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Michelle Cottle
Donald Trump

Organizations (3)

Timeline (2 events)

Trade war
Trade talks

Locations (3)

Location Context

Relationships (2)

China Adversarial trade negotiation partners United States
Huawei Moves against Huawei intended to pressure Beijing Beijing

Key Quotes (3)

"China listed three “red lines,” positions the United States had taken in the trade talks that were unacceptable"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033366.jpg
Quote #1
"Now that these three lines are in the public domain, there is no way Chinese leaders can yield on them."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033366.jpg
Quote #2
"Perhaps it’s better, in China’s view, to cut its losses now and get ready for the next Cold War."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033366.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,528 characters)

5/29/2019
Opinion | Trump Hands China an Easy Win in the Trade War - The New York Times
Days after the president’s tweets, China listed three “red lines,” positions the United States had taken in the trade talks that were unacceptable: First, that it would keep tariffs in place for a period after the proposed trade agreement was signed. Second, that it could impose punitive tariffs if it judged China to be in violation of the agreement, and that China would be forbidden from retaliating with its own tariffs. Third, the ever-inflating expectations of the terms under which Beijing would buy American goods under a proposed bilateral purchasing agreement.
These “red lines” were new. Before that, China’s negotiating team had a fully flexible remit from the leadership. But not anymore. Now that these three lines are in the public domain, there is no way Chinese leaders can yield on them. The leaks of large parts of the negotiating text to the American news media has added a new level of toxicity, making it virtually impossible to return to the existing text as a basis of negotiations. Together with recent moves against the Chinese telecom company Huawei presumably intended to pressure Beijing further, the possibility of negotiating a revised agreement that is more accommodating to American interests is now very slim.
Instead, what I have seen in Beijing over the last few weeks is a country moving in exactly the opposite direction.
Related
More on the trade war.
Opinion | Michelle Cottle
Donald Trump’s Great Patriotic Wars May 26, 2019
Economic analysts, meanwhile, have been calculating the impact of a full-blown trade war, estimating a loss of about 1.2 percentage points to Chinese G.D.P. growth. This figure is now portrayed in the Chinese media as entirely manageable given China’s capacity to use fiscal and monetary policy stimulus to support domestic demand and keep growth above 6 percent.
Even if a trade deal with the United States is still possible, some in the Chinese leadership are now starting to ask, why bother? They argue that in technology, investment, foreign policy, national security and human rights, the Trump administration has made it clear that it has embarked on a more adversarial position toward China. So why should Beijing expend any more political capital on a trade deal? Perhaps it’s better, in China’s view, to cut its losses now and get ready for the next Cold War.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/opinion/trump-china-trade-war.html
2/3
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033366

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document