:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2018/J/Y/WnfSGQTCyBQ08xhPzywA/2018-11-30t174200z-1063258007-rc12cb0cf000-rtrmadp-3-g20-argentina-leaders.jpg)
[ad_1]
The world's two most powerful leaders will meet this week after months of bitter commercial battle. It remains to be seen if the next chapters will be the result of a conciliation or disagreement.
Donald Trump and Xi Jinping had a complicated relationship. Last year, the US president seemed to be the one looking for the approach, while China was in the position of who was giving the cards.
So much so that during this period, Trump did not blame China for its trade surplus with the United States, blaming the situation – namely the fact that the Americans imported more from this Asian country that they have exported – to previous administrations.
- BRIC leaders condemn protectionism in world trade at the G20
- At the opening of the G20, Macri calls for the "same sense of urgency" of 2008
In response, China said it would reduce the barriers to entry for foreigners its domestic market for some sectors, pushing investors around the world to breathe a sigh of relief.
But in 2018, relations between the two powers deteriorated rapidly. The "recovery" rates announced on the tweets have fueled a trade war that is in fact a global threat.
US President Donald Trump at the G20 [Photo: Reuters]
The battle will be on the agenda when Trump and Xi meet for dinner this Saturday in the middle of the G20 summit in Argentina.
But why are there signs that the results of this meeting will not meet the most optimistic expectations? Understand below.
According to the Brookings Institute, a Washington-based research center, the United States has legitimate concerns about their access to the Chinese market. But tariffs on business transactions are not always the problem.
In fact, Beijing is reducing some tax rates, which in some sectors are lower than in other emerging markets.
But the point that perhaps changes the most, is the limitation imposed by Beijing on the access of foreign companies to its consumers.
There are restrictions on direct investment by foreign companies, from the auto sector to the financial sector, via telecommunications. This is where the Americans' accusation that under the existing restrictions, the Chinese benefit from the transfer of technology and endanger the intellectual property of foreign companies that decide to enter the market Asian. It would be an imbalanced exchange, according to Washington.
.
It is difficult for this to happen, because what Beijing has shown is that it wants control.
If China allowed foreign firms to to dictate its conditions would lead to a fundamental change in the way the country operates today, and Xi Jinping has demonstrated greater control, not less, of the reins of the economy.
A rhetoric without any cooperative sign
At all major and recent international meetings, Washington has declared to the world that Beijing is responsible for the problems encountered in bilateral relations.
For example, Trump has always stated that he would apply more tariffs to Beijing if the Chinese did not give positive signals – even if such actions could have a negative impact on the US economy .
Speaking recently at the apec summit (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), US Vice President Mike Pence criticized the Chinese policy of the Belt and Road Initiative (an initiative of the "Belt" type). and Highway Initiative "). "which refers to Chinese investments in infrastructure works works in dozens of countries), claiming that it would lead recipient countries to drown in debt.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the Chinese agreements were "too good to be true."
And even on the eve of the next G20 meeting, Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council, pointed out that no agreement would be possible if "problems such as the theft of intellectual property, the forced transfer of technologies, non-tariffs" are solved.
This is just about all that led the Chinese economy to what it is today Beijing will not want to leave the meeting with shaking hands
More than a trade war
The United States and the China form the most strategic binomial of our time For decades this relationship has worked.
But in recent years, and especially since the takeover of Xi, China has imposed itself on the international scene. In part, by taking up the niches that the United States, concerned about the global financial crisis and its own internal problems, have left in Asia.
China intervened to play the role of financial savior and there is a legitimate resentment in Beijing that China does not receive the recognition it deserves.
On the other hand, initiatives such as "Belt and Road", an important part of Beijing's foreign policy, are increasingly seen as a sign of China's economic colonialism. Beijing's actions in the South China Sea have also left Washington worried about the true goals of the region.
The battle between the United States and China is therefore not just about trade. The Trump government has tried to put China in its place, which Beijing fears in turn. These positions made the agreement between the two parties difficult.
And even when there are positive signs, like when Trump claimed to have great personal chemistry with Xi, the US government said that China had benefited from American generosity and that it had to change.
So the world witnessed a dance a step further, two steps back.
That's why we expect so much from the next meeting between the parties. Everything indicates however that at the end of the dance, there will be only an exchange of protocol greetings or even a bitter goodbye.
In addition to the meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping, the entire world is watching closely for the possibility that the summit is putting its finger on the plague of another troubling and geopolitical international agenda. .
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is under pressure to explain the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
But in addition to giving world leaders the opportunity to solve some of the impending problems, how important can the G20 summit really be?
It is said that the G20 is small enough to make decisions fast enough and big enough for these decisions to make a difference.
After all, the group accounts for 85% of the global economy and two-thirds of its population.
After more than 10 years of summit meetings – the first in Washington in 2008 – the meeting has become the natural venue for the debate on global economic policies.
But critics say that the group's success is lagging behind and that today it is a multilateral institution that is still pursuing a goal.
The group's response to the financial crisis that occurred between 2007 and 2008 is one of the laurels of the past. Developed and emerging countries met on an equal footing for the first time and recognized the need to support global growth.
The result has been the coordinated adoption of monetary incentives and incentives for consumption, as well as financial redemptions.
But these measures have not radically changed the way the world economy works. This means that a similar financial crisis could recur.
Today, the new hurdles are more pronounced, such as falling global trade and investment, rising bilateral tariffs and, in emerging economies, capital flight and capital outflows. weakening of currencies.
Add to that the advance of a nationalist rhetoric that opposes multilateralism represented by institutions such as the G20 – and which, of course, already shows reflexes in the world. economy.
Source link
