analysis East Asia<\/p>\n
\u2018Lesser evil\u2019 or \u2018huge victory\u2019? Analysts split on proposed US-China\ntrade board ahead of Trump-Xi summit<\/p>\n
As trade disputes loom over this week\u2019s meeting between US President\nDonald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, proposals for a\n\u201cBoard of Trade\u201d and a separate \u201cBoard of Investment\u201d may be on the\ntable.<\/p>\n
SHANGHAI: Could a proposed US-China \u201cBoard of Trade\u201d help stabilise\nties ahead of this week\u2019s summit between US President Donald Trump and\nChinese leader Xi Jinping?<\/p>\n
Analysts say it signals a deeper shift in Washington\u2019s approach -\nfrom pushing for structural reforms in China\u2019s economy to negotiating\nthe terms of trade itself: what each side buys, sells, and in what\nvolumes.<\/p>\n
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who first outlined the\nproposal in March, said the mechanism would create a channel to\nformalise the kinds of goods traded between the two rivals.<\/p>\n
He added that there have been discussions about a possible US-China\n\u201cBoard of Investment\u201d to address issues related to investment, such as\nroadblocks facing specific company investments in the US or China.<\/p>\n
More recently, Greer said American officials discussed the concept in\na call with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng on Apr 30, describing it as a\ntool that could help manage economic ties.<\/p>\n
He had \u201ccandid, in-depth and constructive exchanges\u201d with US\nofficials, while China expressed \u201csolemn concern\u201d over recent US\nrestrictive trade measures, according to a report published by state\nnews agency Xinhua.<\/p>\n
Both sides agreed to enhance consensus, manage differences and\nstrengthen cooperation, it added.<\/p>\n
The readout did not mention the Board of Trade.<\/p>\n
The mechanisms could be considered by Trump and Xi when they meet in\nBeijing later this week - the first visit to China by a sitting US\npresident since Trump\u2019s state visit in November 2017.<\/p>\n
But analysts told CNA the boards may carry very different meanings\nfor each side.<\/p>\n
For Washington, the proposal appears aimed at managing trade in\nnon-sensitive sectors such as consumer goods and agriculture, while\nkeeping more strategic industries off the table.<\/p>\n
For Beijing, however, its appeal may be more strategic: greater\npredictability, reduced tariff volatility, and a dedicated bilateral\nchannel where China believes it has sufficient leverage to negotiate\nwith the US on more equal footing.<\/p>\n
THE UPSIDE - AND THE TRADE-OFFS<\/p>\n
Analysts who spoke to CNA are split on what the proposed boards would\nmean for China.<\/p>\n
For some, it reflects pragmatic acceptance. Years of volatile ties -\nmarked by tariff escalations and investment restrictions - may push\nBeijing to accept a managed-trade framework.<\/p>\n
Henry Gao, a trade law professor at the Singapore Management\nUniversity (SMU), described it as choosing \u201cthe lesser evil\u201d - less\ndesirable than the World Trade Organization (WTO)-based system, but\n\u201cstill preferable to ongoing instability\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cChina recognises that returning to a fully normalised relationship\nunder the current US administration may be difficult,\u201d Gao said.<\/p>\n
Others see the shift as working in China\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n
Dexter Tiff Roberts, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic\nCouncil\u2019s Global China Hub, called the proposal \u201ca huge victory\u201d for\nBeijing, noting that longstanding US concerns over state subsidies and\neconomic structure no longer appear central.<\/p>\n
Instead, Washington is focusing on negotiations, Roberts said - from\n\u201cdemanding that China change its economic structure\u201d to \u201csitting down\nand jointly deciding what to sell to each other and in what\nquantities\u201d.<\/p>\n
The trade board proposal marks a sharp departure from earlier US\npolicy, Roberts said, adding that Beijing increasingly sees itself in\nthe \u201cdriving seat\u201d.<\/p>\n
That shift comes as the multilateral route has effectively\nstalled.<\/p>\n
While China has traditionally preferred to engage the US through the\nWTO, its dispute settlement system has been weakened since 2019 after\nWashington blocked new appointments.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt took 15 years for China to join the WTO \u2026 so the WTO matters very\nmuch for China,\u201d said Tu Xinquan, dean of the China Institute for WTO\nStudies at the University of International Business and Economics\n(UIBE).<\/p>\n
Since 2018, negotiations have largely been bilateral - \u201cand strictly\nspeaking, these agreements all violate the rules\u201d, Tu said.<\/p>\n
Bilateral engagement is now more acceptable to Beijing, which sees\nitself negotiating from a position of greater parity, he added.<\/p>\n
Still, uncertainties remain. Wang Dan, China director at the Eurasia\nGroup, questioned whether Beijing would even accept the framing of a\n\u201cUS-China Board of Trade\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s good for China to have negotiations going with the US (but) I\ndon\u2019t think it would just take those boards as they are,\u201d Wang said.<\/p>\n
\u201cChina\u2019s red line is: this trade board cannot hurt Chinese trade\ninterests.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tu suggested a potential advance-notification system for tariff or\nexport control changes.<\/p>\n
For instance, if the US is going to be raising tariffs or adjusting\nexport controls, could there be a month\u2019s notice?<\/p>\n
Advance warning would give Chinese companies time to prepare, he\nadded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe US and China are already in a state of economic war - but\nparties at war can still negotiate, can still communicate,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Analysts cautioned that any such bilateral mechanism may prove\nfragile, pointing to precedent.<\/p>\n
A four-pillar dialogue launched after Trump and Xi\u2019s first meeting in\n2017 collapsed within 18 months, overtaken by the trade war.<\/p>\n
Tu said bilateral agreements have \u201cno strong binding force\u201d, adding\nthat great power agreements can be \u201ctorn up at will\u201d.<\/p>\n
This week\u2019s summit in Beijing comes after years of escalating\ntariffs, a partial truce reached in Busan in October last year, and\nmonths of follow-up talks.<\/p>\n
The broader tariff landscape has also shifted. In February, the US\nSupreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act\ndoes not authorise the president to impose tariffs, undermining the\nlegal basis for some of Trump\u2019s tariffs.<\/p>\n
Tariffs, however, remain elevated. The average US<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lesser-evil-or-huge-victory-analysts-split-on-proposed-us-china-trade-board-ahead-of-trump-xi-summit-1778555659", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }