Search

Begin New Search Topic Free Trade Political Geography China

1. Understanding Hainan Free Trade Port: China's Efforts to Explore High-level Opening-up

Author:
Wenfeng Wei
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
On 13 April 2018, upon the 30th anniversary of Hainan province, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced to build Hainan into a free trade port. According to the Master Plan for the Construction of the Hainan Free Trade Port released by the State Council on 1 June 2020, China aims to build this southern island province into a high-level free trade port with global influence by the middle of the century. As China's largest special economic zone, Hainan is expected to become the frontline of China's integration into the global economic system. Noting that the world is facing a new round of major development, changes and adjustment, with protectionism and unilateralism on the rise and economic globalization facing greater headwinds, it was also a strategic decision of Chinese authorities based on the domestic and international landscapes. As such, Hainan Free Trade Port (HNFTP) is more than a regional development initiative, and it has a much bigger role to play in China’s reform and opening endeavors.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Special Economic Zones, and Free Trade
Political Geography:
China and Asia

2. Economic coercion: Boycotts and sanctions-preferred weapons of war

Author:
David Uren
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
This report argues that the growing use of economic coercion by both China and the United States is an emerging risk for business and undermines the world trading system. Australian businesses that have in good faith taken up the opportunities offered by the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, signed in 2015, now find themselves facing the potential loss of market access as the Chinese administration retaliates over Australian government policies on a coronavirus inquiry and the next generation internet network. Australian businesses are not the targets of US sanctions, but US extra-territorial reach means they are at risk of serious collateral damage if they even inadvertently transact with any individual or organisation that is. The report traces the growing use of trade as an economic weapon, particularly over the last three years as the global trade environment has become increasingly fractious amid rising protectionism. The World Trade Organisation has successfully been used in the past to push back against economic coercion and the report argues the Australian government should be ready to use the disputes mechanism of the World Trade Organisation to tackle Chinese trade barriers. Multilateral forums, including APEC, the G20, the OECD and the WTO should recognise the growing threat which economic coercion represents to the freedom of commerce.
Topic:
Sanctions, Economy, Trade Wars, Free Trade, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Australia, and United States of America

3. Japan’s Trade Policy in the Midst of Uncertainty

Author:
Yuka Fukunaga
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been of the utmost importance for Japan's trade policy. In particular, Japan strongly supports the WTO’s rule-based dispute settlement mechanism, and frequently uses it. At the same time, in recent years, the adoption and implementation of regional and mega-regional trade agreements have become critical in Japan’s trade policy, with the stalling of the Doha Round negotiations in the WTO. Although the core of its trade policy remains the same today, Japan has been forced to rethink and modify it in response to the aggressive and unilateral trade policy of the Trump administration.
Topic:
World Trade Organization, Governance, Internet, Free Trade, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, North America, United States of America, and European Union

4. The U.S.–China Trade Imbalance and the Theory of Free Trade: Debunking the Currency Manipulation Argument

Author:
Anwar Shaikh and Isabella Weber
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
The U.S.–China trade imbalance is commonly attributed to a Chinese policy of currency manipulation. However, empirical studies failed to reach consensus on the RMB misalignment. We argue that this is not a consequence of poor measurement but of theory. At the most abstract level the conventional principle of comparative cost advantage suggests real exchange rates will adjust so as to balance trade. Therefore, the persistence of trade imbalances tends to be interpreted as arising from currency manipulation facilitated by foreign exchange interventions. By way of contrast, the absolute cost theory explains trade imbalances as the outcome of free trade among nations that have unequal real costs. We argue that a disparity in real costs is the root cause of the U.S.–China trade imbalance.
Topic:
Exchange Rate Policy, Free Trade, Trade, and Purchasing Power
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. East Asia decouples from the United States: Trade war, COVID-19, and East Asia's new trade blocs

Author:
Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
he deepening US-China trade war and nationalist reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic are reshaping global economic relationships. Alongside these developments, two new megaregional trade agreements, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), will refocus East Asia’s economic ties in the region itself. The new accords are moving forward without the United States and India, once seen as critical partners in the CPTPP and RCEP, respectively. Using a computable general equilibrium model, we show that the agreements will raise global national incomes in 2030 by an annual $147 billion and $186 billion, respectively. They will yield especially large benefits for China, Japan, and South Korea and losses for the United States and India. These effects are simulated both in a business-as-before-Trump environment and in the context of a sustained US-China trade war. The effects were simulated before the COVID-19 shock but seem increasingly likely in the wake of the pandemic. Compared with business as before, the trade war generates large global losses rising to $301 billion annually by 2030. The new agreements offset the effects of the trade war globally, but not for the United States and China. The trade war makes RCEP especially valuable because it strengthens East Asian interdependence, raising trade among members by $428 billion and reducing trade among nonmembers by $48 billion. These shifts bring regional ties closer to institutional arrangements proposed in the 1990s and incentivize greater cooperation among China, Japan, and South Korea.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Trade Wars, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Free Trade, COVID-19, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

6. A New Security Strategy for Addressing Challenges in the Turbulent International Order

Author:
Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
Abstract:
The post-World War II international order, which was formed under the leadership of the United States, was based on the premise that all nations, large and small, should abide by international law and spread liberal values such as individual freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and free trade. In recent years, however, countries discontented with the existing international order, such as China and Russia, have been trying to create an environment favorable to authoritarian regimes by unilaterally changing or denying internationally established norms and systems. The Trump administration, under the banner of "America First," has chosen to strategically compete with China and Russia, viewing them as "revisionist states" that challenge the existing international order. At the same time, the Trump administration has placed greater priority on protecting its own interests rather than on maintaining the existing order, and has called for correcting trade imbalances and increasing burdens on its allies. In particular, the Trump administration's policy of valuing the contributions of its allies from a financial perspective is a serious issue that could undermine the credibility of the Japan-US alliance.
Topic:
Security, International Law, Authoritarianism, Free Trade, and Norms
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Global Focus, and United States of America

7. A Golden Opportunity for a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement

Author:
Dan Blumenthal and Michael Mazza
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The United States and Taiwan can create a free trade agreement (FTA) that serves the interests of both sides. Taiwan should seek to set the gold standard in economic openness, as well as in the legal, regulatory, and standards frameworks that will govern emerging technologies and industries such as 5G, the internet of things (IOT), artificial intelligence (AI), and the future industries to be built upon them. In pursuit of the United States’ vision for a “free and open” Indo-Pacific, it would be wise for the U.S. to enlist in its effort countries that are, themselves, already free and open. Taiwan should be considered a crucial partner in the Trump administration’s strategy. This monograph serves to provide a framework for a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement (FTA), outlining areas of concern for the United States, in addition to areas that provide opportunities for closer bilateral cooperation. Importantly, such cooperation could give greater impetus for free trade negotiations, advance the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, and bolster the United States’ National Security Strategy.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

8. A Free Trade Agreement Could Benefit the U.S.-Brazil Trade Relationship

Author:
Peter Sufrin
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
According to a recent State Department report, the United States is Brazil's second largest trading partner, and Brazil is the U.S.'s ninth largest trading partner. Not until the 1990s did the Brazilian government address trade liberalization, privatization, competition, and productivity as a way to increase commodities exports, and promote growth in imports of manufactured products. The possibility for further cooperation exists, particularly in the realm of Foreign Direct Investment, patent law, and a double taxation treaty, and with initiatives such as a U.S.-Brazil Commission on Economic and Trade Relations, a Defense Cooperation Dialogue, an Infrastructure Development Working Group, and an Economic and Financial Dialogue.
Topic:
International Relations, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Alliance, Trade Liberalization, Free Trade, and Exports
Political Geography:
Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Latin America, and United States of America

9. The Security Dimension of a China Free Trade Agreement: Balancing Benefits and Risk

Author:
Gordon Houlden
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
In 2017, Canada engaged in several rounds of exploratory discussions for a potential free trade agreement (FTA) with the People’s Republic of China. It seemed probable that this exploratory phase would be followed by the opening of formal rounds of negotiations, to be announced during Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s visit to China in December 2017. An FTA appeared to be a priority for Trudeau since his government came into office in 2015 (Global Affairs Canada, 2017a; Lu, 2017; PMO, 2017); however, such negotiations were put on hold indefinitely, ostensibly due to irreconcilable differences on gender and labour issues. Despite this setback, it is likely that the Canadian government will continue to explore this option in the coming years, particularly with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in jeopardy. While there are many potential benefits of a Canada-China free trade agreement (CCFTA), there are also significant national security implications that will deserve particular attention. The security dimension will be the focus of this paper. Prospective CCFTA negotiations with China would be both complex and time consuming, in part due to the wide divergences between the Canadian and Chinese economies, as well as differences between Canadian and Chinese administrative and legal systems. Negotiations could therefore take several years to conclude, and might not be finished until well after the 2019 federal election. It took a full decade to sign and ratify the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), although it appears that the most difficult portion of the negotiations was wrapped up in the final two years. It is unlikely that a CCFTA will move as slowly as the Australian FTA did, in part because of the established Australian precedent and because of China’s increasing familiarity with FTA negotiations that involve advanced economies. For this reason, Canada would benefit from approaching a CCFTA after Australia, but before many other Western countries. Chinese and Canadian negotiators will be consumed with elaborating the principles of each side’s responsive FTA approaches, as well as the myriad of details involving thousands of products and services that a CCFTA’s provisions would affect. Canadian negotiators will seek a high-quality FTA that covers a large percentage of our export and import products with China, as well as an agreement that covers all key sectors and industries. There is also likely to be a Canadian focus on addressing China’s use of non-tariff barriers to trade which currently inhibit Canadian firms from taking full advantage of the massive China market. Such measures include the Chinese Ministry of Health’s 2013 changes to food safety standards which required all imported food products to list detailed nutritional components in Chinese. Procedural barriers such as this represent a significant hurdle for Canadian firms, and cause uncertainty among international exporters that want to break into the Chinese domestic market. In theory, the centralized Chinese economy lacks the regional complexity of the Canadian federal state, characterized by sub-national units, but in reality, China’s provinces and municipalities can, and often do, impose barriers to foreign imports, often to protect market share for local substantive industries. To date, China has FTAs with only a handful of developed countries. Australia, Korea, Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore and New Zealand currently have bilateral FTAs with China, and several others, such as Norway and Israel, are in FTA negotiations. China is also floating ideas for FTAs with developing countries, including India. China is far more trade-dependent than the United States, although by comparison China is not nearly as trade-dependent as Canada is.1 The balance of trade is currently in China’s favour: China exports US$46 billion to Canada, versus the US$16 billion that it imports from Canada (MIT, 2016a). However, it is important to note that China’s exports to Canada account for only 2.2 per cent of China’s total merchandise exports (MIT, 2016b).
Topic:
Security, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Asia, and United States of America

10. Canada’s Progressive Trade Agenda and a Free Trade Agreement with China: Are They Incompatible?

Author:
Hugh Stephens
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The “non-market” clause in the just-concluded update of NAFTA, now known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would appear to limit Canada’s options in terms of negotiating a free trade agreement with China at the present time (given the de facto U.S. veto over a Canada-China agreement that it provides), yet Prime Minister Trudeau has already reaffirmed Canada’s intention to pursue closer economic ties with China despite this apparent limitation. If negotiations proceed, negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA) with China will be very different from negotiating one with a country that shares Canada’s Western values. However, a trade agreement with China makes good economic sense, and while there are some unique obstacles to reaching such an agreement owing to differing views of progressive trade, these are not insurmountable. In fact, Canada can use the same models in negotiating with China that it has used with Western countries. Such an approach combines trade goals with respecting Chinese cultural and political differences, particularly those that fall into the category of progressivism. This category includes labour rights, Indigenous and gender issues, and governance. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has been focused on progressive elements in trade deals, while China has made it clear it is not interested in including them in any such pact. Concluding an agreement would mean that China and Canada must both recognize the political requirements and dynamics on the opposite side of the negotiating table, while seeking common ground diplomatically. Side agreements such as those that exist in the original NAFTA and in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) are one way to work with the two countries’ differences. Many of the provisions in a side agreement are not binding and thus not subject to the agreement’s dispute settlement mechanism or trade sanctions. Instead, they are more aspirational and sometimes lay out a process for civil society groups to raise issues and help the thinking on those issues evolve, rather than simply holding the parties accountable for breaches. Canada is rightly concerned about Chinese stances on human rights, labour, environmental and gender issues. However, instead of including these issues in the main document on trade, they can be dealt with as shared interests between the two countries. Establishing separate but parallel mechanisms to deal with these issues would be a practical way to make progress. Focusing on micro, small and medium-sized businesses as one Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) did, could be another successful approach. Women own many of these businesses in developing countries, so such a focus would make a substantial contribution to their welfare. None of this means Canada should kowtow to China or look the other way on important values and issues. Side agreements and special focuses have formed parts of agreements with other countries that already share Canada’s Western values. This type of give-and-take is present even when Canada negotiates with countries that are not polar opposites. No country’s interests are exactly the same as those of any other and it’s unrealistic to expect unanimity on every issue. Language and firm commitments on progressive issues are still evolving in many of Canada’s free trade agreements, including the USMCA. It would be unreasonable to hope that everything can be achieved in an agreement with China on the first go-around. Rather, viewing a trade agreement with China as a work-in-progress means controversial elements can be brought into the negotiations and language used that reflects the understanding that these issues are evolving. It will require creative thinking, flexibility and joint commitment to find a solution, but—assuming that the USMCA does not rule out Canada-China negotiations toward a trade agreement— it should be possible to find sufficient common ground without having to resort to obfuscation and “creative ambiguity”.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Sanctions, NAFTA, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Asia, and North America