US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday restricting investments in China, intended to further stymie China's advances in three cutting-edge technology areas: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems. The "decoupling" of high tech from China began under Donald Trump, and the Biden administration has continued that ambition. However, the new order doesn't target US investments already invested in China, but the new ones. The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that the US restrictions will be narrowly targeted and will not "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China." Biden's new executive order is still subject to consultation with the US business community and the public and is not expected to take effect until next year. The order has been brewed for a long time and has generated a lot of publicity. But almost no one believes that this executive order will deal a new practical blow to Chinese high technology, because almost everyone knows that China needs American technology more than American money. The order has gained much attention because it is seen as part of a broader trend of the US drifting away from China. The promulgation and brewing process of the executive order reflects the strong desire of American political elites to suppress China's high-tech development, as well as a fierce game between those supporting the executive order and the concerns of the technology and economic sectors about a potential backfire on the US. It is a kind of compromise. Washington obviously hopes that major allies will follow Biden's executive order. The UK's Sunak government has made cautious statements, stating that it is consulting business and the financial sector before deciding whether to follow suit. In fact, China also has the ability to influence the extent to which Biden's executive order is implemented, as well as the extent to which the US will go in terms of "decoupling" from China. We are definitely not just passive recipients of US policies. American political elites are eager to "decouple" from China as quickly and deeply as possible, but they fear two things: First, this will immediately damage the performance of relevant high-tech companies in the US, undermine their influence and further innovation. The current Biden administration, in particular, does not want to incur strong resentment from Silicon Valley and Wall Street toward the escalating "decoupling," which will ultimately lead to the loss of support for the Democratic Party. Second, they are afraid of pushing China toward more resolute independent innovation to achieve breakthroughs in key technologies such as chips. If the US "decoupling" policy gives birth to major technological achievements in China, it means that Washington will completely lose the gamble: They originally wants to stifle China's high-tech development, but ends up strangling their own companies. What China needs to do next is to fully unleash our innovation vitality, continuously reduce our dependence on high-tech products from the US, and prove that as long as we are determined to achieve independent innovation, we have the ability to accomplish things. We need to prove that being pressured by the US will only make us stronger. As long as there are several solid proofs of this trend, the US policy community will fall into unprecedented chaos, and their panic will be much more severe than when they saw the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy before Trump started the trade war. Regardless of the future of China-US relations, the current battle will be the key battle that determines the future competition between China and the US. China can only win and cannot afford to lose. High-tech products such as chips are not isolated. The innovation power of China's entire manufacturing industry and the creative vitality of the whole society are the foundation for shaping these key achievements. When pressured by the US, our society needs to generate confidence and resilience from all directions, and we need to accelerate and seize every opportunity, rather than shrink and simply defend. Otherwise, the US will gain the upper hand in momentum, and we will truly be in a passive and defensive position. We must see that the US is on the offensive, but its offensive is becoming weaker and weaker, and it is always hesitant with each step. What is presented to China are difficulties and risks, but also the dawn of victory.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared at the Munich Security Conference: "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." The arrogant thinking of American political elites is evident: Whoever does not comply with the US will be excluded from the table of the American-led system and put on the menu. How arrogant. The US is actively pushing for "decoupling" from China and trying to persuade the entire West to "decouple" from China, using the term "de-risking." Washington hopes to ultimately contain China's development in order to maintain American hegemony. However, this time, Washington is facing a historically experienced and strategically rich Eastern civilization. Previous opponents targeted by the US have chosen to confront the US strategically. The US not only has the strongest technological and military capabilities but also controls global financial and information networks with a large number of allies. Those countries that had engaged in direct confrontations had suffered losses. Some of them had disintegrated, some had been weakened, and some had fallen into difficulties. However, what Washington sees from China is strategic composure and resilience. China is now staging an unprecedented and grand "Tai Chi." However, some Chinese people feel that this is not enough: Why can't we confront the US head-on? But I want to say that this is precisely the brilliance of China. This grand "Tai Chi" is about dismantling the pressure the US is putting on China. Europe is different from the US. A European diplomat once said in private that the topic of China has become toxic in the US, but in Europe, it is still possible to openly display friendliness toward China. There is genuine competition between the Europe and China despite Europe leans more toward the US between China and the US. Only in terms of ideology does the term "West" truly exist. In terms of fundamental economic interests, Europe has considerable independence. In terms of security, their attitude toward China also differs greatly from that of the US. In the Asia-Pacific region or China's periphery, the US wants to create an "Asian NATO." The specific situations of countries in dispute with China are very different. China has enormous influence in the region, is the largest trading partner of the vast majority of countries in the region and has friendly relations with most countries in the region. The disputes with countries are not fundamental strategic conflicts, and China has the ability to manage disputes with each specific country and push them to move toward neutrality to varying degrees without being tied to the US' policy toward China. China has a lot of trading partners and stakeholders in the US. The trade volume between China and the US, despite the decline, reached $664.4 billion in 2023, which shows China's huge presence in the US, and is the bond of the two countries in the current situation. The US is not a country where the political elites can have absolute say, and the huge interests have forced the US president and senior officials to repeatedly proclaim that they "don't want to decouple from China" and instead they want to "manage the US-China competition" and see "preventing a war with China" as clearly in everyone's best interest. China should engage in a "strategic battle" with the US at the closest possible distance. We need to maintain friendly relations with certain forces within the US, speed up the resumption of flights between the two countries, increase personnel exchanges and completely reverse the downturn of China-US contacts during the pandemic. In addition to the above dismantling, we also have the huge increment in the "Belt and Road." This initiative will increase China's power to compete with the US, greatly extending the front line that the US needs to maintain in containing China, making the US more powerless. In order to dismantle the US strategy toward China, China must become more diversified while maintaining strategic consistency. Our national diplomacy toward the US is very principled, rational and determined, which is clearly different from other countries targeted by the US. Our public diplomacy toward the US needs to be unique, with both "anti-American voices" and efforts to maintain friendly relations between the two societies and further expand economic and practical cooperation with the US. Just as eagles have their own way of flying and doves have their own formation, just as we see the US as complex, China must also be seen as complex in the eyes of the US. China is both a geopolitical concern and a profitable investment destination for them, and is one of the largest trading partners that is difficult to replace. Some American political elites proclaim China as an "enemy," but it is important to make the majority of Americans feel that China is not. No matter how intense the struggles between China and the US may be, we cannot shape the entire US toward an enemy direction. China has to make the US political elites recognize that it is futile to deal with China in the same way as it historically dealt with the Soviet Union and other major powers. Furthermore, willingly or unwillingly, coexistence and cooperation with China will be their only choice.

Byd has grown rapidly in China over the past few years, becoming the country's best-selling car brand and the world's biggest selling electric car brand. Byd opened its first electric car factory in Southeast Asia on Thursday in Thailand. Byd also took over a former Ford Motor Co. plant in Brazil and has been looking for a site for a Mexican plant. Europe's first automotive plant is under construction in Hungary. Byd's second-quarter sales jumped to a record 982,747 vehicles, up more than 40 per cent from a year earlier. Although the company's sales in Europe have been sluggish so far, it is making a big marketing push in the region to replace Volkswagen as the main automotive sponsor of the European Championship. According to a recent Fortune report, officials said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to announce the agreement for BYD to build the plant at a signing ceremony on Monday in Manisa province, where the plant will be built. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Byd representatives declined to comment. Turkish Industry and Technology Minister Mohamed Fatih Kassir said in May that he was in advanced discussions with BYD and Chery on investment in Turkey. The new plant will improve BYD's access to the European Union, as Turkey has a customs union agreement with the EU. The European Union this week announced temporary punitive tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China, with BYD imposing an additional 17.4 percent tariff on top of the existing 10 percent tariff. Other Chinese carmakers have been hit with higher tariffs. Investing in Turkey would strengthen the presence of Chinese carmakers in Europe at a time of escalating trade tensions.

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.