The United States has designated five <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-china-trade-deal-what-were-the-key-issues-and-are-they-resolved-275073">Chinese</a> media outlets as foreign missions. It means that the Trump administration has designated Chinese media houses as not practitioners of journalism but as operatives of the Chinese state.

The list includes - Xinhua news agency, China global television network, China radio international, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-are-righting-the-wrongs-of-the-past-trump-on-phase-1-trade-deal-with-china-274503">China </a>daily distribution corporation and the People’s Daily.

The US State Department has said these media houses are propagating state-sponsored propaganda and are just mere agents of the Communist Party of China.&nbsp;

Officials said that the decision comes after repeated examples of how much of a function of the state the companies have become and that the freedom of the press in China is under siege.

US secretary of state Mike Pompeo added in a statement that the action is "long overdue".&nbsp;

Pompeo said for years the so-called media outlets have been mouthpieces of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese outlets are becoming more aggressive.

The move by the US government means all Chinese outlets will have to notify the office of foreign missions about the names, personal details and turnover of staff living in the US.&nbsp;

The entities designated as "foreign missions" will also have to clearly announce the current property holdings on US soil. The rules also apply to foreign embassies and consulates in the United States.&nbsp;

The US decision on the Chinese media outlets comes a month after President Trump signed a temporary truce in the trade war with China.

Critics suggest that this decision could lead to a retaliation against American journalists who work in china, especially those affiliated with the United States government.

The United States has designated five Chinese media outlets as foreign missions. It means that the Trump administration has designated Chinese media houses as not practitioners of journalism but as operatives of the Chinese state.

The United States has designated five Chinese media outlets as foreign missions. It means that the Trump administration has designated Chinese media houses as not practitioners of journalism but as operatives of the Chinese state. The list includes - Xinhua news agency, China global television network, China radio international, China daily distribution corporation and the People’s Daily. The US State Department has said these media houses are propagating state-sponsored propaganda and are just mere agents of the Communist Party of China. Officials said that the decision comes after repeated examples of how much of a function of the state the companies have become and that the freedom of the press in China is under siege. US secretary of state Mike Pompeo added in a statement that the action is "long overdue". Pompeo said for years the so-called media outlets have been mouthpieces of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese outlets are becoming more aggressive. The move by the US government means all Chinese outlets will have to notify the office of foreign missions about the names, personal details and turnover of staff living in the US. The entities designated as "foreign missions" will also have to clearly announce the current property holdings on US soil. The rules also apply to foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. The US decision on the Chinese media outlets comes a month after President Trump signed a temporary truce in the trade war with China. Critics suggest that this decision could lead to a retaliation against American journalists who work in china, especially those affiliated with the United States government.

US designates Chinese media outlets as 'foreign missions'

By Penelope B Prime

US President Donald Trump signed a trade deal with China on January 15 intended as a first phase toward a more comprehensive agreement between the two countries.

In exchange for some tariff relief, China promised to buy an additional $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years and make structural reforms that would provide more protection for US intellectual property. It still leaves about $360 billion in punitive tariffs on Chinese imports in place – and more sanctions would be triggered if China fails to meet the terms of the deal.

Good news, right? The end of the trade war is nigh? Don’t get your hopes up.

While business leaders in both countries will be temporarily relieved, the underlying tensions between them will not end easily.

As an economist who closely studies the US relationship with China, I believe there are fundamental issues that won’t be resolved anytime soon.

Doing it in phases

Tariffs and other trade issues have received most of the attention during the trade war, but the more fundamental – and difficult – challenges are with lax intellectual property protection and China’s industrial policy.

The US is unhappy with China’s use of these tools to develop its economy and to help its companies compete – unfairly, from the US&nbsp;perspective. And many of the Trump administration’s demands challenge China’s normal business and policy practices.

China’s leaders can’t be seen by Chinese citizens as giving into the US, while Trump wants to show that he is tough on China as part of his campaign for reelection. This makes the negotiations very sensitive on both sides.

That’s why American and Chinese negotiators, who have been engaged in talks for almost two years, decided to try to get to an agreement in phases.

Phase one has focused on the trade balance and tariffs, with some provisions relating to technology transfer, intellectual property and opening China’s economy to foreign business. Phase two is expected to then deal more deeply with intellectual property enforcement and economic reform in China.

Given the negotiations went on for so long, it’s fair to ask, why are these issues so difficult to resolve? I believe there are basically three factors that have made finding much common ground difficult – and phase one won’t change that.

Government subsidies

First, China’s successful growth has combined market competition with government-led industrial policy. For example, when China’s leaders decided the economy needed more innovation, it created incentives and targets for companies and research institutes to create patents. The number of patents filed has soared as a result.

A wide range of government subsidies is used to direct and assist private as well as state investment in similar ways.

The US does this as well but not on the same scale, and therefore views it as unfair.

From China’s perspective, however, it is not reasonable for the US to require China to change its development model in exchange for removing tariffs.

Protecting intellectual property

Getting China to do more to protect the intellectual property of advanced technologies is another especially thorny issue.

Both countries are facing economic challenges that can be aided by improved technology. But since in many areas Chinese capabilities have caught up with those of the US, or are being rapidly developed, there is much more pressure from the U.S. for China to accept global norms on intellectual property rights.

Even while China’s own IP protections have improved at home, there is ample evidence that Chinese companies have copied foreign technology without permission or payment, despite China’s acceptance of IP protection as part of World Trade Organization membership.

Foreign companies also report being compelled to share advanced technology in order to do business in China. While, technically, the companies can decide to pull out of China’s market, the US argues that this hurts the competitiveness of US businesses. It either means they must lose their technological advantage or not have access to the business opportunities that China’s large market offers. There is no reciprocal requirement of Chinese companies doing business in the US.

The phase one agreement begins to deal with the IP issues and includes a complaint process, which is a step in the right direction. It remains to be seen, however, how extensive it will be and how quickly it’ll be implemented given that Chinese companies will still face intense pressure from the government to advance China’s domestic capabilities.

Military concerns

Finally, technology capabilities are related to growing military concerns.

Many of the advanced technologies that China is racing to obtain have military as well as civilian uses. US policy under the current administration has indicated a wariness about China’s military intentions and is considering options.

This wariness has been bolstered by China’s military buildup, especially naval capabilities in Asia. Some advisers to the Trump administration argue that China’s ultimate long-term goal is to replace the US as the dominant global power.

China’s rise

Conflicting differences in the US and China’s economic systems were less of a problem so long as Chinese companies lagged far behind their American counterparts in terms of technology and competitiveness.

As China has grown more technologically advanced, its relationship with the US has become increasingly strained. This will only get worse as China’s economy develops and its companies compete more with the US and others.

The phase one agreement represents an important step in re-setting the dialogue between the two countries in a positive direction. Whether we see phase two will depend on open discussion and trust.

Good relations with the US have been one of the foundations of China’s successful development and entry into global markets. Chinese leaders are now weighing how much these good relations with the US matter to their future.

(Penelope B Prime is Clinical Professor of International Business, Georgia State University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-trade-pact-president-trump-just-signed-fails-to-resolve-3-fundamental-issues-130017">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

By Penelope B Prime US President Donald Trump signed a trade deal with China on January 15 intended as a first phase toward a more comprehensive agreement between the two countries.

By Penelope B Prime US President Donald Trump signed a trade deal with China on January 15 intended as a first phase toward a more comprehensive agreement between the two countries. In exchange for some tariff relief, China promised to buy an additional $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years and make structural reforms that would provide more protection for US intellectual property. It still leaves about $360 billion in punitive tariffs on Chinese imports in place – and more sanctions would be triggered if China fails to meet the terms of the deal. Good news, right? The end of the trade war is nigh? Don’t get your hopes up. While business leaders in both countries will be temporarily relieved, the underlying tensions between them will not end easily. As an economist who closely studies the US relationship with China, I believe there are fundamental issues that won’t be resolved anytime soon. Doing it in phases Tariffs and other trade issues have received most of the attention during the trade war, but the more fundamental – and difficult – challenges are with lax intellectual property protection and China’s industrial policy. The US is unhappy with China’s use of these tools to develop its economy and to help its companies compete – unfairly, from the US perspective. And many of the Trump administration’s demands challenge China’s normal business and policy practices. China’s leaders can’t be seen by Chinese citizens as giving into the US, while Trump wants to show that he is tough on China as part of his campaign for reelection. This makes the negotiations very sensitive on both sides. That’s why American and Chinese negotiators, who have been engaged in talks for almost two years, decided to try to get to an agreement in phases. Phase one has focused on the trade balance and tariffs, with some provisions relating to technology transfer, intellectual property and opening China’s economy to foreign business. Phase two is expected to then deal more deeply with intellectual property enforcement and economic reform in China. Given the negotiations went on for so long, it’s fair to ask, why are these issues so difficult to resolve? I believe there are basically three factors that have made finding much common ground difficult – and phase one won’t change that. Government subsidies First, China’s successful growth has combined market competition with government-led industrial policy. For example, when China’s leaders decided the economy needed more innovation, it created incentives and targets for companies and research institutes to create patents. The number of patents filed has soared as a result. A wide range of government subsidies is used to direct and assist private as well as state investment in similar ways. The US does this as well but not on the same scale, and therefore views it as unfair. From China’s perspective, however, it is not reasonable for the US to require China to change its development model in exchange for removing tariffs. Protecting intellectual property Getting China to do more to protect the intellectual property of advanced technologies is another especially thorny issue. Both countries are facing economic challenges that can be aided by improved technology. But since in many areas Chinese capabilities have caught up with those of the US, or are being rapidly developed, there is much more pressure from the U.S. for China to accept global norms on intellectual property rights. Even while China’s own IP protections have improved at home, there is ample evidence that Chinese companies have copied foreign technology without permission or payment, despite China’s acceptance of IP protection as part of World Trade Organization membership. Foreign companies also report being compelled to share advanced technology in order to do business in China. While, technically, the companies can decide to pull out of China’s market, the US argues that this hurts the competitiveness of US businesses. It either means they must lose their technological advantage or not have access to the business opportunities that China’s large market offers. There is no reciprocal requirement of Chinese companies doing business in the US. The phase one agreement begins to deal with the IP issues and includes a complaint process, which is a step in the right direction. It remains to be seen, however, how extensive it will be and how quickly it’ll be implemented given that Chinese companies will still face intense pressure from the government to advance China’s domestic capabilities. Military concerns Finally, technology capabilities are related to growing military concerns. Many of the advanced technologies that China is racing to obtain have military as well as civilian uses. US policy under the current administration has indicated a wariness about China’s military intentions and is considering options. This wariness has been bolstered by China’s military buildup, especially naval capabilities in Asia. Some advisers to the Trump administration argue that China’s ultimate long-term goal is to replace the US as the dominant global power. China’s rise Conflicting differences in the US and China’s economic systems were less of a problem so long as Chinese companies lagged far behind their American counterparts in terms of technology and competitiveness. As China has grown more technologically advanced, its relationship with the US has become increasingly strained. This will only get worse as China’s economy develops and its companies compete more with the US and others. The phase one agreement represents an important step in re-setting the dialogue between the two countries in a positive direction. Whether we see phase two will depend on open discussion and trust. Good relations with the US have been one of the foundations of China’s successful development and entry into global markets. Chinese leaders are now weighing how much these good relations with the US matter to their future. (Penelope B Prime is Clinical Professor of International Business, Georgia State University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US-China trade pact fails to resolve three fundamental issues

The European Union will check to see whether a major <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indian-markets-scale-a-new-high-after-us-china-phase-one-trade-deal-274665">deal struck by the United States and China</a> complies with global trade rules, the EU's trade chief said on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Washington and Beijing scaled back their <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/key-elements-of-the-us-china-trade-deal-a-pact-to-pause-the-economic-conflict-274516">18-month trade row</a> that has hit global economic growth by signing an initial agreement under which China will boost its buying of US&nbsp;goods and services.

"The devil is in the detail," EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan told a conference in London, speaking by video link from Washington where he is meeting US&nbsp;officials this week. He added the details were, so far, "a bit sketchy".

"They have stepped outside the usual framework for doing deals ... and they are dealing directly on a bilateral basis and we will have to assess whether it is WTO compliant."

In pics: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/us-china-trade-deal-biggest-winners-losers-in-phase-1-274683">US-China trade deal - Biggest winners &amp; losers in phase 1</a>

Hogan said "structural reforms" in China the EU and the United States wanted were not addressed in the agreement and the EU wanted to see what was on the table in the second phase of negotiations between the United States and China.

He also said the United States and the EU urgently needed to resolve a dispute over aircraft subsidies. Only Beijing and the Chinese aerospace industry, he said, would ultimately benefit from a tit-for-tat transatlantic tariff dispute.

Asked about a US-French row over a digital tax which has seen Washington threaten to impose duties of up to 100% on French goods, Hogan said he thought eventually a way of implementing a global tax on technology giants such as Amazon and Google would be found.

"At the end of the day I think everybody accepts, including the United States, that there will be a global tax to deal with technology companies," he said, adding that it might take until 2021 or 2022 for talks to deepen.

On long-delayed reform of the World Trade Organization, Hogan said he expected the United States to move forward only in 2021 after the presidential election in November this year.

He also reiterated comments by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week who said it will be impossible for Britain to negotiate all aspects of its future relationship with the EU by the end of 2020, the deadline set by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and both sides would have to prioritise.

"We need to wake up to this reality that gamesmanship and brinkmanship are not going to work on this occasion," Hogan said at the CSIS think tank in Washington.

The European Union will check to see whether a major deal struck by the United States and China complies with global trade rules, the EU's trade chief said on Thursday.

The European Union will check to see whether a major deal struck by the United States and China complies with global trade rules, the EU's trade chief said on Thursday. On Wednesday, Washington and Beijing scaled back their 18-month trade row that has hit global economic growth by signing an initial agreement under which China will boost its buying of US goods and services. "The devil is in the detail," EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan told a conference in London, speaking by video link from Washington where he is meeting US officials this week. He added the details were, so far, "a bit sketchy". "They have stepped outside the usual framework for doing deals ... and they are dealing directly on a bilateral basis and we will have to assess whether it is WTO compliant." In pics: US-China trade deal - Biggest winners & losers in phase 1 Hogan said "structural reforms" in China the EU and the United States wanted were not addressed in the agreement and the EU wanted to see what was on the table in the second phase of negotiations between the United States and China. He also said the United States and the EU urgently needed to resolve a dispute over aircraft subsidies. Only Beijing and the Chinese aerospace industry, he said, would ultimately benefit from a tit-for-tat transatlantic tariff dispute. Asked about a US-French row over a digital tax which has seen Washington threaten to impose duties of up to 100% on French goods, Hogan said he thought eventually a way of implementing a global tax on technology giants such as Amazon and Google would be found. "At the end of the day I think everybody accepts, including the United States, that there will be a global tax to deal with technology companies," he said, adding that it might take until 2021 or 2022 for talks to deepen. On long-delayed reform of the World Trade Organization, Hogan said he expected the United States to move forward only in 2021 after the presidential election in November this year. He also reiterated comments by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week who said it will be impossible for Britain to negotiate all aspects of its future relationship with the EU by the end of 2020, the deadline set by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and both sides would have to prioritise. "We need to wake up to this reality that gamesmanship and brinkmanship are not going to work on this occasion," Hogan said at the CSIS think tank in Washington.

'Devil is in the detail': EU says will check US-China deal

us-china-deal-0

Us China Deal, News on Us China Deal, stories on Us China Deal, articles on Us China Deal, Us China Deal stories at Wion, Us China Deal news, Us China Deal latest news

us china-deal-0

US designates Chinese media outlets as 'foreign missions'

US-China trade pact fails to resolve three fundamental issues

'Devil is in the detail': EU says will check US-China deal