WHAT’S ON – AND OFF – THE TABLE?
The US is expected to push for agricultural market access, including expanded purchases of poultry, beef and soybeans. But such deals remain price-sensitive and politically driven.
Analysts said the substance of negotiations is unlikely to break new ground.
A previous Phase One agreement – which committed China to buy an additional US$200 billion in US goods – ultimately fell short, with only about 58 per cent fulfilled, according to the Peterson Institute.
Atlantic Council’s Roberts said China has since diversified its trade and is less dependent on US agriculture. Purchases, he said, are now partly a “political lever”.
China’s core demand, UIBE’s Tu added, is not reciprocity but parity. “As two great powers … we want a state of equality.”
More sensitive areas – including semiconductors, advanced technology and rare earths – are unlikely to be included. “I don’t think either side would give up this leverage,” Wang said.
Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official and now senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI), said the two sides have different views of the proposed trade board’s role.
“The US sees it as a venue to manage trade in non-sensitive sectors, while Beijing seems to view it as a vehicle to engage and cooperate,” she said.
“If it’s used by the US to reduce the large bilateral trade surplus that China enjoys with the US, it may be of less interest to Beijing.”
