usa.chinadaily.com.cn
US-China Trade War Escalates with New Tariffs
The US announced a 10 percent tariff increase on Chinese imports, citing the fentanyl issue, prompting China to threaten countermeasures and highlight its existing drug control policies, impacting global trade.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the US's additional tariffs on Chinese imports?
- China strongly opposes the US's additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports, threatening countermeasures. The US cited the fentanyl issue, but China maintains it has strict drug control policies and international cooperation. This tariff escalation violates WTO rules.
- How are economists from both the US and China assessing the long-term impacts of this trade dispute?
- The US tariff policy is causing a lose-lose scenario, impacting both countries' growth and disrupting global supply chains. Economists warn that tariffs disproportionately harm low-income households in the US. China plans countermeasures and market diversification.
- What strategic adjustments is China making in response to ongoing US tariffs, and what are the potential long-term geopolitical implications?
- China's response includes counter-tariffs and a focus on expanding international markets, including cooperation with the EU, Japan, and other partners affected by US tariffs. One Chinese company, Ningbo Dooya, exemplifies this diversification, exceeding 2 billion yuan in revenue through expansion into Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the US tariff actions as aggressive and unreasonable, highlighting China's countermeasures and the negative consequences for the global economy. The headline is not provided, but the opening paragraph immediately establishes China's opposition, setting a critical tone from the beginning. The inclusion of multiple quotes from Chinese officials and experts, and only brief quotes from US experts, further reinforces this framing. This focus potentially leads readers to favor China's perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language to describe the US actions. Phrases such as "firmly opposes," "unilateral tariffs," "repeatedly ignored objective facts," and "shifting blame" are examples of loaded language. The article could benefit from more neutral phrasing, such as "opposes," "tariffs imposed unilaterally," "has not acknowledged," and "attributes responsibility". The use of "so-called fentanyl issue" also indicates a potentially biased interpretation of the US government's justification.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Chinese perspective and reactions to the US tariffs. While it includes quotes from US experts, it lacks a significant representation of the US government's justification for the tariffs beyond mentioning the "fentanyl issue" as a pretext. The article omits detailed discussion of the economic arguments supporting the US tariffs and the potential benefits the US government anticipates. This omission limits the reader's ability to fully assess the validity of both sides' arguments.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic portrayal of the situation as a lose-lose scenario due to tariffs, but it does mention that politicians in the US "cling to the belief that it creates jobs". It doesn't fully explore the nuanced arguments for and against tariffs, such as the potential for short-term economic pain for long-term strategic gains or the possibility of tariff negotiations leading to broader trade agreements. This oversimplification could lead readers to believe there are only two options: tariffs and no tariffs, neglecting the complexities of trade policy.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that US tariffs disproportionately harm low-income households in the US, increasing income inequality. This is further exacerbated by the negative impacts on global trade and supply chains, potentially affecting developing countries and increasing inequality globally. Quotes from economists support this assessment.