Top

China backtracked on US terms for deal

The document was riddled with reversals by China that undermined core US demands, the sources told Reuters.

WASHINGTON/BEIJING: The diplomatic cable from Beijing arrived in Washington late on Friday night, with systematic edits to a nearly 150-page draft trade agreement that would blow up months of negotiations between the world's two largest economies, according to three US government sources and three private sector sources briefed on the talks.

The document was riddled with reversals by China that undermined core US demands, the sources told Reuters.

In each of the seven chapters of the draft trade deal, China had deleted its commitments to change laws to resolve core complaints that caused the United States to launch a trade war: theft of US intellectual property and trade secrets; forced technology transfers; competition policy; access to financial services; and currency manipulation.

US President Donald Trump responded in a tweet on Sunday vowing to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 to 25 per cent on Friday - timed to land in the middle of a scheduled visit by China's Vice Premier Liu He to Washington to continue trade talks.

The stripping of binding legal language from the draft struck directly at the highest priority of US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer - who views changes to Chinese laws as essential to verifying compliance after years of what US officials have called empty reform promises.

Lighthizer has pushed hard for an enforcement regime more like those used for punitive economic sanctions - such as those imposed on North Korea or Iran - than a typical trade deal.

"This undermines the core architecture of the deal," said a Washington-based source with knowledge of the talks.

Spokespeople for the White House, the US Trade Representative and the US Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a briefing on Wednesday that working out disagreements over trade was a "process of negotiation" and that China was not "avoiding problems".

Geng referred specific questions on the trade talks to the Commerce Ministry, which did not respond immediately to faxed questions from Reuters.

Lighthizer and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were taken aback at the extent of the changes in the draft. The two cabinet officials on Monday told reporters that Chinese backtracking had prompted Trump's tariff order but did not provide details on the depth and breadth of the revisions.

Liu last week told Lighthizer and Mnuchin that they needed to trust China to fulfill its pledges through administrative and regulatory changes, two of the sources said. Both Mnuchin and Lighthizer considered that unacceptable, given China's history of failing to fulfill reform pledges.

One private-sector source briefed on the talks said the last round of negotiations had gone very poorly because "China got greedy".

"China reneged on a dozen things, if not more ... The talks were so bad that the real surprise is that it took Trump until Sunday to blow up," the source said.

"After 20 years of having their way with the US, China still appears to be miscalculating with this administration."

The rapid deterioration of negotiations rattled the global stock markets, bonds and commodities this week. Until Sunday, markets had priced in the expectation that officials from the two countries were close to striking a deal.

Investors and analysts questioned whether Trump's tweet was a negotiating ploy to wring more concessions from China. The sources told Reuters the extent of the setbacks in the revised text were serious and that Trump's response was not merely a negotiating strategy.

Chinese negotiators said they couldn't touch the laws, said one of the government sources, calling the changes "major." Changing any law in China requires a unique set of processes that can't be navigated quickly, said a Chinese official familiar with the talks. The official disputed the assertion that China was backtracking on its promises.

Next Story