[lbo-talk] Behind the scenes at the US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue

Ira Glazer ira at yanua.com
Thu May 24 21:01:01 PDT 2007


*/http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002144.php#more/*

*/The Nelson Report by Chris Nelson, 23 May 2007/*

*//*

It may be that we are cranky because the meds are wearing off from

our root canal this morning (just a swell way to start the workday)

but it doesn't sound like the US-China cabinet level SED "dialogue"

went all that well. In fact, there is some evidence it was a disaster.

So you have to ask if it will end up being the end. Barring some

major breakthroughs at the JCCT, it doesn't sound like there will be

any point in meeting again, as scheduled, in December.

This morning's session was called early. . .the game was stopped in

what would normally have been the 6th inning. As one experienced

China-hand asked, rhetorically, "you telling me Wu Yi came over here

with 14 of her cabinet members and they couldn't find things to talk

with us about?"

"Results", with one or two exceptions, either were minimal, or not

what Secretary Paulson seemed to expect. And at the closing press

conference, the Chinese didn't even pretend they had had a good

time. Madam Wu Yi read her statement, and walked off. No pretence of

a friendly hug for the US side.

At yesterday's press briefing, journalists were urged not to see the

SED as an negotiating "event", but, rather, as a "discussion".

Negotiations and "results", it was argued, are for the JCCT process

chaired by Commerce.

Hummmm.

Today, an impertinent ink-stained scribbler asks, privately, "if

Treasury chairs the SED, and Paulson isn't allowed to press his case

on currency, and to get a Chinese response, what's the point?" In

fact, sources indicate there was some "heated dialogue" on currency.

But the bottom line is the same...after all the US pressure, all it

got was last week's very minimal "float", increasing the maximum

daily trading band by 0.2% to 0.5% total. . .exactly half what

Bretton Woods defines as a "fixed rate".

So you have to wonder if this time, Paulson's patience has worn out,

and the still-delayed Treasury report to Congress on undervalued

currencies will. . .finally. . ."cite" China. Since that would

formally kick-off mandated "negotiations", you have to wonder how

Beijing would react, given its clear public heartburn over the IPR

and other WTO cases.

Finally, you have to wonder how long it will take Ways & Means

chairman Charlie Rangel to decide that maybe moving some China

currency legislation is a small price to pay for Democratic Caucus

approval of his Labor and Environment deal.

One normally hesitates to ascribe too much to the theater of body

language, but here's something that just bashes you right between

the eyes: Paulson, the guy with 72 private trips to China, all that

hands-on experience, he who told the White House, State and USTR not

to worry, that he would be the China Guy in this Administration...at

the closing press conference, Paulson stalked in, well ahead of Wu

Yi, and then started reading his statement before she even reached

the podium.

Excuse me? An American or European would have cold-cocked the

President for such calculated rudeness! In China (Japan, Korea,

etc.) you watch older married couples walk into someplace. . .the

husband is 10 feet in front, and the subservient wife is dutifully

plodding behind. You think for one minute that elderly maiden lady

Wu Yi didn't catch the insult here?

Or, are you telling us Paulson didn't mean it, that he was so

focused on reading his prepared statement he didn't think? NONSENSE.

This was a calculated act of rudeness which told everyone in the

room, and anyone watching on TV, that a major failure had taken place.

Further evidence of a Paulson snit. . .he seemed to go out of his

way to be rude to an Asian journalist, who had to ask him four

times, in very good english, something about the N. Korea/Macao

money problems Treasury is having with State (see separate item in

tonight's Report). Paulson pretended not to be able to understand

what everyone else in the room got the first time.

Is there a less personal problem going on? Perhaps Labor Secretary

Elaine Chao, speaking to reporters last night, sensed today's

result, when she said that from what she'd seen so far, even though

she herself is of Chinese descent, "it's much harder than anyone

thinks for the two countries to communicate". "Maybe", she mused,

"we just have very different styles. . ."

Even if you discount Paulson's rudeness to his alleged friend as

somehow unintentional, witnesses agree that something definitely was

"missing" today. Commented one, privately, "it was as cold as ice in

there. The Chinese just looked like they wanted to get off the stage

quickly. They really didn't bother to put on a show for the cameras

back home."

Maybe that was the point? Certainly, Chinese officials had made very

clear their displeasure at the Administration's decision to start

those three WTO cases at the beginning of April. . .that was a major

point of Wu Yi's "frank" opening remarks yesterday.

And perhaps that explains why Paulson got nothing on something which

he had already, in a sense, "leaked" to the press. . .China lifting

it's 25% foreign ownership cap on domestic bank investment. Nope. .

.not this time.

And even with yesterday's OIE announcement of "controlled risk"

clearance of US beef exports, no one hinted if the US asked China to

at least agree to talk about its continuing ban later on. . .much

less did anyone say something specific today, despite the obvious

political importance for pro-trade/pro-China trade senators like

Finance Chair Max Baucus, and former chair Chuck Grassley.

OK, OK, so Paulson & Co did get a few things. . .the airlines deal

is useful; China said it would remove its moratorium on allowing new

foreign securities firms into the market. . .something it had hinted

about last December; and the Chinese said that US insurance firms

can get into the brokerage and property trading business, as US

companies had been asking (although an insurance source said,

basically, "nice, no big deal").

So. . .step back a few feet. What happened? Is Chao right? Have we

run into a clash of negotiating cultures? Are we discovering that

when China considers itself an equal, does that change the whole

"negotiating game"? Does that mean that when the Administration. .

.finally. . .pulled the trigger on some narrowly drawn WTO cases,

that when it also asked China for "deliverables" at the SED it was

giving self-destructive offense to Beijing?

Somehow you think that by now, Chinese officials and negotiators are

a lot more sophisticated than that. So maybe it was the substance,

and capacity of the US negotiators?

Who knows? But one thing for sure, dressing up this SED as something

which really moved forward the "responsible stakeholder" concept is

delusional.

A final, frankly nasty thought: getting nothing on currency was not

a surprise, of course, given the Chinese movement last week (/Nelson

Report/, May 18). . .but this then raises a rather embarrassing

question for Paulson personally: We noted in our coverage of his

performance at a CSIS/PIIE currency conference (/Nelson Report/)

that when unscripted, he has trouble putting two coherent sentences

together. A friend in Beijing said he noted the same thing when

Paulson was there last December. You have to ask if this guy is

rich, tall, tan. . .and. . .and. . .



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list