“We also need to be sure that the wording of the agreement is identical in both the Chinese and English versions – history has shown that differences easily become loopholes,” said Ker Gibbs, president of the Shanghai American Chamber of Commerce. But these victories have a high price. The uncertainty created by Trump`s tariff threats and his approach to trade has weighed on the economy, raised prices for businesses and consumers, stunted business investment and slowed growth around the world. Companies engaged in China, such as Deere & Company and Caterpillar, have laid off some workers and reduced revenue expectations, in part by referring to the trade war. Despite a recent report from the Trump administration suggesting otherwise, U.S. agricultural exports to China have not yet kept pace with phase one commitments.7 While better than manufacturing, it took until September for agricultural exports to return to their pre-trade war level (Chart 3). In September, they were only 66% of their seasonally adjusted targets. In other words, China must import 62% of the total agricultural commitment in October, November and December if it is to meet the 2020 target. At the same time, China imported more pork to address local shortages caused by the outbreak, leading U.S.
pork exports to exceed their 2020 target (see again Figure 3). Through September, China`s pork imports from the rest of the world also increased by more than 400% compared to 2017. And in one of the few parts of the Phase 1 agreement, which contains political commitments (Chapter 3), China agreed to address technical barriers to trade that had slowed pork imports. As part of the 2020 Galwan Valley skirmish, Indian commentators referred to the US-China trade war as part of their overall analysis of the impact of the battle on the future relationship between India and China.        Until September 2019, U.S. producers reduced their capital investments and delayed hiring due to uncertainty caused by the trade war.  James Andrew Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said what the U.S. needs in China is the obligation to abide by international trade rules and standards and extend mutual treatment to U.S. companies in China. In supporting tariffs as president, he said China would cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year due to unfair trade practices. After imposing tariffs, he denied entering a trade war and said that “the trade war was lost many years ago by the stupid or incompetent people who represented the United States.” He said the U.S. has a trade deficit of $500 billion a year, with intellectual property (IP) theft costing an additional $300 billion. “We cannot allow this to continue,” he said.   Jim Schultz, a former White House adviser, said that “the United States has turned the naïve gaze of several presidential governments – Clinton, Bush and Obama – while China has erred in an unfair advantage in the international trade market.”  In an April 2018 Article in Forbes, Harry G. Broadman, a former U.S. negotiator said that while he agreed with the Trump administration`s basic position that the Chinese were not ad to fair, transparent, and market-based rules for global trade, he disagreed with ways to unilaterally enforce tariffs and said the government should instead adopt a coalition-based approach.  2. . . .