Tire Protectionism Shows the U.S. President Is Not Reliable

On September 11, U.S. President Barack Obama made a big statement. There was already a four percent tariff in place on Chinese tires. Obama then approved a new one, which over the next three years will be 35 percent, 30 percent, and 25 percent, respectively. In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce quickly announced it would start looking into whether America has been violating anti-dumping and anti-subsidy agreements for chicken and automotive parts.

On April 20, the American workers union United Steelworkers first started campaigning for this tariff. The fact that this group could have such a profound influence on the president reflects a large cultural difference between China and America.

After Obama made this decision, it created a furor among Chinese netizens*. They reacted strongly, heavily attacking Obama and ultimately feeling they had been betrayed. In the eyes of Chinese people, the U.S. president is the most powerful American, and truly has control over American policy. It’s not only netizens, but if you look at August reports from Chinese media experts, you’ll find that the media was almost completely optimistic that Obama would veto this tariff.

The hope that Obama would veto signifies how much confidence many Chinese, ordinary experts and netizens alike, had in the new U.S. president. Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush vetoed similar tariffs many times. The dynamic of Sino-U.S. relations hasn’t changed that much since Obama came into office, so most people naturally thought Obama would be against such protectionism. The logic here seems reasonable: If a country is good to the U.S., then relations between the two sides should automatically be taken care of, and cases like this will essentially resolve themselves.

In reality, this was wishful thinking on the part of Chinese people. In the end, Obama did not veto the tariff. This brings to mind U.S.-based author Lin Da’s book “The President Is Unreliable.” While you can please the president, it’s impossible to please all Americans. In the U.S., the president is influenced and constrained by an endless number of special interest groups. He constantly faces challenges from Congress and indiscriminate attacks by the media. Even worse, if the president’s courage and power are at odds, then he could be assassinated, which has already happened several times in American history.

Therefore, it becomes clear that the American president is not omnipotent. It’s also apparent that Obama is not fully responsible for the protectionism inherent in this tire tariff. The American trade representative office has assembled a group of conservative trade protectionists, and representatives on Capitol Hill have been looking eagerly to see whether or not Obama will “surrender” to China.

The United Steelworkers, who fully supported Obama during his presidential campaign, are also eagerly anticipating the president’s next move. Whether or not Obama is an advocate of free trade or wants to provoke China is actually inconsequential here. Because of the powers that be and the forces influencing the president, he was really not able to veto this bill.

Experts in China believe that in addition to confidence in the U.S. president, political atmosphere is also very important. This is another area where Chinese and American culture differs. Chinese people put a lot of emphasis on principles, atmosphere, and on the big picture; whereas Americans put emphasis on reality, interests, and on specific analysis. In China, it would be ideal to reach an agreement with the U.S. in relaxed way. China would probably be willing to make concessions, but when the atmosphere is tense it’s more difficult. Even if the issue was originally a simple one, a bad atmosphere will generally make it more complicated. In America, it would not be like this.

At the end of July, Sino-U.S. strategic and economic talks were going very smoothly. The American side was very respectful toward China, albeit in part because America’s economic recovery heavily relies on China’s support. Also, since Obama has been in power, there has been steady development in Sino-U.S. relations.

Upon first glance, it really seemed that Obama would veto any protectionist laws passed. But America’s logic is different, as a specific problem calls for a specific analysis. The big strengths and larger picture of Sino-U.S. relations is not the affairs of the American trade representative office. Instead, its task is to complete its own duties and affairs. Looking at specific affairs, even the president can not get around their interference.

This case of protectionism reflects a difference in how China and the U.S. deal with their affairs. Americans do things with a bit of a “cowboy” flair, and since the September 11 attacks, they have engaged in two wars, seemingly without remorse. But China, with its motto of taking orders and being obedient, is accustomed to using diplomacy before resorting to force.

This protectionist tire case started on April 20, and it took four and a half months to get Obama’s approval. China’s Ministry of Commerce responded, saying they were in the process of investigating charges that the United States has violated anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws with its car and chicken product imports. If in America they investigate Chinese tires, the Ministry of Commerce insisted it would investigate anti-dumping charges of chicken products. The mentality may be “an eye for an eye,” or perhaps to deter America from taking such actions again.

There is another difference we need to mention. Americans do not like to be roundabout, and their opinion about Chinese tires being subject to tariffs for three years is very clear cut. On the other hand, Chinese measures are generally more ambiguous. Rumor has it that China’s anti-dumping investigation may be trade retaliation behavior. It very well could be, but the Ministry of Commerce has made clear that its investigations are based on facts. The reason they didn’t start the investigations previously was because of the Chinese concept of “face.” It was because of this that China initially kept a low profile about the automotive and chicken products. It was to give the other side face.

Even though Obama added these tariffs, it doesn’t seem that his intent was to provoke China, nor was it to quell free trade. What we need to learn from this is that right now, understanding between China and the U.S. needs to deepen. Fundamentally, both sides need to determine what the other can tolerate. This protectionism may cause increased tensions between the two countries, but it does not need to give rise to an all-out trade war.

*Editor’s Note: Netizens are citizens who frequently use the outlet of the internet to express their opinions.