Broadly, we assess the usefulness of the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement
(JEEPA) based on the breath and extent of tariff cuts, where we assume that better quality
trade agreements have steeper tariff cuts over shorter time periods. Looking at the tariff schedules of the two parties, Japan appears to be more conservative in cutting tariffs. Its tariff schedule has a longer phase out period of 20 years versus the EU’s, which 15 years. It also has more exclusions in its tariff schedule than the EU – various goods in 12 chapters are not covered, compared to 6 for the EU. Japan only agreed to eliminate tariffs for 62 chapters of goods upon entry into force (EIF) whereas the EU promised 67. Compared with the status quo, however, EU-Japan still provides some significant benefits for exporters in both markets. Tariff rates on specific products of key interest can be high and any reductions are likely to result in new market access for both.
Brexit to Topple the British Government?
It has been two years since the fateful Referendum of 2016, yet Brexit remains as divisive as ever. May, already damaged by a disastrous General Election in 2017, struggles to hold together a cabinet divided between “hard” and “soft” Brexit. Ministerial infighting has led to incoherent policies that have weakened both the UK’s negotiating position and its international credibility. The recent departures, especially that of Johnson – who commands a large following among the Tory faithful – have only worsened political instability, leading to rumours of a leadership challenge within the Conservative Party. Meanwhile, time for negotiation is fast running out: the 29 March 2019 Brexit deadline is less than a year away. While the announced deadline is March, the practical end date is even sooner, as the EU side needs time to approve the final deal. While a “soft Brexit” may not be ideal, a “no-deal Brexit” would be catastrophic. British agricultural and automobile exports could face EU tariffs of up to 40% and 10% respectively. Trade in services would also be adversely affected by a loss of passporting rights, which allow British businesses to sell services Europe-wide without having to obtain a license from individual members. Significant trade disruption would be also ensue as the UK replaces the EU Customs Union and various European regulatory agencies with local equivalents.
Trade War Escalates Again: $200 Billion Announced by Americans
Hence, writes Lighthizer, the need for another $200 billion in products on today’s list. Why? Because China cannot respond in the same measured way to a trade escalation of this magnitude. China does not import $250 billion in goods trade from the United States and cannot match US tariff escalation dollar-for-dollar. Therefore, it seems clear that Lighthizer believes that China will now respond “appropriately” to the original set of American complaints under the Section 301 report and stop counter-retaliating. This line of argument, however, remains deeply flawed for at least four reasons. First, simply because the Chinese cannot retaliate using tariffs to match the US escalation does not mean that the Chinese cannot retaliate. They have myriad tools at their disposal to respond, as we have pointed out in previous Talking Trade posts. These include targeting US services, US companies on the ground in China, US investments and so forth.
$34 Billion + $34 Billion = More Than Just Rhetoric
Now that tariffs have been imposed, negotiations have not started. Instead, Trump seems determined to continue to escalate. Rather than make movements towards resolving issues, he has now threatened to impose tariffs on every product imported from China—all $500 billion. Since China does not import an equivalent amount of goods from the United States, it cannot simply match tariff rate hikes to tariff rate hikes. It will end up getting creative instead, assuming President Trump follows through on his threats and keeps ratcheting up tariffs on Chinese made goods. China could respond in many ways. It can scrupulously enforce myriad domestic laws against American companies in China that are currently only weakly followed now. It could much more rigorously check for compliance with every regulation, type of paperwork and so forth.
The Silver Lining? Emerging Markets in Times of Troubled Trade
EMs could see a rise in exports in some sectors. Agricultural producers in EMs could stand to gain from China's counter attack to impose a 25% tariff on American farm commodities. The U.S., being the biggest exporter of cotton and soybeans to China and the world, will be greatly affected. However, this means that EM producers have a chance to play. China has already sought alternative sources of cotton months, in preparation for a possible trade war. India, the world’s second-biggest cotton exporter, has already signed contracts to ship 500,000 bales (85,000 tonnes) of its new season harvest to China, in the rare advance deal. India’s total cotton exports for this season is expected to be up 20%, to 7 million bales. China has also turned to other sources of soybeans, which is integral to make animal feed. It is likely to buy more from the other three top exporters – Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. China’s share of South America’s regional soybean exports is expected to increase to 90% from June to December this year.