China Bashing DA - GDI 2024

China bashing
***Neg***
1NC China bashing turn
Patent reform boosts China bashing
Scott McKeown ’23, August 7, “The Prevail Act – Harm U.S. Industry to Fight China?” WOLF GREENFIELD, accessed July 17, 2024, https://www.patentspostgrant.com/2023/08/the-prevail-act-increase-u-s-litigation-to-fight-china/
The so-called PREVAIL Act (here) was floated some weeks back to “to ensure the United States does not cede technological supremacy to our foreign competitors and adversaries.” As the accompanying materials insist, fighting China is the rationale behind the bill’s proposed patent reforms. That is, the U.S. Patent system must be made stronger to rival the Chinese threat by weakening the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).
If this “stronger patents” argument sounds familiar, it should. Before its reinvention as the Prevail Act, the same “litigation first” ideas were packaged to the American public as the so-called Stronger Patents Act. But, the “Stronger” Bill went absolutely nowhere despite being introduced every year for the past six years (maybe 7, I lost count).
Not surprisingly, increasing patent litigation expense and unnecessary liability for successful U.S companies in the name of “stronger patents” didn’t resonate on the Hill. This is because the America Invents Act (AIA), which created PTAB trial was passed into law a little more than a decade ago for the purpose of reducing wasteful litigation over improvidently issued patents— and is working exactly as intended. Few legislators (aside from sponsors) were interested in a proposal to effectively repeal the AIA. So, after years of failure, this perennially failed effort has been newly-minted as the PREVAIL Act.
While the new spin also argues for stronger patents, it presents the need as a necessary tool to “prevail” against the growing technological threat from communist China. Ironically, the blatant dishonesty of this new spin only serves to highlight the critical importance of the PTAB to U.S. interests.
Patent reforms surface U.S. resent over Chinese tech-patenting – retaliation can collapse global trade
Nzube A. Chukwuma et al ’24, July 4, with Le Minh Ngoc & Previous Mativenga; Chukwuma of Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos State, Nigeria, Le Minh Ngoc of School of Politics and International Studies, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China, and Previous Mativenga of School of Politics and International Studies, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China, “The US-China trade war: interrogating globalisation of technology,” Cogent Social Sciences Volume 10, 2024 - Issue 1, accessed July 17, 2024, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2024.2365509?src=
Studies in our dominant literature showed how economic and political motivations caused trade wars, which revolved around the Yuan pegging and manipulation (Plender, Citation2019; Rodrik, Citation2018). Other research we cited is the historical US trade imbalance with China since 1986 (USCB, Citation2020; Wu, Citation2020) while pointing fingers at WTO regulatory inadequacies on global trade governance (Sheng et al., Citation2019; Solis, Citation2014). Further study identified the US accusation of China on intellectual property rights (IPR) (Yongding, Citation2018) because it raised national security questions in the US. The consensus is that IPR and patent issues are partly attributed to the US Most-Favoured-Nation’s (MFN) status to China by the previous US administration (Landler, Citation2005). Arguably, China’s MFN status has undermined the US economy, patent rights and innovation (Muehlfeld & Wang, Citation2022; Zubascu, Citation2020).
These studies remind us about the escalating cycle impacts of the US-China trade war on the world’s two largest economies because of their significant contribution to global trade. The escalating tariff retaliation between the US and China on industries, businesses, and consumers and other harmful trade discrimination policies portend a risk and frontal challenges to the global trade order. Research by (Rodrik, Citation2018, Lawrence, Citation2018; Shaffer, Citation2021) has demonstrated how US-China trade largely undermines the WTO’s rule-based multilateral trading system and affects the global growth prospects of countries with the worst and darkest economic scenarios (Steinbock, Citation2019). As Yao (Citation2018) noted, the US-China trade war has disrupted world trade, costing the world more than a US$430 billion loss in GDP.
Global trade averts nuclear war
Sonni Efron ‘22, National Press Foundation, Aug 02, “Global Trade is at a Historic Inflection Point,” accessed July 18, 2024, https://nationalpress.org/topic/global-trading-system-is-breaking-up-stephen-olson/
The unraveling of the consensus behind globalization is hard to date, but “China shock” became a significant force during President Barack Obama’s second term. Olson described the growing skepticism on Main Street that globalization and the rising of Chinese manufacturing were benefitting multinational corporations, Wall Street, and large financial institutions while hollowing out U.S. manufacturing and not boosting the average worker. Moreover, the realization of the weakness of the system of global trade governance – the World Trade Organization – also played a role. Despite calls for action against predatory Chinese trade practices, “There’s an increased recognition that the WTO isn’t going to ride in on a white horse here and save the day,” Olson said. (Donald Trump called the Trans-Pacific Partnership among 12 nations “a rape of our country” and withdrew the U.S. on the third day of his presidency.) The pandemic and the Ukraine war were the final systemic shocks, while the view that global trade is a tool in the struggle between authoritarianism and democracy has also played a role, Olson said.
The end of the notion that global interdependence is a driver of peace is a huge historical shift. The people who built the institutions of the post-World War II era were white men in their 50s whose lives had been defined by catastrophes – World War I, the Great Depression, World War II and the fear of nuclear war, Olson said. It was understood that the Smoot Hawley tariffs were a major contributor to the Great Depression and the war. “And so the pillars of this new system would be global cooperation, try to get global rules in place and establish multilateral organizations that were going to help keep us in line and help facilitate the ability of countries to work out their problems without dropping nuclear bombs on each other’s heads. So these were the Bretton Woods…. the United Nations, World Bank, the IMF… And free trade was an absolute centerpiece of this new world order that you were trying to construct in the aftermath of the Second World War.”
Uniqueness – no trade war
Status quo trade tensions are contained
David Dodwell ’24, July 14, CEO of the trade policy and international relations consultancy Strategic Access, focused on developments and challenges facing the Asia-Pacific, “China is not posing an existential threat to global trade – America is,” SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST, accessed July 18, 2024, https://www.scmp.com/opinion/world-opinion/article/3270347/china-not-posing-existential-threat-global-trade-america
It seems that while trade wars and protectionism are bad, they are also politically irresistible, in the US at least. Promises of tax cuts at home, and success in justifying protectionism as an essential part of the battle to contain a demonised China, have diverted voters’ gaze.
Mercifully, and in part because many other countries recognise the powerful contribution that trade has made to growth and prosperity over the past seven decades, mounting US protectionism has so far produced more bark than bite.
Current pressure on China will evade financial fallout – mostly symbolic
You Wang May 16, 2024. “No China-US Trade War This Year, But Uncertainty Ahead in 2025,” THE DIPLOMAT, accessed July 18, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/no-china-us-trade-war-this-year-but-uncertainty-ahead-in-2025/
Second, these tariffs are unlikely to substantially impact Chinese exports or fuel U.S. inflation. New energy products, such as batteries and electric vehicles, exported from China to the United States represent a negligible share of China’s overall exports. For instance, in 2023, solar cell exports to the U.S. amounted to $3.35 million, a mere 0.1 percent of China’s total solar cell exports. Similarly, solar panel exports were $13.15 million, just 0.03 percent of the total.
China’s medical product industry might face more significant challenges from the new tariffs. In 2022, China exported $30.9 billion worth of medical supplies to the U.S., accounting for about one-fifth of its total medical exports. This sector could therefore see more substantial disruptions.
Overall, however, the Biden administration’s approach demonstrates a strategic focus on critical industries while mitigating the broader economic impacts. This calculated move aims to address national security concerns without triggering extensive economic fallout.
For the Biden administration, the symbolic significance of these tariffs eclipses their practical impact. The tariffs on steel and aluminum fulfill Biden’s commitment to Rust Belt voters. Additionally, the increased tariffs on new energy products reflect his administration’s pledge to protect domestic green industries. Over the past six months, senior officials from the Commerce and Treasury Departments have consistently underscored this objective, signaling the use of tariffs to address China’s “overcapacity.” This tariff initiative, long in preparation, comes as no surprise.
These new tariffs are not expected to exacerbate inflationary pressures, as the U.S. does not heavily import these goods, and some tariff increases are phased over two years. This strategic move demonstrates a calculated effort to address domestic political and economic goals without triggering significant economic disruptions. By targeting specific sectors and pacing the implementation, the administration aims to balance its national security and economic interests with broader international trade dynamics.
No trade war now
You Wang May 16, 2024. “No China-US Trade War This Year, But Uncertainty Ahead in 2025,” THE DIPLOMAT, accessed July 18, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/no-china-us-trade-war-this-year-but-uncertainty-ahead-in-2025/
Finally, the China-U.S. trade tensions are unlikely to escalate because both sides are inclined to manage the situation to serve their domestic policy objectives. International observers, still recalling the intensity of the trade war during the Trump era, are understandably concerned about a sudden escalation in trade relations this year. However, it is more plausible that trade tensions will remain controlled.
On the U.S. side, Biden needs a stable environment ahead of elections. While Biden has frequently emphasized the need for a tough response to China’s overcapacity issues in his campaign rhetoric, a stable external environment is crucial for his re-election campaign. Key swing states currently show uncertain electoral prospects, making stability a priority.
Additionally, to avoid severe retaliation from China, the Biden administration has deliberately moderated the severity of its tariff policies. Before implementing these measures, high-level visits by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to China facilitated policy communication, indicating an intention to manage tensions proactively.
China, for its part, had already anticipated these tariff increases. Retaliation is expected but will likely be measured. Beijing may impose reciprocal tariffs on major U.S. exports such as agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, and aircraft. However, China is unlikely to escalate trade tensions unilaterally, for several reasons.
First, China needs to weigh the risks to its domestic economic growth. Despite recent efforts to stabilize the economy, there are still significant concerns and a lack of confidence among various sectors within the country. This uncertainty stems from ongoing structural issues, such as high levels of debt and challenges in the real estate market, which continue to dampen economic optimism. Thus, China is likely to approach any escalation in trade tensions with caution, prioritizing economic stability over aggressive retaliation.
Second, escalating trade tensions now could severely restrict China’s economic policy options, particularly if former U.S. President Donald Trump returns to office in 2025. This potential scenario could limit Beijing’s flexibility in managing its economic strategies, forcing it to navigate an increasingly complex and hostile international environment with reduced options.
Notably, on April 26, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee passed a new Tariff Law, set to take effect on December 1, replacing the previous import and export tariff regulations. This move is widely seen as Beijing’s preparation for potential trade tensions with the United States in 2025 and beyond.
Despite these trade frictions, high-level cooperation between U.S. and Chinese officials continues in other areas. For instance, the U.S.-China Climate Action Working Group met in Washington on May 8-9, and the first U.S.-China Intergovernmental AI Dialogue took place in Geneva on May 14. Additionally, on April 16, Chinese Vice Minister of Finance Liao Min and U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo co-chaired the fourth meeting of the U.S.-China Economic Working Group in Washington. This ongoing high-level communication helps prevent further escalation of tensions.
At present, we can feel somewhat reassured about China-U.S. trade relations. However, if Trump secures the presidency in the upcoming election, this relative stability may become precarious, introducing a significant degree of uncertainty for the coming year.
U.S-China trade is huge
Anshu Siripurapu and Noah Berman ’24, May 14, “The Contentious U.S.-China Trade Relationship,” COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, accessed July 18, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship
U.S. trade with China has grown enormously in recent decades and is crucial for both countries. Today, China is one of the largest export markets for U.S. goods and services, and the United States is the top export market for China. This trade has brought lower prices to U.S. consumers and higher profits for American corporations, but it has also come with costs.
Uniqueness – China bashing on the brink
U.S. is only considering bashing China on trade now – China will retaliate if the U.S. crosses the line
Ambar Warrick ’24, July 17, joined Investing.com's news team in July 2022 to cover Asian financial markets. He has over six years of experience covering financial markets across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, and has worked across multiple asset classes, “Asian stocks sink as US-China trade tensions spark technology rout,” INVESTING.COM, accessed July 17, 2024, https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/asian-stocks-sink-as-uschina-trade-tensions-spark-technology-rout-3524142
Most Asian stocks fell on Thursday, with losses centered around technology and chipmaking shares as the threat of more U.S. restrictions on China ramped up concerns over a renewed trade war between the countries.
Recent comments by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on U.S. defense spending on Taiwan also kept sentiment towards regional markets on edge.
Asian stocks markets a weak lead-in from Wall Street, where the S&P 500 and NASDAQ Composite plummeted on selling in chip and technology stocks. The sectors were also hit with extended profit-taking, as optimism over interest rate cuts saw investors pivot into more economically sensitive sectors.
U.S. stock index futures rose in Asian trade, recovering slightly from Wednesday’s losses.
Asian chip, tech stocks slide on concerns over US-China trade
Tech-heavy indexes were the worst performers in Asia on Thursday, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 tumbling 2.1% on losses in chipmaking stocks. Tokyo Electron Ltd. (TYO:8035), the country’s most valuable chipmaker, slid over 8% after a Bloomberg report suggested the company could face more U.S. scrutiny over its supplying to Chinese markets.
The Bloomberg report said that the U.S. is considering stricter trade restrictions on China if companies including Tokyo Electron and ASML Holding NV ADR (NASDAQ:ASML) continue supplying chip technology to China.
Such a move could represent continued efforts by the Biden administration to cut China off from advancements in artificial intelligence. It could also draw severe retaliatory measures from Beijing, sparking a renewed trade war between the world’s biggest economies.
Biden’s new tariffs won’t spark trade war – but they do establish a brink
You Wang May 16, 2024. “No China-US Trade War This Year, But Uncertainty Ahead in 2025,” THE DIPLOMAT, accessed July 18, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/no-china-us-trade-war-this-year-but-uncertainty-ahead-in-2025/
On May 14, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai released a review report on the Section 301 tariffs imposed on China and issued a statement indicating that President Joe Biden had directed her to take further action. This includes imposing additional tariffs of 25 percent to 100 percent on strategic products from China, such as electric vehicles, solar cells, and medical supplies. Subsequently, the White House announced new tariffs on $18 billion worth of Chinese imports.
After a period of noticeable easing, China-U.S. relations seem to be becoming tense again. However, given the scope and scale of these new tariffs, along with the Biden administration’s strategic considerations, there is little need to worry about a new trade war between the United States and China this year – even factoring in potential Chinese countermeasures. But next year remains uncertain.
First, the newly announced tariffs have been long anticipated and involve a relatively modest total amount. Biden has decided to maintain existing tariffs on over $300 billion worth of Chinese goods. The newly added tariffs affect goods valued at $18 billion, indicating a limited impact.
The details of the new tariff list are significant. The tariffs cover seven categories, with four categories seeing increases to approximately 25 percent. The tariff on electric vehicles has been raised to 100 percent, and tariffs on semiconductors and certain medical products have increased to 50 percent. This indicates that Biden is strategically targeting key industries, particularly clean energy and semiconductors.
In the 2018 China-U.S. trade war, Washington imposed tariffs ranging from 10 percent to 25 percent on four batches of Chinese export goods. These tariffs remain in effect, with the average tariff rate on Chinese exports to the United States standing at 19 percent. Comparatively, the current tariff measures are more restrained both in scale and in the extent of adjustments.
While the previous tariffs had a broader impact, affecting a wide range of goods, the new tariffs are more targeted. The recently announced tariffs are focused on strategic sectors, particularly clean energy and semiconductors. This indicates a strategic and cautious approach by the Biden administration to address specific national security concerns without provoking a full-scale trade war. This more measured strategy balances the need to protect national interests with the desire to avoid unnecessary economic disruptions.
By maintaining pressure on critical sectors while limiting the overall economic impact, the Biden administration’s current tariff policy aims to safeguard U.S. interests while mitigating the risk of escalating tensions. Given these considerations, it is evident that the tariff strategy i

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.