US Trade War Assignment | Get Paper Help

Add the following content to the previous article you wrote about sino-us trade war
please provide a more organized version of the China debate.
consider organizing your competing positions in terms of (a.) how chinese perceive the bilateral relationship (each economy’s relative strengths and weaknesses), and (b.) how chinese perceive the international environment.
Finally, need a conclusion section. What do I take away from the analysis?

Shanghong Jiang

PSC 478

Doc G

Trade war between U.S. and China

The increase in global trade could be regarded as the single most effective tool for socioeconomic development across the world. The dynamic relations that have been achieved and continue to be cultivated around the globe through various state agreements perpetually allow for socioeconomic inclusivity of all societies. Global trade or international trade is one of the critical essential elements that shape world societies. International trade between different countries has been a critical element of raising standards of living, enabling more people to acquire employment and enabling a global rise in consumerism by exposing consumers to enjoy and achieve a greater variety of goods, services, and prices. In contemporary society, most of the world has become reliant on global trade for most of the manufactured essential and non-essential supplies. China has been a significant beneficiary of the rise of worldwide trade and the consequent economic superpower position that it has achieved.

With the rise of industrialization in the west and the consequent mass production of goods and services at the beginning of the 20^th century, more and more people achieved economic success through employment and easy access to cheap products and services. In this regard, some of the jobs that sustained them became too valueless to be economically viable in the west due to the trickling of wealth throughout the society and accumulation of wealth. New regions of production had to be earmarked to be the next source of manufactured goods and services not only for the western world but for the whole world, including China itself. With a sizeable sparse population (cheap labor), and a committed government under the presidency of Deng Xiaoping, China in 1978 opened itself to the world by relaxing some of its communist tendencies in order to accommodate the outside companies that sought to utilize the considerable labor poor to create a global factory. A gamble that paid off. This move by the CCP was successful in bringing in a lot of foreign investments, building multiple additional trade free zones that categorically relaxed taxation laws on these companies and worked to maintain a steady inflow of foreign investment into the Chinese market for a sustained period of time. Researchers at the China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies identify that “China accounted for almost 50 percent of global growth and continues to constitute some 30 percent of global prospects today” (Steinbock, p520). This saw economic progression achieved through infrastructure expansion and rise in production. With access to the international market, Chinese goods were increasingly becoming popular and with the low labor cost cheaper. This culminated with the introduction of China into the World Trade Organization on December 11^th, 2001, with the U.S. making a symbolic gesture of being the first country to introduce China. Nany states that “China as an export-oriented economy was looking forward to opening up other export markets by joining the WTO, China could guarantee more stable trade relations with other members including the U.S.” (p402). This was a great move in the liberalization of the Chinese market.

Western power’s economic domination has come under threat by Chinese command and continued growth that has created a decentralized system of geopolitical order, which is unnerving significant powers. The China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies argues of Chinese domination, stating, “Today, globalization led by the United States and other advanced economies is winding down, while China-fueled globalization, which is driven by emerging economies, has grown to be a compliment” (Steinbock, p514). With the sustained access to the global market through frameworks spelled by the WTO, China has been able to accumulate a lot of wealth. In the process, like the western countries in the course of the 20^th century, the 21^st-century wealth in China has given the Chinese government a lot of sway in regard to global geopolitical organization, made it an economic powerhouse ranking only second to the United States of America and allow the government to chart forward a working framework for an all society inclusive upward social mobility. However, China is not ranked as a developed country like most of its current trading rivals. With a considerable population of China and its current designation of developing status, China has a long way to go. Additionally, unlike most western countries, China has been able to achieve economic supremacy through a communist political system and under a socialist organization. Hong identifies that western countries, despite the remarkable Chinese growth, remain primarily skeptical of China viewing its political system to be very unpredictable and uncertain to be trustworthy and supportive of their interest in the long term (National Committee of US-China Relations). Additionally, the preexisting conditions made China’s growth pattern unique and distinctly dissimilar from the western economist and political scientists, which was mainly regarded to be traditionally capitalist and democratic.

These raises important questions as to what the future holds. This uncertain and very unpredictable nature of economic, social, and political organization becomes a key point of focus for the west considering that China has also become the main point of focus for primary manufactured goods and essential services across the world. The political organization in China has also become a critical region of concentration since it plays a vital role in the overall Chinese trade organization. The Chinese government maintains a significant stake in companies that serve sovereign governments, especially within the technology sector. This, among many other aspects, has been a critical issue of contention between China and other countries as more and more states seek to protect their internal markets against being flooded by the cheap and increasingly growing Chinese products and services. Consequently, in 2018, a disagreement on fair and unfair trade practices ensued between the USA under the administration of President Trump focused on China’s exports inadvertently targeting Chinese political party and governments that maintain a major stake in most of the industrial entities and trade systems that are Chinese owned. South China Morning Post identifies that the current Sino-US trade war kicked off on July 6th, 2018 after President Trump placed tariffs of a portion of Chinese exports to America stating that “U.S. places 25 percent duties on around US$34 billion of imports from China, including cars, hard disks, and aircraft parts. China retaliates by imposing a 25 percent tariff on 545 goods originating from the U.S. worth US$34 billion, including agricultural products, automobiles, and aquatic products.” China deemed this measure untenable and placed its restrictions on American goods, and from here on, it has been a tit for tat game one country placing tariffs and the other placing restrictions to counter the measures.

Donald Trump justified his actions citing the more significant trade deficit that was in favor of China, showing that China was gaining more from trade with America at the expense of American manufacturers. According to South China Morning Post, “U.S. President Donald Trump promised during his 2016 presidential campaign to reduce the large trade deficit with China, which he claimed was based in large part on unfair Chinese trading practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, lack of market access for American companies in China and an unlevel playing field caused by Beijing’s subsidies for favored Chinese companies.”  The populist standpoint allowed Trump to gain a sustained point of argument in favor of most American companies and the American population. The American point of view justified their evidence citing lost jobs, lost money, and increasingly invasive Chinese state that ultimately justified his measures.

The Chinese government has a unique decision-making process that heavily contrasts their western counterparts. Arguably the Chinese government is heavily centralized and maintains a considerable number of delegates within the CCP- the main party which plays the only and the primary role in the decision making the process of the country through its annual meetings. There are however, many dissenting views that have emerged from the party in recent months since the start of the Sino-US trade war as to the role of the Americans exactly and the purpose of reaching a trade deal. Due to the political nature of the trade war, factions within the CCP emerge with many of the people divided on whether a prolonged conflict with the U.S. or a swift end to it will be the best cause of action. The argument mainly stems around the effectiveness of the deal and the intention of the various American administrations that is increasingly viewed as untrustworthy by factions of the Chinese policymakers and commentators. With the heavy control of information within China, the majority of these opinions are viewed to be conflict within the CCP. The South China Morning Post identifies that “China is a Leninist state led by a vanguard party that insists on absolute control over every aspect of state and society. Control is the primary value to which all other considerations are subordinate” (Kausikan). As such, the majority of the opinions made are by members of the CCP who meet on various occasions annually to build and create policies for the state. They are deemed to hold broader implications within the decision-making process. The experts play multiple roles in advising the government. They are members of the CCP, too, and are considered to be important in party plenum that sees the highest organ authorities involved in the decision-making process in China at the annual meetings gather and make a decision. Sheng Hong, a university professor and a leading economist in China argued against the Chinese policy criticizing the Chinese path of economic success as the reason for the Sino-US trade war today. This saw him relieved of his duty as a professor and barred from leaving China to join Harvard university (Gan). Showing that the Chinese government did not really tolerate dissenting opinion.

So what are the various points of view that dominate the Chinese perspective of the Sino-US trade war? Feng and Cheng identify that within the CCP, there are people who hold the belief that the Americans cannot be trusted and making a long term deal with them will be fruitless in the long term. Key commentators such as “China’s Vice Premier Liu He, its lead trade negotiator, said, “China is willing to resolve its trade dispute with the United States through calm negotiations and resolutely opposes the escalation of the conflict” (Feng and Cheng). So far, this appears to be the official resolve for China’s main party. Wang, an advisor to the government, holds the opinion that China in its bid to open up more and ensure economic domination needs to make a quick deal fast with the U.S. and halt the Sino-US trade deal at its start before it becomes worse (Feng and Cheng). However, President Trump, who initially agreed with this statement, walked backed on them, further derailing talks on a deal and forcing other perspectives within the party to be embodied to seek an alternative measure. Ruan Zongze, a member of the CCP and the vice president at the China Institute of International Studies, which is run by the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs, stated that in regard to America,  “There is no bottom line. And anytime you set up a bottom line, it all can very easily be broken” (Feng and Cheng). Identifying further that the willingness to resolve the conflict in the soonest time possible is slowly disappearing as America cannot stand by its word. Zongze stated that “Many in China will say, ‘If we make a deal, could this deal really work, or work for how long?’ Trust is disappearing” (Feng and Cheng). This is a statement that was echoed by other parties within China from economists to military leaders who became more radical in the measures they sought to put forth.

One of the measures suggested is a protracted guerilla tactic warfare but with trade a philosophy that was widely used by Mao Zedong during the revolution in China. Dai Xu, a senior colonel in the Chinese air-force, identified in a political meeting that “Today, China is fighting two wars on one battlefield with the U.S. — a composite of economic and military conflicts…Trump will first take China’s money and then take our lives,” Dai wrote in a commentary in January” (Feng and Cheng). He suggested that a prolonged war will work great to sustain pressure on the U.S. and show the Americans Chinese dominance by seeking to outlast its rivals in the trade war so as to be the winner. Shen Yi, a professor at the Fudan University, wrote on a state-sanctioned newspaper that it was not about who will win the war or who will be able to hold out longer due to technological innovations but who will be able to bear the damages better through the cause of the war will be the ultimate winner in the trade war (Feng and Cheng). On the contrary, some of the commentators suggested a more submissive attitude. Jin Canrong, a dean at Renmin University, identified that America is still the strong one in the war as such Chinese government should pursue better relations at the moment and not retaliate he stated that “If the trade war has been fought for a long time and the mid-to-high-end supply chains leave China, that would greatly damage the potential of China’s future development,”(Feng and Cheng). This becomes the major issue that the following literature review of academic journals seeks to tackle. The literature review seeks to present the general overview of the Chinese government and social perspective that dominates policymaking in order to consider the true implication of the Sino-US trade war.

China has continually attained more economic might that, in part, makes its officials believe that they have more power to exert more influence. This sees them adopt the view that they no longer have to become passive to what they consider western aggression on its economic ambitions. At the same time, China has now become a threat to Western domination of the world’s political system through its economic rise, and the majority of the commentators in China believe that they can counter western aggression head-on. Its economic power has always determined Chinese resolve to various trade wars across its history against its adversaries. A section of economic, academic, and military analysts holds the belief that the trade dispute being witnessed against China today is due to its economic rise and the strength that it has attained, making more and more nations in the west very skeptical. In the document Understanding China-US Trade War: Causes, Economic Impact, and the Worst-Case Scenario speculators suggest that “As China’s responses to trade disputes are contingent on its economic strength” (Tei-Leung and Li, p9). While previous China-US trade conflicts may not offer any references to this claim, these two researchers cite that 1990s IPR related trade wars that dominated the US-China relations. In 1991, when China began to develop, the U.S. pursued a variety of cases and restrictions backed by the E.U. and other states to bar China from access to the free market due to weak intellectual property laws. Tei-Leung and Li identify that “Despite the fact that the U.S. initiated five ‘Section 301 investigations’ against China, all of them were resolved via negotiation. However, China’s responses to ‘Section 301 investigations’ were in part determined by its economic strength” (p8). In 2001 after China was admitted into the WTO, its economic output, which was considerably much allowed to pursue a more resistant approach. As such, there becomes a deep-held belief within the Chinese government that they can resolve the conflict by pursuing measures that seek to counter dominant American forces head-on. In the article, Chinese Economist Barred from Going to the U.S. on ‘national Security’ Grounds by Nectar Gan, Sheng Hong who was earlier mentioned identified that the Chinese path to success which Xi Jinping outlaid for his presidency alienates the world and Chinese population as a whole as it seeks to compel a constant state of conflict in ideology. Sheng Hong further states that “This trade war is not between China and the U.S…It’s a war between China’s most powerful political interest group on one side, while the U.S. and the people of China are on the other” (Gan). Tei-Leung and Li’s critical evaluation shows the argument from a dominant oppositional force that is slowly manifesting in China.

In the article Never Mind the Trade War, This Is How China and the U.S. Can Both Get What They Want by Andrew Leung, he adopts similar non-pacifist approaches in tackling the Sino-US trade war. Lueng identifies that China is not really out of ammunition to play like the world thinks (p1). While the U.S. takes in more Chinese goods than China, as of 2018 500 billion dollars in goods from China as opposed to 150 billion dollars intake from China, most analysts believe that China will cave into the pressure of the United States and become easily impacted by the pressures of the U.S. Leung identifies similar sentiments to those of general Dai Xu. He, however, suggests that in countering American aggression head-on, they should focus on the value that China provides the west. Leung identifies that China possesses some of the world’s largest mine and supply chain value systems for rare earth metals that are very important in manufacturing sectors across the United States. This is to the tune of nearly 90% of the global chain supply (Leung p1). As such, by blocking and restricting its exports to control and limit the western nation’s value chain, they might just get the upper hand they seek to attain in the war. This mirrors Shey Yi’s approach, who earlier on in this paper is identified to state that the nation that holds out better in the face of damage, is the one most likely to come out on top. In this regard, Andrew Leung, like the majority of the people opposing China reaching out for a deal, identifies that it would be better to identify China’s offering and to seek to control that so as to bring the United States to the talking table. Just as Colonel Dai Xu earlier pointed out, the first person to the table seeking a truce will be the loser as he focuses on Mao Zedong’s guerilla tactics of handling a protracted war (Feng and Cheng). Additionally, most Chinese commentators who argue against taking the shortest deal with America argue that America constantly pursues an aggressive attitude and a flawed argument. Stating that while China exports more to America than America gains from it, America maintains a large treasury reserve in other countries. Leung cites that it is to the tune of 1.2 trillion dollars, giving the suggestion that for China to gain a dominant position in the war and hold out longer, “China may well decrease its holdings gradually. Other investors can initially offset much of the slack, but in an era of rising interest rates, this redress may be limited, putting pressure on the U.S. economy.” Simply put, Leung’s argument suggests that China has a wider range of options to pursue as much as most of the actors and observers may see it as the loser in the Sino-US Trade war.

In the Beijing Review, an article titled Trade War Debate sees various important Chinese economists voice out their view that the United States should not be trusted. Sheng Hong’s argument earlier on in this paper identified that the Chinese path that Xi Jinping adopted was ultimately alienating from other countries of the world in which China shares an ecosystem within favor of the party. Sheng Hong doubled down and suggested a very radical view that the Chinese path was alienating the world and Chinese people all together in favor of the CCP agenda and freedom of the Chinese people. Additionally, Gan identifies that during the 18^th Plenum, members of the CCP arrived at the solution that suggested that Chinese policy making protocols will be dictated by the market, but the Chinese path alienates the market and seeks to adopt policies dictated by the interest of the CCP. Why is this important in viewing the Chinese debaters? In the Beijing Review, Lu Xiang, Zhu Feng, Diao Daming, and Li Yong fault faction within the Chinese making committee for being complacent with the view that the Chinese path is detrimental to the Chinese people and the world simply because America is pursuing a similar policy. In the article, they cite that since the 2016 U.S. election Donald Trump has made America untrustworthy and selfish by adopting radical “America first” policy at the expense of all other countries. Li Yong identifies that “China is imposing strong countermeasures on the continued unilateralism of the U.S. while restating its position of being fully against a trade war” (p31). The argument goes beyond the immediate matters that prompted the trade war to decades of American entitlement into world affairs due to its position at the end of World War II.

Lu Xiang suggests that at the end of the second world war, America took advantage of the rest of the world, which was under considerable chaos and instituted measures that favor its growth. Xiang identifies that “The existing world economic order was set up after World War II with the U.S. as the leading force. The WTO is an essential cornerstone of that order.” In it, they suggest that America’s resolve to adopt a neo-isolationist policy with Trump becomes a threat to the entire world as it seeks to destroy decades of social, political, and economic organization to become a very unpredictable partner in the world. This compels China and dependent on the previous order to seek newer measures with regards to its economic system. Herein lies the reason why China should not seek to compromise its values in favor of American interest as it has essentially become an unpredictable partner. Conclusively Zhu Feng argues that “The Trump administration’s brutality and toughness in launching the trade war have challenged the world order in a way hitherto unseen. The EU, Canada, and Mexico were also on the United States’ retaliation list. It is time for the world’s major economies to strengthen cooperation and jointly stand up to Trump’s “America Alone” strategy.” Suggesting that they are part of decades-long harassment by irrational American policies on trade for its benefit. Is this the case? Is America not justified to seek a fair trade deal with China when there is evidence of clear gaps in the trade deficit in favor of China?

Further, voices to support China’s growth and economic dominance can be seen in the article Debunking Fallacies About China’s IPR Practices by Zhang Hui. In it, he argues that America, in its case, continually views the Chinese company’s growth and tremendous economic and technological advancement as a result of economic espionage and unregulated IPR sector. Hui identifies that China is a growing I.P. power that has been able to gain and continually leads the world today in technology sectors. The American accusation is self-centered, discriminatory, and isolationist. Hui suggests that “After all, the Chinese market grows more compelling by the day, drawing more and more companies into the discussion, and China does change… As many Chinese companies intend to venture globally and high-tech innovation-centric activities” (p18). Identifying that America’s accusation is baseless as Chinese people to seek similar protection in their global expansion plan.

The world trade organization today is too interconnected to create a clear winner in the event of a trade war. Chinese commentators argue that pursuing a protracted war with America will not only affect the United States of China but work to undermine the efforts made so far in achieving seamless global trade. Hui identifies this and states that “economic globalization is an irreversible trend, and the majority of the international community values the multilateral trading system. A trade war will do nobody any good” (p19). This ultimately identifies Trump’s approach of “America First” as heavily flawed and very unstable. In the article Reinforced Comprehensive Constructive Engagement for US-China trade by Jiang, Zhaokang identifies that there is a need for greater consultation to be established between the two nations in order for them to emphasize the importance of mutual trust and understanding between the two governments and people for global development. Zhaokang identifies a cold war mentality that dominates the Chinese and American trade sector and policymaking system, which works to create channels of conflict. Here limited information and mutual distrust dominate policymaking. This has ultimately brought about the Sino-US Trade war. Zhaokang identifies that in order to curb further conflict, it will be important to maintain long term frameworks that support the rule of law, create spaces that accommodate good governance, create constitutional democracy, and a broader and strategic dialogue mechanism. All this will work to bypass partisanship in the U.S. and CCP infightings in China that may hinder rationality.

Trump’s motivation is based on promises he made to his support based out of the sheer need for power. Being a populist leader in one of the most developed economies that also happens to be the largest economy in the world, America is bound to dictate the majority of the trade war. This will not be in favor of China. China, on the other hand, as a Leninist state, has the power to control the course of action to its favor; however, unsavory, it might be to the west. This can be seen through the historical great leap forward where the country sacrificed the majority of its people’s well-being to achieve economic targets. China maintains similar views as expressed in its political system, where the state continually controls all aspects of Chinese society and seeks to maintain a unique Chinese path for growth. On the one hand, this method is achieving results as the Chinese economy has managed to grow and continually dictate more power within the world trade organization, an organization that has only been a member for approximately two decades. One of the important questions raised in this literature review is whether China can be able to perform and maintain dominance in a long term trade war or should it take the easy way out. I would tend to agree with Sheng Hong, who suggests that it is too early for China to take a China-first policy. This is because the Chinese economy is still in its early stages of development, and while there has been a lot of traction with regard to its performance, its sheer size and market-oriented policies adopted when Deng Xiaoping was president still remains relevant today.

Additionally, China has not achieved developed economy status like European countries or USA as such; a trade war is likely to play a great role in limiting its role in the global trade arena as more countries will likely take the American side as it has more control of the world financial, economic system. China maintains control of the global supply chain. Still, at the same time, multiple emerging countries could substitute China in a long-term trade war, relegating it to developing status. The effects of such a scenario would be an all-out war or instability in the global supply chain for a period of time. America being a democracy and liberal state, means that at some point in the future, Trump will no longer be the president. In the prior review, it has been identified that Trump is very unstable, and as such more and more Chinese leaders are finding a deal hard to reach with America. Instead of charting down on the warpath, they should maintain the current tactic that seeks not to establish a long-term war with America and seek to arrive at the quickest deal possible. After which they should seek to establish working frameworks that see both sides compromise and create a system that limits political interference as this will work to sustain a long-term trade deal. As established in the above essay, America has been in the WTO since the second world war, and it has made large organizations and agreements with a variety of countries. Trump’s administration is a divergence in a long term practice, and America remains to be more trusted than China in the global geopolitical organization. Pursuing a path to sideline it will work to give China the negative effect of what they seek. In my opinion, America’s political system is established and predictable than the Chinese political system. I believe that the Chinese political system has been isolationist for nearly 200 years as opposed to America that has been neo-isolationist since 2016 with America’s first proclamation.

The Sino-US trade war is more than meets the eye. While it was provoked by the rise in a deficit of import-export between the U.S. and China, it is important to realize that it is an ideological trade war that has a variety of important sub-branches. Trade is just one of the more important levels of the war, as it was the initial sparking point. Other aspects that are sighted include American imperialism post world war II, American aggression of emerging economies in the world, and the most suitable political system in the world. These are just a few considerations, among many. China maintains a socialist political system that is heavily controlled by the state. In contrast, America maintains a liberal system that is controlled to a larger extent by the people through democracy. These present different ideologies in how international trade is run, as such presenting a very dynamic system of association between the various players. As such, very dangerous precedence is set with regard to the extent to which the conflict might decide to go, it may start as a trade war may end up differently.  The creation of long-term frameworks will be effective in dealing with the current trade war as it has the potential for destabilizing the global economic system.

Works Cited

Feng, and Cheng. “China’s Leaders Are Divided Over Trade War with U.S.” NPR.org, August 26th 2019, www.npr.org/2019/08/26/753145197/chinas-vice-premier-calls-for-calm-in-u-s-talks-hawks-want-a-war-of-attrition. Accessed April 22nd. 2020.

Gan, Nectar. “Chinese Economist Barred from Going to U.S. on ‘national Security’ Grounds.” South China Morning Post, November 5th 2018, www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2171808/unirule-economist-barred-leaving-china-harvard-event-national. Accessed April 24th. 2020.

Nany Hur. “Historical and Strategic Concern over the US-China Trade War: Will They Be within the WTO?” Journal of East Asia & International Law, vol. 11, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 393–411. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14330/jeail.2018.11.2.07.

Kausikan, Bilahari. “Xi Jinping, the Trade War and Hong Kong Are China’s Black Swans.” South China Morning Post, February 21st. 2020, www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3051661/coronavirus-was-unexpected-xi-us-trade-war-and-hong-kong-are. Accessed April 19th. 2020.

Jiang, Zhaokang. “Reinforced Comprehensive Constructive Engagement for US-China Trade.” China Law & Practice (Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC), Feb. 2009, p. 38. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47424938&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

National Committee on U.S. China Relations. “Five Economists Explain: Impacts of the U.S.-China Trade War.” National Committee on United States – China Relations, 2019, www.ncuscr.org/media/podcast/uschinainsights/economists-explain-trade-war. Accessed April 24th. 2020.

Leung, Andrew. “Never Mind the Trade War, This Is How China and the U.S. Can Both Get What They Want: The U.S.’ Concerns about China Aren’t Just Shared by Other Countries, They Also Align with the Mainland’s Own Goals for Its Future.” ChinaUSFriendship.Com, no. 134, Sept. 2018, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132403246&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

South China Morning Post. “What is the US-China Trade War?” South China Morning Post, April 13th. 2020, www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3078745/what-us-china-trade-war-how-it-started-and-what-inside-phase. Accessed April 24th. 2020.

Steinbock, Dan. “U.S.-China Trade War and Its Global Impacts.” China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, vol. 04, no. 04, 2018, pp. 515-542, doi:10.1142/s2377740018500318.

Tai-leung, Terence C., and Xiaoyang Li. “Understanding China-US Trade War: Causes, Economic Impact, and the Worst-Case Scenario.” Institute of Global Economics and Finance, 2019, www.igef.cuhk.edu.hk/igef_media/working-paper/IGEF/igef%20working%20paper%20no.%2071%20english%20version.pdf. Accessed April 24th. 2020.

“Trade War Debate.” Beijing Review, vol. 61, no. 26, June 2018, pp. 30–31. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130349174&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

ZHANG HUI. “Debunking Fallacies About China’s IPR Practices.” China Today, vol. 67, no. 8, Aug. 2018, pp. 18–19. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130872597&site=ehost-live&scope=site.