U.S. economic policy toward China in the economic and non-economic means
美國對華經濟政策中的經濟和非經濟手段

[Abstract] U.S. Economic Policy toward China, including not only the use of import restrictions, export expansion and exchange rates, including the economic weapon, also uses a large number of non-economic means: politicize trade issues; issues such as the trade deficit and the exchange rate on the Grafting , China as a scapegoat for America's own economic problems; requires China to global economic balance and the economic hegemony of the united states to assume greater responsibility; discredit china's economic development mode. United States not only through the realist perspective on economic and trade relations with China, emphasizing the relative gains, but also to the current international system builder's identity, make full use of system privileges granted and the strong words, from their own interests on China's behavior. ' norms. '
摘要：美國在對華經濟政策中不僅動用了包括進口限制、出口擴張和匯率在內的經濟武器,還使用了眾多的非經濟手段:經貿問題政治化;在貿易逆差和匯率等問題上移花接木,把中國作為美國自身經濟問題的替罪羊;要求中國為全球經濟平衡和美國的經濟霸權承擔更大責任;詆毀中國的經濟發展模式等。美國不僅透過現實主義的視角審視對華經貿關系,強調相對收益,而且還以現行國際體系構建者的身份,充分利用體系賦予的特權和強勢話語,從自身的利益出發對中國的行為進行"規范"。

[Keywords]: U.S. China Economic Policy; non-economic means; system privilege; exchange rate protectionism; politicize trade issues;
【關鍵詞】： 美國對華經濟政策；非經濟手段；體系特權；匯率保護主義；經貿問題政治化；

Since the end of World War II, the United States has been at the core of the world economy, for his country's economic development and its possible impact on the U.S. position very sensitive and alert. China since reform and opening to create a sustained and rapid economic development miracle, thus causing particular concern of the United States, became the focus of foreign economic policy. The United States is not only worried about the rise of China's economy will challenge its economic hegemony, but also worried about China's development model would undermine the 'Washington Consensus' in the world appeal. To address these concerns, the United States adopted a series of policy mix, economic instruments and non-economic means have been the greatest degree of utilization. This paper intends to U.S. Economic and trade policies toward China in the economic and non-economic means to sort out and explained, and the main reason for the U.S. policy mix for analysis and interpretation.
二戰結束以來,美國一直處于世界經濟體系的核心地位,對于他國經濟的發展及其可能對美國地位產生的影響甚為敏感和警覺。中國自改革開放以來創造出了經濟持續高速發展的奇跡,因此引起了美國的特別關注,成為美國對外經濟政策的焦點之一。美方不僅擔心中國經濟上的崛起會挑戰其經濟霸主地位，還擔心中國的發展模式會損害“華盛頓共識”在世界上的號召力。為了消除這些憂慮，美國采取了一系列對華政策組合，充分利用經濟與非經濟手段。本文擬對美國對華經貿政策中經濟和非經濟手段進行梳理和闡述，并對美方政策主要原因進行分析和解讀。#p#分頁標題#e#
After the normalization of Sino-US relations of economic instruments, U.S. Strategy towards China in the economic field includes not only traditional Trade Protectionism --- import restrictions and export expansion, but also began to emerge in the 1970s 'exchange rate protectionism', repeatedly asked rmb appreciation.
Traditional trade protectionism, China-US diplomatic relations were established, as the Cold War against the Soviet Union's security needs, coupled with China-US economic and trade relations is still in its infancy, the United States on trade issues with China to encourage and support the overall openness. Shortly after the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, namely the United States to give China most favored nation status is reflected in the bilateral trade volume between the two countries from 1978 to $ 1,114,600,000 in 1980, quickly rose to $ 4,812,700,000, an increase of more than 4 times ( Table 1). American scholar Nancy Tucker (NancyBernkopf Tucker) a good summary of this period the overall U.S. trade policies toward China features: '(American) common Strategy against the Soviet Union plans to procure from Nixon to George Bush during the U.S. government China to make compromises, intricate triangular political relations between the two countries to promote the growth of trade and cultural ties. '[1]
But even in this period, Chinese exports to the U.S. as part of the product of the rapid growth of trade protectionism in the United States now wield the big stick. A famous case occurred in 1982-1983 years. In the two countries signed a second process of Textile trade agreement, the United States to demand that China's textile exports to the U.S. growth rate can not exceed 1% of the Chinese textiles strict import restrictions, which ignited the first between the United States times trade war. [2] a serious setback in the growth of bilateral trade, bilateral trade increased from $ 5.468 billion in 1981 decreased to $ 5,195,800,000 in 1982 and 1983 of $ 4,420,200,000 (Table 1). After the 1980s, with the rapid expansion of bilateral economic and trade relations, the United States repeatedly utilized by means of various products from China to limit.
From the latter half of the 1980s, as China applied to join the GATT, U.S. trade policy has added a new tool --- export expansion, demand that China open its domestic market to U.S. products. China and the U.S. on this issue between the first major clash occurred in 1992-1993, the United States asked China to abolish such as import quotas, import licenses, the domestic Trade Barriers and other non-tariff barriers for U.S. products to enter the Chinese market clearing obstacles. August 1992, the United States unilaterally the conditions according to the U.S. demand that China immediately open the Chinese market, and for the total of $ 3.9 billion in retaliatory tariffs on Chinese products conscription issue the threat of sanctions, which led to China's countermeasures. [3] In 1993, the newly elected Clinton administration Youxiang Chinese government put forward the deadline for opening up the market, a new round of disputes with China canceled 283 kinds of products, import quotas and reduce tariffs on 234 kinds of products and end. [4]#p#分頁標題#e#
In the two governments on China's WTO accession negotiations, the United States is extremely harsh conditions proposed. Steven Cohen (StephenCohen) and others discussed nail on the head: '(United States) to grant China permanent MFN status, and support China's WTO accession is not a real good thing to help China, and its essence is from the rising economic power in the hands to grab as much as possible many compromises, forcing it to maximize the open market. '[5] in the final of China's WTO accession by the United States signed a bilateral agreement, the U.S. trade protectionism two traditional razor --- import restrictions and export expansion --- all been fully reflected. Expansion of exports, China is not only agree to a substantial reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, but also agreed to open the domestic market, in addition to outside of agriculture and industry, including as telecommunications, finance, insurance and Asset Management services in many important areas allowing foreign capital to enter. In the import restrictions, the United States forced the Chinese to accept the so-called 'super-WTO obligations' (WTO-plus commitments), does not recognize China's market economy status, which allows the United States in China export surge when a certain type of product to use 'safeguard clause' and ' special safeguard clause 'and other trade remedy measures. For the United States to force China to accept these 'super WTO obligations,' U.S. economist Nicholas Lardy (NicholasLardy) commented: 'These conditions ...... too harsh, has violated the basic principles of the WTO.' [6]
Chinese accession to the WTO, the United States to make full use of China's WTO concessions, import restrictions and export expansion in two hard-edged razor traditional protectionism. World Bank's 'Global Antidumping Database,' shows that the Bush administration took office eight years, the United States to China launched a total of 64 Anti-dumping investigations, the average annual 8. From 2009 to 2011, three years before the Obama administration came to power, the United States to China's anti-dumping cases remains high strength and high frequencies, has launched a total of 21, the average annual 7. The first quarter of 2012, the U.S. launched two Youxiang China anti-dumping investigation. [7] Meanwhile, the United States in the open Chinese market unrelenting, is already open to Chinese financial and insurance markets as the main target.
[8] With the exchange rate protectionism in China in 2001, successfully joined the World Trade Organization, China-US economic and trade relations have rapidly improved. At the same time, substantial growth of Sino-US trade has brought a prominent issue is the problem of trade imbalance between the two countries. Huge trade deficit with China for the United States the reasons many economists have discussed, mainly the United States, low savings and high consumption, [9] the context of globalization China as a global production network processing and assembly base status, [10] in US bilateral statistical differences, [11] U.S. export restrictions on high-tech products [12] as well as America's own economic restructuring and other reasons. However, the U.S. government and politicians looking for reasons not to comply with economic logic, but from the political needs, the U.S. trade deficit largely due to the rmb exchange rate.#p#分頁標題#e#
U.S. protectionist measures against China's exchange rate starting in 2003. Many U.S. politicians believe that China in order to promote exports and restrict imports, intentionally 'artificially' undervalued yuan; China on the exchange rate of the 'manipulation' is the huge U.S. trade deficit with China of the 'culprit.' Given this understanding, the United States considered the best way to reduce the trade deficit is forcing the RMB appreciation, thus increasing the pressure on the Chinese government. According to economist Gary Hufbauer (GaryC.Hufbauer) to incomplete statistics, from 2003 to 2006, the U.S. Congress proposed 23 bill on the RMB exchange rate and resolutions, or directly to the appreciation of the renminbi, or require China as a 'currency manipulator.' [13] grabbed the RMB exchange rate issue is best at a big fuss about MPs undoubtedly New York Senator Charles Schumer (Charles Schumer) and South Carolina State Senator Graham (LindseyGraham). Since 2003, they made jointly sponsored motion demanding yuan appreciation of 27.5% in the short term, otherwise retaliate with punitive tariffs. [14] In addition to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. administration has also repeatedly accused China's exchange rate policy. U.S. Treasury submitted to Congress every six months, 'the International Economic and exchange rate policy report,' every time that the value of the renminbi is too low, ask the Chinese government to revalue the yuan. In order to reduce the pressure of the United States, the Chinese government from July 1, 2005 began to adjust the exchange rate policy, the RMB has appreciated. As of March 2012, the appreciation rate has reached 24%. [15]
It is noteworthy that the yuan's appreciation has not brought a decline in the U.S. trade deficit with China. American scholars have found that with the continuous appreciation of Renminbi, U.S. exports to China did not show significant improvement in the U.S. trade deficit has been showing an increasing trend. [16] Faced with these findings, the exchange rate protectionist advocates should reflect on this, but their measures is accusing the magnitude of RMB appreciation is not enough to ask the Chinese government to further adjust its exchange rate policy. July 2008 'Financial Times' article pointed out that 'China's currency has appreciated reached only actually required between one third to half the level.' [17] Because of this ideological guidance, the United States has always been a large part of the value of the renminbi as the main reason for Sino-US trade imbalance. Therefore, the RMB exchange rate in recent years, the two sides have been a focus of economic and trade relations problems.

Non-economic means
In addition to the economic means, the U.S. trade and economic policy in order to safeguard their own interests but also uses a lot of non-economic means, including: politicizing economic and trade issues, hinder normal economic activity; issues such as the trade deficit and exchange rate the deceitful, China as a scapegoat for America's own economic problems; requires China to global economic balance and U.S. economic hegemony greater responsibility; discredit China's economic development represented by mode.#p#分頁標題#e#
Politicizing economic and trade issues after the Cold War, the original concept of national security has changed, economic security has increasingly become the focus of most of the countries considered, the result is in the process of economic policy-making has become more and more serious political tendency. As the leading post-war world political and Economic System of the U.S., the politicization of economic and trade issues than any other countries. American scholar I. M. Deisler in the 'American Trade Politics,' a book also made this point: In the so-called '1934 System', the U.S. executive agencies and legislative bodies, and there is a tacit understanding between the two parties, not the use of trade issues of political attacks. However, with Western Europe after World War II and the rise of the Japanese economy, this understanding from the 20th century, 70 years later began to shake, 'political' has become America's Foreign Trade policy-making process inevitably content. [18]
Whereas in recent years China's sustained economic development momentum, China will naturally become the victims of U.S. trade politics. According to Chinese studies scholar Wang Yong, the U.S. trade and economic policy in political practice has been almost covering the Sino-US bilateral economic and trade relations in all fields and topics, including Sino-US trade imbalance, the RMB exchange rate, China's export products In the United States, 'market economy' status, trade relief issues, export control issues and investment issues. U.S. trade this 'politicized' tendency not only damages the bilateral economic and trade cooperation, prevent normal economic exchanges, but also 'exacerbated the distrust between the two countries, limiting the economic interdependence between the two countries for political and security relations 'bonding' effect, hampering its 'positive' externalities play. '[19]
The United States will politicize economic and trade issues was undoubtedly the most famous example in 2005 CNOOC acquisition of Unocal case. CNOOC actually made in the U.S. oil company Unocal share after rival Chevron and U.S. domestic politicians immediately 'threat to national security' grounds for acquisition obstruct. A purely economic activity had been politicized. In the United States, under strong political pressure, CNOOC acquisition of the final exit, while Chevron places lower than the purchase price of CNOOC bid for Unocal. [20]
Scapegoating and politicizing economic and trade issues closely related to the United States on trade issues, and absolve shirk responsibility, scapegoating, the problems caused by the self-blame China. An obvious example is the U.S. trade imbalance to its political action.
As mentioned above, the huge U.S. trade deficit with China international payments imbalances and the root mainly in the United States itself high consumption and low savings behavior of the two countries in the context of globalization in the international division of labor in different position. Clearly, the United States really want to be responsible for the imbalance is that the United States itself, as Nicholas Christopher (Nicholas D.Kristof) put it, 'that distort International Capital flows, making the global economic instability not China, but the United States. '[21] However, for the U.S. domestic politicians to accept this economic reality does not meet their political interests. In their view, must seek other means, from a trading partner to find a cause.#p#分頁標題#e#
Since entering the 21st century China is a major source of the U.S. trade deficit, China became the largest natural scapegoat. Lampton (David Lampton) pointed out that politicians in the United States trade deficit against China on the issue of the two accused: 'Politicians are not economists, for them, the growing trade deficit with China triggered a 'fair trade' and concerns about job losses. '[22] in the politicians' interpretation, resulting in huge trade deficit with China culprit is China's unfair trade practices, rather than fair trade is an important manifestation is deliberately undervalued yuan. Therefore, it is easy to understand that the U.S. government has repeatedly accused the renminbi too low resulting in international Economic imbalances.
In fact, the United States proposed unfair trade and Employment loss allegations are not based on economics. For the implementation of China's unfair trade accusations, Nicholas Lardy pointed out, 'The U.S. trade deficit mainly reflects China's openness to Foreign Investment, rather than what unfair trade practices.' [23] Similarly, Hufbauer and others on the U.S. trade deficit with China led to the loss of American jobs to refute the allegations. 'Trade deficit is not a (U.S.) the main reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs. 2000 to 2003 was mainly due to the loss of manufacturing jobs manufacturing recession ...... and manufacturing productivity improvements would trade deficit equivalent to the loss of employment and political computing is not overly exaggerated his associates is completely wrong. '[24]
Need to explain is why the practice of the Chinese as a scapegoat though economically untenable, but the politicians are never bored? The answer is to do so can bring a double-edged sword of political benefits. On the one hand, the issue of trade imbalance by grafting, to blame China, the U.S. government realized absolve itself of liability purposes. U.S. trade deficit and the loss of manufacturing industry issues such as packaging, all the blame on China, help to reduce the U.S. government for the U.S. economy to adjust benefits for unemployed workers and retraining responsibility. On the other hand, once China has been identified as the main reason for the U.S. trade deficit, the U.S. trade protectionism in wielding the big stick when it reduces concerns can aggressive, requiring China to revalue the yuan, open markets, and when needed to launch anti-dumping, anti- subsidies and other trade remedy investigations.
Sharing of responsibilities in addition to absolve their responsibilities, the United States also actively encourage Chinese in the United States in times of difficulties to help the U.S. solve problems, shared responsibility. The most famous example of shared responsibility requires China before and after the 2008 US-China once popular 'two groups' concept. [25] This idea by former U.S. government officials, is now director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics Fred Bergsten (Fred Bergsten) first proposed, and has been historian Ferguson (Niall Ferguson), strategist cloth hot Tianjin Chomsky and Kissinger echoes and respected. Bergsten was first edited in 2005, 'The United States and the world economy,' a book thrown US 'two groups' was, [26] in 2008 and in the 'Foreign Affairs' magazine, wrote, a detailed explanation of his Sino-US 'two groups' concept, advocated 'build Sino Group, jointly at the helm of global governance process' in a way that China replaced the role of the European Union. [27] In the same period, the historian Ferguson also participated in the U.S. 'two groups' concept of development, to create a 'middle America' ??(Chimerica) The term used to describe the United States and China symbiosis between economic relationship. [28] the second half of 2008, after the outbreak of the financial crisis, China and the U.S. 'two groups' concept to receive more attention and respected, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Zoellick and Justin Yifu Lin, who also became involved in advocacy, and extended from the previous economic level to the strategic level, as means to alleviate the plight when the United States and abroad encountered an important means. [29]#p#分頁標題#e#
The United States in 2008 before and after the financial crisis in the United States put forward Sino-US 'two groups' concept is based mainly on the principles of pragmatism, designed to allow the economy is the rapid rise of China from the United States who took over more responsibility to help the United States to minimize the cost formed after the war to maintain the United States as the center of World Economic and political order. [30], not only in the U.S. this intention Bergsten, Brzezinski and Kissinger and others have a clear description of the article, and in 2009 official U.S. policy toward China has a clear argument in Performance. For example, in order to ensure the Chinese capital continued to flow in the U.S. financial crisis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited China in the first half of 2009 when both served as U.S. Treasury bonds salesman role to earnest tone asked China to continue buy U.S. Treasury bonds to the Chinese leaders that China's security assets in the United States. [31]
China's development model slander China's rapid economic development in recent years attracted the attention of the world, especially for those over the years in accordance with the prescriptions of Western countries develop their economies, but the effect is not ideal for developing countries, China's development path provides an important Inspiration. Therefore, the so-called 'Beijing Consensus' or discussion of China's development model in the world in the ascendant. However, developing countries on China's economic development concerns raised U.S. concerns.
In order to cope with the challenges of China's development model, the United States has taken on both sides to start countermeasures. On the one hand, the United States strive to uphold the 'Washington Consensus' legitimacy. In fact, the United States never a lack of U.S. development model for the kind words, from the beginning of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama (Francis Fukuyama) declared that 'end of history' [32] to the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States on behalf of the United States declared a 'national The only sustainable model of success ', [33] have shown that the height of the United States on its own Mode conceit. In addition, the United States has also seen the implementation of the same conceit own model. 2005 IMF released a related report of economic development in Latin America on the show out of the United States and its leading international organizations arrogance and conceit. Reports from the first to admit that since the 1990s accepted the 'Washington Consensus' economic prescriptions of economic development in Latin America lackluster performance, but the report concludes neoliberal program is not a problem, but in Latin America to accept the 'Washington Consensus 'The depth and breadth is not enough. [34] Thus, the U.S. effort to maintain the legitimacy of their own model, even at distorting the truth as the 'Washington Consensus' dogma escort.#p#分頁標題#e#
On the other hand, the United States also passed on from a discourse derogatory China's development model to deal with challenges. The first performance was blamed China's foreign trade in violation of the spirit of free trade, do not follow the rules, the implementation of the expense of others, selfish 'mercantilist' policy. The eighties and nineties was pushed for U.S. policy toward Japan. 'Revisionist school' Godfather of Chalmers Johnson (Chalmers Johnson) will then be applied directly against the Japanese in China accused the head: 'To some extent , trade with China, the problem is not a trade issue, but 'system friction' of a performance ...... China's development strategy borrows heavily from Japan and other Asian countries' experience, is one of the secret rules of capitalism modifications use rules to achieve national wealth and power. '[35] can say,' mercantilism 'label is affixed to the Chinese foreign economic policy in various fields. By the end of February 2012, the Washington think tank, 'Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,' released a report entitled 'Enough: Confronting China's innovation mercantilism,' the report said Chinese mercantilism scale implementation of 'unprecedented', accusing China the use of currency manipulation, subsidies, tariffs, mandatory technology transfer, export restrictions, standard setting and other policies to companies in various industries --- in particular areas of advanced technology products and services --- Get 'absolute advantage.' [36]
And 'mercantilism' defamation charges related to the performance of another discourse is to give China in developing countries, especially Africa's economic activity labeled as 'neo-colonialism' label. In early June 2011 Secretary of State Hillary East African countries during the visit, it is pointed out that China's cooperation with Africa is not in accordance with international standards, and warned African countries to guard against 'neo-colonialism.' [37] U.S. policy on China and Africa scorn epitomized in previous years during the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. U.S. tried to seize the moral high ground of international discourse, at derogatory China, will China portrayed as an oil interests in order to support the Sudanese government in Darfur implementation of 'genocide' of the country. [38]
In addition, the United States has spread everywhere, China's economic development has brought the world to the United States and the various 'threats' including 'employment threat' --- the influx of cheap Chinese products causing countries to the loss of local employment; 'health threats' --- China's inferior products endanger the health of foreign users; 'Energy threat' --- China to ignite the country's economic Engine will use fully the world's energy; [39] and 'environmental threat' or 'green menace' --- China's economic activity various global environmental problems is the 'Destroyer.'#p#分頁標題#e#

System builders privileges  系統集成商的特權

As can be seen, the United States in its economic policy toward China, including not only the use of import restrictions, export expansion and exchange rates, including the economic weapon, also uses a large number of non-economic means. From the system level visits, the United States' policy mix can be attributed primarily to two factors. First, the U.S. view of international economic relations, especially with other big countries economic relations mainly through the realist perspective, emphasizing the strength of the economic forces determine the role of the state, and more attention in the economic exchanges relative gains (relativegains). Neorealist theory guru Kenneth Waltz (KennethWaltz) discusses the material strength of a country's international status of the decisive role: 'a country's international status is usually supplied with the growth of its material resources to enhance. Has great economic strength of the country's national eventually became a power, whether they like it or not their own. '[41]
Because U.S. policy makers believe that economic relations between countries based on the strength of the most important and competitive part, they believe China's rise as economic power in the international system will become a powerhouse, so the rise of the Chinese economy will be seen as U.S. threat of economic status. Out of this understanding, the United States will naturally use various means to respond to this threat, the delay China's rise.
Second, the United States under the existing system of international relations in the central position of the United States not only took the decision to build and maintain the existing system of responsibility, but also have to build the identity of the dominant system in other countries, particularly the rise of great powers to suppress containment, shirk responsibility and privilege of discourse slander. Robert Gilpin (Robert Gilpin) pointed out that 'the international system in a large country in the construction of the international economy and the main purpose of the event rules play a leading role.' [42] as a superpower after World War II, the United States established a leading worldwide as the center of its world Economic System, the maintenance and expansion of this system to become U.S. foreign economic policy is an important goal.
Of course, when the United States in order to construct the identity of the planning system, its world Economic system, it is based on their own interests and preferences, guarantee system after the establishment of the United States to obtain benefits from the sustained and enjoy bonus system. In other words, when the system is established, the United States has become the system of privileges enjoyed by. [43] United States in the current international economic system privileged one important manifestation is the Dollar's status in the international reserve currency accepted everywhere. Into tangible benefit is that the United States is currently 'the only one able to use their money to pay all of its imported products country.' [44] Susan Strange (SusanStrange) had the privilege of the United States conducted a more thorough exposition: 'For most countries, the international balance of payments surplus or deficit demonstrated its strong position in the international financial weaker for the United States, the situation is just the opposite. Indeed, a quarter of a century, the U.S. economy has maintained a balance of payments deficit has not been any damage, which is not revealed by the weak position of the United States, but the United States in the system The strong power ...... the U.S. dollar can be issued without restraint, while other countries but there is no choice but to accept U.S. dollars, unless they are willing to bear the cost is difficult to accept. '[45]#p#分頁標題#e#
When China joined by the United States and other countries and leading international organizations constructed, the U.S. will be able to use their hands to set system privileges for these countries to join the organization conditions. When the United States in China's WTO accession has been able to put such harsh conditions and insisted it will not budge performance system builders privilege, embodied in the rule-making power. When China joined the system, the United States can continue to use its System Construction of China's position in the performance of other up, asking them to comply with rules of the system. Consistent with this is that the past two years President Obama's speech on several occasions to play the so-called 'rules' brand, repeatedly requested 'China must abide by the rules' in order to 'regulate' China's development. To this end, the Obama administration is also in February 2012 established a cross-sectoral trade law enforcement agencies, which seeks to China and other countries to carry out a so-called unfair trade practices investigation and enforcement to ensure compliance with international trade rules relevant countries.
Similarly, the United States to use the system privileges on the trade imbalance and other issues of political action to blame China and other countries. And when China's development model pose a challenge to the United States, the United States spent a system of hegemony conferred on the model of China derogatory and slander.

Epilogue  結語

To sum up, the face of China's rapid economic growth, the United States through a realistic perspective on economic and trade relations with China, concerned about relative gains, the economic rise of China have a strong guard. Manifested in the economic and trade relations with China, the U.S. exports of Chinese products and Chinese investment in the U.S. Vigilance, while sparing no effort to pry open the Chinese market, try to make the balance of interests of both inclined to itself. Meanwhile, the U.S. current international system to construct the identity of the full use of system privileges granted and the dominant discourse on China's behavior 'norms.' U.S. seems to system builders and the total helmsman itself, manipulating trade imbalance and other issues, to pass responsibility. And when the United States-led international system itself and its encounter difficulties, but also seize the opportunity to win over China to require China to take greater responsibility to make greater sacrifices. U.S. China economic and trade policies in the face of these policy mix, China should have a clear understanding and fully prepared. Especially with the further development of China's economy and further enhance the comprehensive national strength, U.S. economic and trade policies in a variety of means will present a more frequent use of more stringent trend. Of course, in addition to the U.S. economic pressure to prepare, the more important is that China needs to further improve the strength, and enhance the existing international system and create rule-making capability, and strive to improve their own international discourse capacity to trade and economic relations with the United States For more on the initiative.#p#分頁標題#e#