Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday December 19, @09:04AM   Printer-friendly

China officially files a trade dispute claim with the WTO against the US for export curbs on semiconductors- Technology News, Firstpost:

One of China's biggest trade groups has made the Chinese commerce ministry launch an official trade dispute at the World Trade Organization against the United States over its chip export control measures.

The US has passed a number of sweeping regulations and measures since October this year that is directly aimed at isolating China from the global semiconductor industry. These regulations include asking the Netherlands to ban certain companies from supplying Chinese manufacturers and companies from licenses and machinery that is required to manufacture silicon chips.

"China takes legal actions within the WTO framework as a necessary way to address our concerns and to defend our legitimate interests," read a statement released by China's diplomatic mission in Geneva on behalf of the Chinese commerce ministry. It also added that the curbs by the US "threatened the stability of the global industrial supply chains."

"We have received a request for consultations from the (People's Republic of China) related to certain U.S. actions affecting semiconductors," said Adam Hodge, spokesperson for US Trade Representative's office.

Also from China hits back at US chip sanctions with WTO dispute:

China has hit back against sweeping US export controls on chips, filing a dispute with the World Trade Organization and escalating the tech war between the two countries.

China's commerce ministry said on Monday its WTO complaint was a legal and necessary measure to defend its "legitimate rights and interests," after the US Department of Commerce introduced sanctions in early October to make it harder for China to buy or develop advanced semiconductors.

[...] The export controls were aimed at hampering China's ability to use high-end US technology for military applications such as nuclear warhead modeling and hypersonic weapons production.

The measures prevent US companies from exporting technology to Chinese groups engaged in producing high-end chips in almost every modern device, including the latest electric vehicles, smartphones, and artificial intelligence.

[...] The US has also been negotiating with Japan and the Netherlands on an export controls agreement that would see the countries bar their companies from selling chipmaking tools for advanced Chinese semiconductors. The White House national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said on Monday that the US had been talking to its partners about a "broad alignment" on China.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday December 19, @12:55PM (8 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Monday December 19, @12:55PM (#1283142)

    The US deliberately withholds appointing a representative to the appeal body so all the WTO rulings regarding US-China get stuck. It's been like that for years and China already accumulated multiple (symbolic/de-facto) victories with the one regarding the steel tariffs being the most recent one: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wto-rules-against-u-s-tariffs-on-imported-steel-aluminum-11670611598 [wsj.com]

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 19, @06:49PM (7 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 19, @06:49PM (#1283199) Journal
      Even so, it's pressure on the US. And the US relies on the WTO for pressuring China too. Breaking the WTO tool for China will eventually break it for the US too.
      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday December 20, @02:37AM (6 children)

        by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday December 20, @02:37AM (#1283256)

        The problem is that there's two dozen American corporate welfare subsidies and tariffs for every Chinese public welfare and infrastructure subsidy so the US has more to lose than to gain. So, breaking the WTO in this front is precisely what the US wants.

        --
        compiling...
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20, @07:15AM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 20, @07:15AM (#1283291) Journal

          The problem is that there's two dozen American corporate welfare subsidies and tariffs for every Chinese public welfare and infrastructure subsidy so the US has more to lose than to gain.

          I doubt anyone has done a count. And in a place like China, there's probably lots of things that are subsidies and tariffs that weren't ever meant to be such.

          • (Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday December 20, @07:59AM (1 child)

            by legont (4179) on Tuesday December 20, @07:59AM (#1283295)

            Let's not forget that Russia is also WTO member and all the sanctions against Russia would fall if taken to WTO.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday December 20, @05:33PM

              by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday December 20, @05:33PM (#1283366)

              While there's a dispute whether The WTO's security exception applies to Dutch fabrication tech being exported to China or not per US export rules, there's no such dispute when it comes to the Russian sanctions. If there was, the WTO member could simply vote to kick out Russia out of the WTO until they end the war.

              --
              compiling...
          • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday December 20, @05:10PM (2 children)

            by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday December 20, @05:10PM (#1283362)

            I doubt anyone has done a count...

            The WTO disputes do exactly that: Different countries count how their trade partners cheat and make complaints about it: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm [wto.org]

            e.g.

            China made 23 complaints, 17 of which were directed at the US, 1 against Australia and the rest against the EU. China generally got their way.
            The US made 124 complaints, 23 of which were against China. Only a couple of the complaints were resolved completely to the US's satisfaction with most of them being resolved with fairly minor policy and law changes.

            More revealing is when counting them cases as respondents: China was complained about in 49 cases while the US was complained about in 157 cases. Remove the China-vs-US factor and that's only 26 complaints against China vs. 140 complaints against the US. Go in a little deeper into those 26 complaints and you'll find they're mostly coordinated US-EU complaints that typically end up in the same minor policy and law changes.

            So, over time, the outcome is counted and not in the US's favor.

            And in a place like China, there's probably lots of things that are subsidies and tariffs that weren't ever meant to be such.

            About half of the complaints against China detail measures involving forms of regulatory capture and contract rigging that end up favoring Chinese products over foreign imports. However, there's a greater absolute number of similar complaints against the US and they come from all over world.

            --
            compiling...
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20, @11:59PM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 20, @11:59PM (#1283418) Journal

              So, over time, the outcome is counted and not in the US's favor.

              So what was that count again? It doesn't sound like you're counting like versus like, for example.

              Remove the China-vs-US factor and that's only 26 complaints against China vs. 140 complaints against the US. Go in a little deeper into those 26 complaints and you'll find they're mostly coordinated US-EU complaints that typically end up in the same minor policy and law changes.

              You didn't "go in a little deeper" on the US-side complaints, for example.

              • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday December 21, @01:33AM

                by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday December 21, @01:33AM (#1283434)

                It doesn't sound like you're counting like versus like

                140 / 26 = 5.38 is the half-dozen figure I had in mind.

                You didn't "go in a little deeper" on the US-side complaints

                The very fact the non-China complaints against the US are so numerous compared to the non-US complaints against China and how diverse they are as they touch on multiple industries and tariffs is a clear indication US corporate welfare and protectionism stands out. Besides, the way the US is the one shin-kicking the Appellate Body under both Trump and Biden while China, the EU and the rest of the grown-ups make due with the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration shows there's a bipartisan lack of willingness to comply with the treaties. And, when I see both parties agree on something, I see pork.

                Btw, I did actually read a few of those cases and the extremes do support my point (like, the "authorize to retaliate" DS437 [wto.org] & DS471 [wto.org] vs. DS511 [wto.org] demonstrate the kind of subsidies China and the US have )... But since I'm no expert I figured it's best to stick to the rough numbers from before since they represent the global attitude as opposed to my personal opinion.

                --
                compiling...
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, @01:25PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, @01:25PM (#1283143)

    I'll start taking their complaints seriously when China agrees to scrap their "developing nation" status at the WTO, which gives baseline more favourable rules and rates (eg. for subsidies and shipping) than "developed" nations get, so they start competing on a level playing field with their economic peers.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 19, @03:39PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 19, @03:39PM (#1283154) Journal

      You say that, but 1/2 their population is living it up like it's 1899. The government likes it that way, too. Less informed people == Easier to control.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, @11:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, @11:47PM (#1283240)

        Nuh-uh! China eradicated poverty two years ago. The government declared it so it must be true.

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday December 19, @06:03PM (1 child)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Monday December 19, @06:03PM (#1283184)

    Can't China just get the semiconductors it needs from TSMC in, er, "east China"? Or if that's not the issue, couldn't they fight back and stop exporting cheap finished electronics back to the US for a little while? This seems like it could backfire pretty spectacularly.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, @11:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, @11:54PM (#1283243)

      The last thing China wants is to provoke a full-on trade war. The majority of their economy runs on exports and foreign investment, and they couldn't feed their population without food imports.

  • (Score: 1) by dwilson98052 on Monday December 19, @06:29PM

    by dwilson98052 (17613) on Monday December 19, @06:29PM (#1283191)

    ...China just steals/copies whatever they want anyway.

(1)