The trade war secures American interests legitimately

The argument

The argument begins from a claim about China's conduct. Proponents hold that China engages in unfair economic practices, and they sort them into kinds: practices that are illegal, such as theft of intellectual property; practices that are not illegal but unfair, such as demanding that foreign firms gift technology in exchange for market access, or artificially devaluing its currency; and intense competition. The distinction matters, because the first two categories are not things a competitor is entitled to do, and they are not answered by American firms simply competing harder. From there the case is about leverage. The trade war was a legitimate response to unfair economic practices because the U.S. is trying to get China to change, and since China will not change without pressure, the trade war will help America achieve its goal. Pressure has to be applied where it is felt. Tariffs supply it: they raise the cost of the arrangement China currently enjoys, and they give the United States something it can trade away. In order for China to negotiate an end to the trade war, it must agree to stop its unfair practices — which is what makes the tariffs a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Proponents add that the case does not depend on that end being reached. Even if this goal is not achieved, the trade war is still legitimate, because the United States has the right to defend its economy against unfair practices. The U.S. can't sit by and not do anything when its businesses are being harmed; declining to respond would concede the practices permanently and signal that they carry no cost. Tariffs are a way to help level the playing field for U.S. businesses, and it was important to try to stop China's unfair practices even if the U.S. doesn't get the result that it is hoping for. On this view the trade war is legitimate both as a strategy and, failing that, as a defence.

Context

President Trump claims that the trade war is a legitimate response to years of unfair Chinese economic practices. If one country doesn't play by the rules, then the rules shouldn't protect them.

Premises

Counter-arguments

China's economic practices are not sufficiently unfair to warrant retaliation. China has taken steps to reduce intellectual property thefts, as with the 2014 hacks cited in the main argument. More broadly, the mere fact that China employs economic strategies that are beneficial to itself does not imply that those practices are unfair. Also, the trade war was not the right form of retaliation. The bilateral approach of the trade war is inappropriate. There were alternative avenues for the U.S. to pursue, such as arbitration by international bodies like the World Trade Organization. Finally, the United States' self-interest is not the only relevant interest at play. The trade war causes harm to other economies beyond China's (an argument discussed elsewhere in this issue). The trade war resulting in harm to other countries renders it illegitimate.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] China's practices do not generally cross the threshold of 'unfairness'. [Rejecting P2] Even if China engages in unfair practices, unilateral action renders the trade war illegitimate.