China's premier tells EU leaders 'we can't afford' massive industrial subsidies
Speaking during a roundtable with EU chief Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday, Li insisted that "China is by no means doing what some call a subsidies policy or fiscal subsidies".
"China is not as rich as Europe, and we can't afford it," he said.
"We would not be stupid enough to use the fiscal funds accumulated through the government and the hard work of our people to sell our products to foreign consumers," Li added.
Von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa were in Beijing on Thursday for a summit dominated by tensions between the EU and China over trade and Russia's war in Ukraine.
Chief among the bloc's concerns was its yawning trade deficit with China, which stood at around $360 billion last year.
The EU has also raised fears that Beijing's vast subsidies to its industry could help it undercut European competitors with a flood of cheap exports to the continent.
Li, China's number two official, rejected those claims in a roundtable with the EU's leadership.
"Some enterprises, especially manufacturing enterprises, feel more deeply that China's manufacturing capabilities are too strong, and Chinese people are too hardworking," the Chinese premier said.
"Factories run 24 hours a day," he said.
"Some people think this will cause some new problems in the balance of supply and demand in world production," the Chinese premier said, admitting: "We see this problem too."
Li also rejected claims the Chinese economy -- plagued by sluggish growth for years now -- was in dire straits.
"Of course, there are difficulties and challenges, but it is difficult for us to say that China's economy is in a downturn," he said.
"Our GDP growth rate is always above five percent," he insisted.
ll-mjw-oho/je/tym
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Russia sanctions still expected Friday after Putin-Witkoff meeting: US official
A senior U.S. official said sanctions on Russia's key trading partners are still expected to go into effect on Friday, after President Trump's special mission envoy Steve Witkoff's Wednesday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump said Wednesday afternoon that Witkoff and Putin had a 'highly productive' meeting, claiming that 'great progress' was made. The senior official said the talks between Witkoff and Putin in Moscow, their fifth meeting since Trump came back into office, 'went well' and lasted about three hours. ' The Russians are eager to continue engaging with the United States. The secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday,' the official said on Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic talks. Trump said in mid-July that Russia could face 'severe' tariffs if it did not agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine within the next two months. The president said at the time he would slap a 100 percent 'secondary' tariff on countries that do business with the Kremlin, including buying Russian oil and gas. Trump shortened the deadline to Friday, adding he was unsure if the sanctions would deal a great blow to the Russian economy. 'I don't know that sanctions bother him [Putin]. You know? They know about sanctions. I know better than anybody about sanctions, and tariffs and everything else. I don't know if that has any effect. But we're going to do it,' Trump said on July 31. The president's Wednesday post about the Putin-Witkoff meeting did not mention sanctions or tariffs. 'Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,' the president wrote Wednesday. The president penned an executive order Wednesday increasing tariffs on India by 25 percent due to its purchases of Russian oil. The new import tax total is at 50 percent. The levy is set to go into effect in three weeks. 'They're buying Russian oil, they're fueling the war machine,' Trump said during a Tuesday interview with CNBC. India has pushed back, saying that buying Russian oil was a 'necessity' to stabilize energy costs in the country. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have spearheaded a major sanctions bill against Russia, garnering more than 85 co-sponsors in the Senate. The bill would institute a 500 percent tariff on imports from nations that buy Russian oil, gas and uranium. Senators left for the August recess without advancing the legislation. 'We propose in our bill 500 percent. If it's 250 percent, I could live with it. Even if it's 100 percent, possibly. But you ought to impose bone-crushing sanctions that will stop them from fueling Russia's war machine,' Blumenthal said last week. Putin's envoy for investment and economic cooperation, Kirill Dmitriev, said Witkoff's meeting with Russian officials was 'constructive,' adding the U.S.-Russia dialogue would continue and is 'critical for global security and peace.' 'Our side has forwarded some signals, in particular on the Ukrainian issue and corresponding signals were received from President Trump,' Putin's foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said after the meeting, according to Russian state media. Trump, who has long called for the nearly three-and-a-half-year war in Eastern Europe to end, has been expressing his frustration with Putin in recent weeks, demanding the Russian leader halt the attacks, often on civilian areas. Overnight, Russia's military struck a recreational center in the Zaporizhzhia region, where at least two people have been confirmed dead, according to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. 'No matter what the Kremlin says, they will only genuinely seek to end the war once they feel adequate pressure. And right now, it is very important to strengthen all the levers in the arsenal of the United States, Europe, and the G7 so that a ceasefire truly comes into effect immediately,' Zelensky, who talked to Trump on Tuesday, said on social media.
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump global trade deal energy export wins are at odds with domestic shipbuilding reality
The Trump administration is touting commitments by foreign nations for future large purchases of U.S. energy as part of recent trade deal frameworks, including with the EU, Indonesia, and South Korea, but a separate recent mandate from the U.S. Trade Representative to promote domestic shipbuilding may stand in the way of making those liquified natural gas shipments reality. The USTR policy mandates that 1% of U.S. LNG exports be carried on U.S.-flagged ships starting in April 2028, and a year later, 1% needs to be transported on U.S.-built ships. Subsequent annual increases of 1% would reach a total of 15% of U.S. LNG required to be on U.S.-built vessels by 2047. "The requirement of U.S.-built ships to move the country's LNG and crude is problematic," said Jason Feer, global head of business intelligence for Poten & Partners, a company specializing in energy market analysis and consulting, particularly in the LNG sector. The U.S. government's new shipbuilding policy was undertaken as part of an investigation into China's dominance in the shipbuilding industry, as part of the broader national security concerns of the U.S. government (the Biden administration was pursuing the issue as well and released a report in January 2025 stating its recommendations). China manufactures as much as 75%-80% of global freight fleets. In April, Trump announced in the new USTR policy to rebuild America's shipbuilding industry. On Capitol Hill, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-8), and Representative Trent Kelly (R-MS-1) introduced the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act to close the gap with international builders through a series of programs. There is only one U.S.-flagged LNG vessel currently operating, Crowley's American Energy, but it was made in France in 1994 and began service in March 2025 to carry LNG from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Puerto Rico. It is a Jones Act vessel, which means that based on the 1920 maritime commerce law covering shipments between U.S. ports, it needs to be staffed by a U.S. captain and crew, and registered in the U.S., to be U.S.-flagged. The current number of LNG carriers operating globally is 682, according to Poten & Partners. Only one of those vessels, the LNG Aquarius, was built by the United States. The LNG Aquarius was ordered on July 1, 1974 and delivered by General Dynamics on June 7, 1977. The vessel currently sails under the Indonesian flag, based on MarineTraffic vessel information. By 2047, Poten & Partner estimates the U.S. would need 45 vessels to move the 15% of LNG required by the USTR guidelines. Currently, there is only one U.S. vessel on the global order books out of a total of 331 planned vessels, Feer said. On paper, he added, the number of LNG vessels on the order books "looks good" to support a U.S. energy export expansion. But under the new USTR guidelines, these vessels would not be eligible. Hanwha Shipping, a U.S. subsidiary of South Korea's Hanwha Ocean, is now building a domestic liquefied natural gas carrier through its affiliate, Hanwha Philly Shipyard. This vessel will be the first U.S.-ordered, export market-viable LNG carrier in almost 50 years. A second possible LNG vessel could also be ordered. Based on the history of LNG shipbuilding, it takes approximately two-and-a-half years for an LNG vessel to be built. "Globally, you can build a lot of ships to support an expansion, but the problem it has to be built in a U.S. shipyard, and the U.S. has not built a commercial ocean-going vessel in decades," said Feer. "In that time, we have lost a lot of shipbuilding capacity, and the yards we have open are used for building Jones Act domestic ships and the Navy." Another hurdle, Feer said, is the constraints in hiring skilled labor. "There are not enough craft workers — pipefitters, carpenters, welders. Trying to build all of this, on top of a set deadline, is going to be a huge challenge," he said. The costs associated with that skilled labor will also be a factor. It costs around $260 million to build an LNG vessel, according to industry estimates. A U.S.-made vessel can be approximately two to four times more expensive. Feer says there needs to be more clarity on what constitutes a U.S.-made vessel within the USTR mandate. "Could the majority of the vessel be manufactured overseas and completed in the U.S.? Is it a U.S.-made engine? How many of the LNG vessels made by Hanwha would be made in Korea and finished here? It is unclear how feasible the USTR mandate is," he said. Louis Sola, former Federal Maritime Commission Commissioner appointed by President Trump, and now a partner at lobbying firm Thorn Run Partners, tells CNBC the math doesn't work. "The question everyone is asking is simple," Sola said. "Can the U.S. actually build enough LNG carriers fast enough under the SHIPS Act without shooting ourselves in the foot? We'll need as many as 50 vessels by 2050. Korean and Japanese yards already take over two years per ship and are booked solid, and we don't currently build this class here whatsoever," he added. The USTR did not respond to a request for comment. "Without some common-sense flexibility or a phased-in approach, the math just doesn't add up. We risk bottling up our own LNG exports and opening the market to the competition right when our allies need American energy the most," Sola said. According to BIMCO, the largest association for global ship owners, U.S. exports comprise up to 27.5% and 9.5% of global LNG and crude tanker demand, respectively. The U.S. predominantly uses South Korean LNG vessels to move the commodity. Overall, 78% of the LNG fleet is built in South Korea, while 13% and 7% are from Japan and China, respectively, according to BIMCO. South Korean shipyards also dominate the order book, with 64% of capacity on order, but Chinese shipyards are increasingly getting orders and now have 32% of capacity on order. Niles Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst for BIMCO, says one potential workaround is foreign-built ships that can currently be reflagged under specific conditions. These ships must be owned by U.S. citizens or entities and qualify for one of the following programs: the Maritime Security Program, Cable Security Fleet, Tanker Security Fleet, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, or Ready Reserve Fleet. "The SHIPS Act would also permit the reflagging of foreign-built ships for inclusion in the new Strategic Commercial Fleet Program (SCFP) for a seven-year period, which can be extended twice," said Rasmussen As U.S.-built and flagged ships become available, they will replace foreign-built ships in the 250-ship SCFP fleet. However, foreign-built LNG tankers in the SCFP fleet would seemingly not satisfy USTR LNG export and would require a waiver to be able to export LNG, he said. According to shipping consultant Clarkson's, 2025 will see a record delivery of LNG vessels. In addition to South Korea's lead position in ship orders, Swiss marine engine company WinGD has the most popular engine, and French engineering company Gaztransport & Technigaz, which specializes in membrane containment systems for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other cryogenic gases, is the dominant containment system being used in the new vessels. The U.S. may have to fall back on a waiver provision in the USTR mandate, according to energy experts. The waiver provision, if used, would increase the cost of vessel components by 25%, but may be the best option relative to an unreasonable delay in ship availability, said Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. Lipow said if there are not enough LNG vessels, a situation which could impact LNG production and crude production, use of waivers would need to be considered. "Oil wells also produce some associated natural gas with it so this can also impact U.S. oil production," said Lipow. "The administration will not want to put the country in a situation where they would have to shut in production. If the markets are fearful the U.S. does not have the ability to export LNG, prices could go down, and that would most likely lead to a waiver," he added. Lipow noted that use of waivers has been seen before in Jones Act vessels, so a foreign-flag vessel could transport U.S. gasoline between two U.S. ports. "There is precedent for waivers on foreign-flag vessels to mitigate supply disruptions," he said.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
New plan to limit Russian energy, protect US trade
President Trump has become increasingly angry with Russian President Vladimir Putin. For about two months he has been threatening the Kremlin with 'secondary' sanctions, which would impose high duties on imports from the nations which continue to purchase Russian energy resources. The Russians seem unfazed by Trump's warnings (as well as by Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) recent remarks), citing their resilience to sanctions. Several authoritative sources argue that the U.S. simply cannot afford to impose even 100 percent duties on China, India or Turkey. If all of Russia's energy trading partners were subjected to new tariffs, the U.S. would hijack a significant part of its foreign trade and ruin its trade relationships with at least 26 countries. I agree with those who believe the new tariffs cannot be put in place by Trump's updated deadline for Russia. We have seen that 125 percent duties on China lasted less than a month, and in recent days, President Trump has announced 50 percent tariffs against Brazil, 25 percent tariffs against India and 15 percent tariffs on the European Union. One hundred percent duties don't seem plausible. I would urge changing the overall approach to make the tariffs more affordable. The goal appears to be to cut Russia's energy supply to the world. Trump's plan should make Russian oil more expensive to the buyers (by the way, the European 'oil price cap' approach has failed. It resulted in discounts for the Russian oil, thus encouraging its smuggling and creation of Russia's 'shadow tanker fleet'). In this sense, Trump's position looks more effective — but the major problem lies in the numbers. The predecessor of Trump's strategy — the bill proposed by Sens. Graham and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — calls for the duty to be applied to all imports coming to the U.S. from Russia's energy trading partners. I believe it is too radical and, frankly speaking, not very justified because of the lack of differentiation. A much better option would be to relate the tariffs to the actual amount of money countries pay to Moscow. For example, India sent $115 billion in its goods and services to the U.S. in 2024 and paid $49 billion for Russian oil that year. China exported $513 billion in goods to the U.S. in 2024 while it bought Russian oil, gas, and coal for up to $76 billion. The EU's figures stood at $939 billion and $34 billion, correspondingly. If the U.S. applies 100 percent tariffs linked to the Russian energy resources imported, it would fix additional duties for India this year at 42.6 percent of its exports to U.S., China's at 14.8 percent and Europe's at a mere 3.6 percent. These figures are not so astonishing. On the one hand, they seem manageable, and on the other hand, they still double the price of Russian oil for importing nations. If this strategy is taken as the principal one, the overall additional duties would equal the entire volume of Russia's energy exports, $261.9 billion for 2024. As the U.S. combined imports of goods and services amount to $4.11 trillion, the figure makes less than 6.5 percent in additional tariffs. It looks like a fair price for knocking Russia out as self-proclaimed 'energy superpower.' The measure would make Russia's 'shadow fleet' useless, since it doubles the price for Russia's energy for any country except those with zero exports to the U.S.. But these, if they exist, aren't significant oil importers that might be helpful to Moscow in substituting the vanishing demand for its oil and gas. I suggest amending Graham and Blumental's bill to impose the duty for goods or services imported into the U.S. to an amount that corresponds to each country's imports of Russian energy resources for the previous year. It would be a right recipe to destroy the Russian energy exports in two to three years and put Putin's economy on the brink of collapse without ruining America's trade ties to its major commercial partners. Should Trump adopt such a plan on Aug. 11, the chances of stopping Russia's aggression against Ukraine could rise significantly. Vladislav Inozemtsev is special adviser to the Middle East Media Research Institute's Russian Media Studies Project and is co-founder and senior fellow at the Center for Analysis and Strategies in Europe.
