China's factory activity contracts in May, but there are signs of improvement
China's factory activity contracted in May, according to an official survey released on Saturday, although the decline slowed from April as the country reached a deal with the U.S. to slash President Donald Trump 's sky-high tariffs.
China 's purchasing managers index rose from 49.0 in April to 49.5 in May, the National Bureau of Statistics said. PMI is measured on a scale from 0 to 100, where 50 marks the cutoff between expansion and contraction.
Meanwhile, the manufacturing index showed growth in the sector, although the index measuring new orders remained under 50 despite some improvement.
National Bureau of Statistics senior statistician Zhao Qinghe said some companies with U.S. business reported accelerated resumption of foreign trade orders, and there was an improvement in import and export conditions.
The U.S.-China deal, reached earlier this month, cuts Trump's tariffs from 145% to 30% for 90 days, creating time for negotiators from both sides to reach a more substantive agreement. China also reduced its taxes on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%.
But the remaining tariffs are still higher than they were before Trump took office, and businesses and investors face uncertainty about whether the truce will last.
Trump said Friday that he will no longer be 'Mr. NICE GUY' with China on trade, declaring in a social media post that the country had broken an unspecified agreement with the United States.
He later said in the Oval Office that he will speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping and 'hopefully we'll work that out,' while still insisting China had violated the agreement.
Over the past week, tensions between Beijing and Washington also intensified after the U.S. said it would start revoking visas for Chinese students studying in the country. China has lodged a protest with the U.S. over the matter, calling the decision unreasonable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Lutnick downplays impact of tariff court ruling on US, EU talks
WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick downplayed the impact of legal uncertainty around U.S. tariffs on negotiations with the European Union during an interview with Fox News Sunday, saying talks were ongoing. Lutnick was asked about a Reuters report quoting an unnamed EU official close to negotiations who said the legal uncertainty of the tariffs in the U.S. gave the E.U. "extra leverage." "You can't listen to silly people making silly comments," Lutnick said. "All of the countries that are negotiating with us understand the power of Donald Trump and his ability to protect the American worker." A U.S. trade court blocked most of President Donald Trump's tariffs in a sweeping ruling last week that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners. A U.S. federal appeals court paused that ruling a day later, allowing the tariffs to go into effect while it considered an appeal by the Trump administration. Lutnick said the ruling "maybe cost us a week, but then everybody came right back to the table." Trump in late May threatened 50% tariffs on all European goods by June 1 but days later delayed the effective date to July 9 to allow for time to negotiate. Trump also said on Friday that he would increase tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%, leading the European Commission on Saturday to say it could consider countermeasures. Speaking on ABC News' 'This Week,' White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said the U.S. needed to protect its steel industry for national security reasons in light of economic rival China's steel production. "We have to show strength," Hassett said. "We have to have a steel industry that's ready for American defense."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
In Australia's post-US future, we must find our own way with China
Thanks to US regional strategic primacy, Australia has been virtually immune from the threat of direct military attack since the defeat of Japan in 1945. Now that is changing. In future it will no longer be militarily impossible for China to attack Australia directly. And not just China: other major regional powers, especially India and eventually perhaps Indonesia, will have the potential to launch significant attacks on Australia. That does not mean we now face a serious threat of Chinese military attack. Today the only circumstance in which Australia could credibly find itself under attack from China would be if Australia joined the US in a war with China over Taiwan. Reports that Australia is a target of Chinese cyber and intelligence operations do not show that Beijing poses a military threat to us, any more than our cyber and intelligence operations targeting China provide evidence that we pose a military threat to them. It is harder to say whether China might become militarily aggressive towards us in future. We cannot assume that it will from its military buildup alone, because countries often expand their armed forces to defend themselves rather than to attack others. But, equally, we cannot rule out the possibility that China might decide to use armed force against Australia in decades to come. Some aspects of China's naval buildup, especially its sustained investment in aircraft carriers, which would have no useful role in a US-China war over Taiwan, suggest that it wants to be able to conduct long-range power-projection operations, which could encompass Australia. Nonetheless, it does seem unlikely. For one thing, it is a little hard to imagine what China's purpose might be in attacking Australia, given that we are not an easy country to invade. And if we get our defence policy right it should be possible for us to raise the cost to the point that it is not worth China's while. This all means that, while we should not ignore it, we should not allow the distant possibility of a Chinese military threat to dominate our thinking about China. There are many other dimensions to what is a very important, complex and ultimately inescapable relationship. It is also a relationship of a completely unfamiliar kind. Other than our two great allies, Australia has never before encountered a country as large, as powerful, as influential in our region, as important to us economically, and with close heritage connections with such a large proportion of our population, as China. Once we abandon the illusion that the US is going to manage China for us, we will realise that we have no choice but to find our own way. This will not be comfortable or easy. China is ruthless, demanding and completely transactional – though no more than other great powers. Over the past decade, in Canberra and around the country, exaggerated fears and a desire to stay in step with Washington have crowded out serious thinking about China itself and how the complex range of interests we have in our relationship with it can best be balanced. We have less deep expertise on China now than we had 30 years ago. That has to change. Our second big task is to rethink our relationship with the US. In the decades before the mid-1990s, there was an assumption that – in a Whig-view-of-history way – Australia was gradually but ineluctably emerging from dependence to independence as we left our colonial and imperial past behind and embraced our Asian future. That died away around the time John Howard became prime minister in 1996, when it seemed to many people that the future was America's, and that Australia's future was to become ever more tightly entwined with it, strategically, economically and culturally. This was the time when a US-Australia free trade agreement seemed both essential and sufficient to guarantee Australia's economic future, and when America's place as the world's dominant military power seemed unchallengeable. The economic illusions of that era were soon overtaken by the hard realities of China's rise but the strategic illusions have survived. Indeed, they were strengthened by the 'war on terror' and have been intensified again by the rising fear of China. So we clung on and stopped imagining we could do anything else. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion It is often said, for example, that the intelligence relationship is so close and so important to both sides as to be indissoluble. Don't bet on that. US access to Pine Gap as a location for its satellite ground station is valuable but far from essential. Our access to US intelligence under the Five Eyes arrangements is very beneficial and, in some ways, irreplaceable, in that it provides intelligence we could not get in other ways. But that does not mean we could not get by without it. We certainly could. As things get tough with Washington over the months and years ahead, there will be a temptation to try to placate Donald Trump and earn his favour by meeting his demands for increased defence spending, or by siding with the US in its economic war by cutting links with China. There may be good reasons to increase defence spending but trying to buy Trump's favour is not one of them. Likewise, that futile goal would in no way offset the many powerful arguments against joining a US-led anti-China economic coalition. There are no favours we can do Trump which will keep the US strategically engaged in Asia and committed to Australia's defence. We need to bear these cold realities clearly in mind as we think about our future relations with Washington. The first step is to recognise that the end of the alliance as we have known it for so long does not mean the end of the relationship. We have been close allies for so long that it is hard to imagine what other form our relationship might take. But with careful management, a new, beneficial post-alliance relationship can evolve, just as our relations with Britain evolved after it withdrew from Asia in the late 1960s. We continued to have close and productive defence and security links, drawing some strength from our shared history together. Singapore offers another instructive model. It is not a US ally but it has an excellent relationship with Washington, including deep defence links. We should aim for a post-alliance relationship like that with the US in the years ahead – and we should be building it now. That does not mean severing ties with Washington but it does mean changing the relationship fundamentally. Above all, it means acknowledging that the security undertakings in Anzus can no longer be the foundation of our strategic policy, or of our relationship with the US. The Canberra establishment is shocked by any suggestion that we should walk away from the Anzus commitments. They think we can and must depend on the US more than ever in today's hard new world. But that misses the vital point. It is not Australia but the US that is walking away from the commitments it made in the Anzus treaty in very different circumstances 75 years ago. That was plain enough under Joe Biden. It is crystal clear today under Trump. This is the lesson we must draw from Washington's failure to defend Ukraine, from its crumbling position in Asia and from US voters' decisive rejection of the old idea of US global leadership to which we still cling. Our best path now is to recognise this and start acting accordingly. Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU. This is an edited extract of Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, published today in Quarterly Essay
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump shares baseless conspiracy that Joe Biden died and was replaced by a clone
President Donald Trump has shared a baseless conspiracy theory that former President Joe Biden died and was replaced by a robotic clone. Late Saturday night, Trump, 78, shared a Truth Social post claiming his former political opponent, Biden, 82, was killed in 2020 and replaced by a clone – unbeknownst to Democrats. 'There is no #JoeBiden–executed in 2020,' the post reads. The post goes on to claim that the real Biden was replaced by 'clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities' and that 'Democrats don't know the difference.' Trump's supporters were quick to get behind his message, some sharing side-by-side memes of Biden claiming 'these are not the same people,' and others egging on Trump for 'trolling.' Some commentators pointed to Biden's earlobes, claiming that before 2020, they appeared to be unattached to his head, whereas now they are. Another even insisted that the government televised giving Biden a 'funeral cannon salute at Arlington' on his Inauguration Day. Detractors of the president, meanwhile, branded his sharing of the post 'concerning.' Trump's wife, Melania, has also been the subject of similar conspiracy theories, with some claiming a body double replaced her during his first term. The White House at the time dismissed the theories as a 'non-story.' Trump has seemingly been digging into conspiracy theories all weekend, including on Friday when he claimed CBS 'deleted' his 2015 interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump reposted a Facebook video on his Truth Social account containing heavily edited clips of his September 2015 interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. A message next to the video states: 'You are not supposed to see this video. CBS DELETED this entire episode from their official website. You will not find these segments on YouTube either.' However, a quick search on YouTube revealed otherwise. Clips from the Trump-Colbert interview are still available to be watched on the official Late Show account. One video has 17 million views.
