How to benefit from trade war?
The recent US tariff policies have created major problems for most export-led economies and have escalated the US-Sino trade war to new heights. In 2018, when the US imposed the first round of tariffs, it negotiated hard to balance its trade deficit with China by getting guarantees of increased soybean imports from Beijing. It worked for a while but afterwards the deficit has been widening over time.
Moreover, since 2018, Chinese investors started to relocate their manufacturing operations to Vietnam for rebranding Chinese-designed products as Vietnamese. Though these exports from Vietnam were generated by activities that used imports from China, it was not a simple case of trade rerouting or using Vietnam as a trade proxy.
The local industry added considerable value to the exports before shipping them to the West. Now, amid the current round of US tariff war, China and Vietnam have already signed over 40 fresh deals related to production, railway infrastructure and supply chains this month. These new deals, in retaliation to the US tariffs, come at a time when Vietnam is already China's fourth largest trading partner as well as the largest one from the Asean bloc – thanks to the free trade agreement (FTA) it enjoys through the Asean-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
This model has really worked for Vietnam, which in 2024 alone experienced a 14% increase in annual exports, surpassing the $400 billion mark for the first time. For perspective, China's exports to the US are valued at $480 billion, which shows how much Vietnam has benefited from Chinese investments and technology transfers over the years.
Vietnam received both capital and labour growth boosts due to rerouting from China with value addition. It retained the spillover benefits from tariffs on China while avoiding being targeted themselves till recently. Learning lessons from this model, it is high time for Islamabad to tear a page or two from Vietnam's playbook and take leverage of the escalating trade war between the two giants. Pakistan already has a free trade agreement with Beijing and has invested considerably in its duty-free Gwadar Port.
Gwadar's Special Economic Zone offers investor-friendly policies and as prices are inflated both in Chinese and US markets, it can attract parallel imports, especially in electronics, luxury goods and premium consumer products' categories. However, at present, Gwadar doesn't boast of state-of-the-art shipping operations and logistics – something that is required to carve out a new role in a high-tariff world.
If Pakistan doesn't capitalise on this opportunity, it is likely that Vietnam, Singapore or Hong Kong could become a parallel import powerhouse for mainland China. Hong Kong is in particular advantageous due to its tighter coupling with yuan, allowing China to bypass its own tariffs on American goods and to export goods destined for the US through Hong Kong. So, Pakistan needs a strong business case to convince Chinese investors to use Gwadar as a parallel import hub.
The most fruitful route is likely to be the policy of encouraging openness to foreign investment and technology transfer under systematic arrangements. Pakistan's government should design a framework for joint venture (JV) requirements, foreign investment modalities and administrative review and licensing processes for technology transfer from foreign companies.
JV mode should be made compulsory for FDI inflows in manufacturing where foreign companies agree to sign over their IP and technology to access Gwadar's Special Economic Zone. The products manufactured here may not be available to Pakistan's local market for the initial five years and should be made for export only. Regarding transfer of intellectual property (IP), Pakistan can take guidance from new EU rules regarding battery production for electric vehicles (EVs). As per the EU commission, the firms seeking grants and subsidies for battery production will be required to share IP with European firms and to establish manufacturing facilities within Europe.
Pakistan can opt for a similar policy by first launching a generous R&D grants scheme and then linking the award of such grants to those firms that share IP with Pakistani companies for local manufacturing.
At the same time, as China has barred rare earth exports to the US, Pakistan can set up rare earth mining operations in collaboration with foreign experts for export to the US. The problem with the production of rare earths is its huge environmental cost; otherwise rare earths aren't that rare.
Pakistan can even consider importing rare earth element-bearing rock or concentrate from China and set up processing plants in Gwadar. However, the contamination of water sources due to radioactive waste can result in net negative profits and the whole idea mayn't be feasible at all.
In a nutshell, Pakistan needs to act fast for negotiating with Washington by July 8, 2025 to avoid the re-imposition of tariffs after the 90-day pause. At the same time, it needs to seal a deal with China for the transfer of manufacturing technology and IP to the Gwadar economic zone so that products designed in China are "Made in Pakistan" for export to the US markets under licensing arrangements.
This could be a win-win situation for everyone, but by no means, it's an easy task, albeit not an impossible one.
The writer is a Cambridge graduate and is working as a strategy consultant
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Relevance of 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals' by Chomsky
Listen to article In a 1962 article Chomsky wrote that those with knowledge and influence must use their intellect to challenge falsehoods and reveal the truth. Intellectuals, whether scholars, journalists or thinkers, have a duty to question power structures and educate the public. Silence in the face of deception allows misinformation to spread. Intellectuals are in a position to expose lies of governments: in the western world intellectuals have the power coming from political liberty, access to information and freedom of expression. They can unravel the truth from the veil of falsehood, deception and class under which the present is depicted. The responsibility of the intellectual is far greater than the common man lacking the facilities and leisure to delve into questions of truth and lies. We can hardly ask ourselves to what extent the American people bear responsibility for the savage assault on a rural Vietnamese people and the Israel inflictions upon the hapless, unarmed population of Gaza. Not only is the Israel assault overwhelming but indiscriminate and genocidal. The realpotick viewpoint of US intellectuals is reflected in the suggestion of Yale University's Prof Rowe that with a view to quell communist threat in Vietnam and other South Asian countries, all the surplus wheat of Canada and the US be buried in order to cause starvation in China not as a weapon of extermination of people, which it will result in, but as a weapon against government, as the internal stability of the country cannot be maintained in the face of general starvation. Rowe has no qualms of moralism, leading one to the conclusion that this policy is the same as Ostpolitick of Nazi Germany. It is easy for the American intellectual to deliver homilies on the virtues of liberty and freedom but if he is really concerned about, say Chinese totalitarianism or the burdens imposed on the peasantry in forced industrialisation, he should undertake a task that is infinitely more significant and challenging — the task of creating, in the US, the intellectual and moral climate, as well as the social and economic conditions that would permit the US to participate in modernisation and development in poor countries in a way commensurate with its material wealth and technical capacity. Massive capital gifts to Cuba and China (in 1950s) might not succeed in alleviating the authoritarianism and terror that tend to accompany early stages of capital accumulation, but they are far more likely to have this effect than lectures on democratic values. Discourses on the two-party system or other democratic values that have been realised in the west are a monstrous irrelevance in the face of the effort that is required to raise the level of culture in western society to the point where it can provide a "social lever" for both economic development and development of true democratic institutions in the Third World. An arch example of a western intellectual is symbolised by how Churchill said to Stalin in Tehran in 1934: "The government of the world must be entrusted to satisfied nations who wished nothing more for themselves than what they had. If the world-government were in the hands of hungry nations they would always be in danger." It was not military aid funnelled from the North to South Vietnam up to 1964. Most of the aid was in the form of "doctrinal material" and "political leadership" rather than in military assistance. All of this is of course reasonable, so long as we accept the fundamental political axiom that the US, with its traditional concern for the weak and downtrodden, and with its unique insight into the proper mode of development for backward countries, must have the courage and persistence "to impose its will by force" until such time as other nations are prepared to accept these truths or to simply abandon hope. It is also the responsibility of the intellectual to view events in their historical perspective. As Munich showed, a powerful and aggressive nation with a fanatic belief in its manifest destiny will regard each victory as a prelude to the next one. Herein lies the danger of appeasement as the Chinese tirelessly point out to the Russians, which they claim is playing Chamberlain to our Hitler in Vietnam. Of course the aggressiveness of liberal imperialism is not the same as that of Nazi Germany: we do not want to occupy Asia. The west merely wants "to help the Asian countries progress towards economic modernization as relatively 'open' and 'stable' societies to which western access is free and comfortable." Chomsky says, "Recent history shows that it makes little difference to us as to what form of government a country has as long as it remains an open society a society which remains open to American economic penetrative or political control. If it is necessary the west will approach genocide in Vietnam [Iraq, Syria, Gaza] and this is the price we must pay in defense of freedom and the rights of man." Meagher and Hobart said before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "If it was possible, India would probably prefer to import technicians and know how rather than foreign corporations. Since this is not possible therefore India accepts foreign capital as a necessary evil." During the early period, US entrepreneurs insisted upon importing all equipment and machinery where India had a tested capacity to meet some of their requirements. By adopting strict import and price restrictions, America has helped India and other developing countries to become open societies. "Based upon a proper understanding of the core of American ideology, namely the sanctity of the individual in relation to the state in this way the US refutes the simple minded belief of the Asians that the West has been driven and then to cling on to its imperial holdings by the inevitable workings of capitalist economics."( Eugene Rostow). In pursuing the aim of helping other countries to progress towards open societies, with no thought or desire of territorial aggrandizement, we don't see any new ground being broken. This was the policy used by Britain in India during the 18th and 19th centuries of no conquest but in a conceited fashion shortly after the initial economic steps, actually conquest was in full swing.
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
European stocks flat as investors await outcome of US-China talks
European shares closed little changed on Tuesday in cautious trade as investors awaited the outcome of the second day of U.S.-China trade talks in London. The continent-wide STOXX 600 index closed unchanged for the second straight day, at 553.12 points. The two-day London meeting between the world's two economic powerhouses was still ongoing, a U.S. Treasury spokesperson said, while a separate U.S. official had said the two sides had ended direct talks. While President Donald Trump's upbeat comments on Monday about the talks had offered some hope the two countries would defuse their bitter trade dispute, the silence about any progress kept a lid on any breakout in stock markets. Any positive breakthrough in the negotiations is likely to provide relief to markets given that Trump's erratic tariff policies and the volatility of Sino-U.S. relations have already scarred both economies, dented supply chains, and cast a shadow over global growth projections. 'There's a lack of clarity on what an actual deal could be,' said Laura Cooper, head of macro credit and investment strategist at Nuveen. 'Until we see a substantial trade deal emerge, attention will be on the end of that 90-day pause and its implications if there isn't a deal in place.' The two countries are trying to revive a temporary truce reached in Geneva that had briefly lowered trade tensions and calmed markets. In European stocks, the financials index, shed 1.4%, led by a near 5% drop in UBS on investor concern that Swiss government proposals could shackle the bank with an additional $26 billion capital mandate. Defense stocks also retreated to an over one-week low. Conversely, energy stocks were the stand-out performer, boosted by higher oil prices. The healthcare sector advanced 1.2%, led by Novo Nordisk, which gained about 6% following a Financial Times report that activist hedge fund Parvus Asset Management was building a stake in the drugmaker. Vaccine makers such as AstraZeneca and Sanofi also climbed, despite the U.S. health secretary dismantling the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine advisory committee. London's FTSE 100 flirted with a record high earlier in the session after fresh data revealed a sharp deceleration in British pay growth through April, coupled with unemployment hitting a four-year peak - strengthening the case for an interest rate cut by the Bank of England. Attention is also on a slew of key economic indicators from the region as well as the U.S., due through the week. 'With U.S. CPI data due on Wednesday, the mood could remain cautious,' said Fiona Cincotta, senior market analyst at City Index. Among other stocks, Bellway jumped 7.8% after the British homebuilder raised its forecast for full-year volume production. Shares of Aberdeen gained 6.3% after J.P. Morgan upgraded the fund manager's stock to 'overweight' from 'neutral'.
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Oil up 1% at 7-week high on hopes of positive US-China trade talks
NEW YORK: Oil prices edged up 1% to a seven-week high on Tuesday on hopes trade talks between the U.S. and China - the world's two biggest economies - will result in a deal that could support global economic growth and boost oil demand. Brent crude futures rose 81 cents, or 1.2%, to $67.85 a barrel by 11:22 a.m. EDT (1522 GMT), while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude rose 83 cents, or 1.3%, to $66.12. Those gains pushed both crude benchmarks into technically overbought territory for the first time since early April and put Brent on track for its highest close since April 17 and WTI on track for its highest close since April 3. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said trade talks with China were going well as the two sides met for a second day in London, seeking a breakthrough on export controls that have threatened a fresh rupture between the superpowers. 'There's a sense of optimism around these trade talks; the market is waiting to see what this will produce, and that is supporting prices,' said Harry Tchilinguirian, group head of research at Onyx Capital. On the supply side, allocations to Chinese refiners showed that Saudi Arabia's state oil company Saudi Aramco will ship about 47 million barrels of oil to China in July, 1 million barrels less than June's allotted volume, Reuters reported. The Saudi allocations could be an early sign that the unwinding of OPEC+ production cuts might not result in much additional supply, Tchilinguirian said. Saudi Arabia cuts July oil prices to Asia to 4-year low after OPEC+ supply boost OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil and includes the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies like Russia, put forward plans for an output increase of 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) for July as it looks to unwind production cuts for a fourth straight month. A Reuters survey found that OPEC's May increase to oil output was limited, with Iraq, the second biggest OPEC producer behind Saudi Arabia, pumping below target to compensate for earlier overproduction, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates making smaller increases than agreed. Elsewhere, Iran said it would soon make a counter-proposal for a nuclear deal in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems 'unacceptable', while U.S. President Donald Trump made clear that the two sides remained at odds over whether Tehran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium on Iranian soil. Iran is the third-largest OPEC producer and any easing of U.S. sanctions on Tehran should allow Iran to export more oil, which should reduce crude prices. In Europe, meanwhile, the European Commission proposed an 18th package of sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, aimed at Moscow's energy revenues, banks and military industry. Russia was the world's second biggest crude producer in 2024 behind the U.S., and any increase in sanctions will likely keep more of that oil out of global markets, which could support oil prices. US oil inventories and exports The American Petroleum Institute (API) trade group and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) are due to release U.S. oil inventory data on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively. Analysts forecast energy firms added about 0.1 million barrels of oil to U.S. stockpiles during the week ended June 6. If correct that would be the first storage increase in three weeks and compares with an increase of 3.7 million barrels during the same week last year and an average increase of 2.8 million barrels over the past five years (2020-2024).
