China does not want a trade war against the US

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, the number two in Beijing, said at a press conference, you do not want a trade war with the United States; However, Washington has warned of dire consequences for the US economy, if this dispute were to have started. Chinese Premier started from the consideration that China's investment in the US have led to the creation of one million jobs and this is also one of the effects of globalization that Trump wants to fight, setting up a closure of US markets, with ' raising of additional trade barriers and protectionism in favor of US companies. According to the Chinese premier, these actions would lead to a worsening of terms of trade, not only between the two countries, but also in the global system more complex, that goes beyond the relationship between China and the United States. The perception is that China wants to put pressure on the will of Trump through its availability of liquidity and the ability to deliver its power abroad. In Beijing substance may stop, reduce if not erase the investments in the United States, causing big problems for the White House. Certainly this development does not suit any of the two actors, who would see compromise the flow of trade in both directions, with objective effects on their economies. From the political point of view the Trump initial attitude already seems to have changed: if during the election campaign and in the early stages of his inauguration as president, China was the main target, the approach now seems to be marked by greater caution. Meanwhile, Trump, the appreciation in Taiwan came back to the theory, welcome to Beijing, One China; more worrying would be the intention to place the missile shield in South Korea, not pleasing to China because it could be threatened by these military installations, but the US position remains that only defensive Seoul in the face of North Korean threats. This factor, for now is causing a progressive deterioration of South Korea between China relations, but what about the US position seems to be back to Obama, however, conflicted with Beijing, with deep differences in views, especially on disputed islands from Beijing. The variable that is likely to alter the scenario is the behavior of the North Korean dictator, which exacerbates the tension deliberately risking indirectly provoke a confrontation between the two countries. If the political side is therefore more stable than it looks the comparison still moves on commercial disputes: we are facing a situation with roles reversed, where China plays in the role of defender of globalization, while the US play a role more inclined to protectionism. This scenario is also reflected in relations with Europe, snubbed and hoped uniform Trump, where Beijing favors a European Union as a strong player on the international and very integrated plan inside. It is understood that the old man united continent is the richest market and therefore functional to globalization, an essential factor in our time according to China, where to invest and market their products. From the commercial side we are therefore faced with two opposing positions, which could trigger a trade war that China fears a lot, but on which even the US does not seem easy. Beijing wanted to reassure the international scene through the growth of its gross domestic product, still expected at around 6.5% and quantified at around 10 billion euro, a position that seemed very responsible, especially at the Trump statement, typical of a major economic power, which must ensure the positive effects on the global economy of its production rates. Net of issues of corruption and respect for human rights, where, despite Trump, the US is still far ahead, China is presented to those who share globalization, certainly more reliable, while those who oppose certainly can not recognize the new US administration. The forecast is that the two countries will find a convenient meeting point for both, even if not immediately, because they can not afford, either, a trade war, which would entail more costs than benefits.