Did Trump just launch a trade war?

https://youtu.be/SGatqAGp1YM

LAST Thursday, US President Do­­­nald Trump signed a proclamation to raise tariffs for steel by 25% and for aluminium by 10%.

It sent shockwaves across the world not only because of the losses to metal exporters, but due to what it may signify – the start of a global trade war that will cause economic disruption and may damage, if not destroy, the multilateral trade system.

The United States, joined by Europe, has been the anchor of the global free trade system since the end of World War II. In practice, this rhetoric of free trade was hypocritical because the West continues to have very high protection of their agriculture sector, which cannot compete with those of many developing countries.

Moreover, the developed countries champion high intellectual property rights standards through an agreement in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), under which their companies create monopolies, set high prices and make excessive profits. This is against the free competition touted by free-trade advocates.

In manufacturing and metals, the developed countries have pressed the others to join them in cutting or removing tariffs and to expand trade, through negotiations in the WTO and its predecessor, the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).

They have argued that poorer countries can best grow richer by cutting their tariffs, thus benefiting consumers and forcing their producers to become more efficient.

Trump’s move upends the ideology of free trade. According to his America First philosophy, if cheaper imports displaced local steel and aluminium producers, these imports must be stopped because a country must make its own key products.

Since the US has been the flag-bearer of the free-trade religion, this has profound effects on other countries. If the leader has changed its mind and now believes in openly protecting its industries, so too can other countries. The basis for liberal trade is destroyed and the old rationale for protectionism is revived.

The WTO rules allow countries adversely affected by imports to take certain measures, but they have to prove that the producers of exporting countries unfairly receive subsidies or set lower prices for their exports. Or they can take “safeguard” measures of raising tariffs but only for a limited period to help affected local producers to adjust.

Trump however made use of a little-used national security clause (Section 232) in the US trade laws to justify his big jump in steel and aluminium tariffs. The clause allows the President to take trade action to defend security. The WTO also has a security exception in GATT Article XXI.

But what constitutes national security is not clearly spelt out either in the US or the WTO laws, and countries can abuse this clause.

The Trump administration tried to justify invoking the security factor by saying steel and aluminium are needed to make weapons of war. But this was undercut by giving exemptions from the increased duties to Canada and Mexico due to their membership of Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agree­ment that includes the US. The exemptions for reasons unrelated to security exposes the security rationale as fake.

Other countries are angry and preparing to retaliate. The European Union has drawn up a list of American products on which its member countries will raise tariffs. China warned it would make an appropriate and necessary res­ponse.

At the WTO General Council on March 8, the US action was attacked. Many countries condemned the unilateral move and the use of the national security rationale. Canada said the security issue “may be opening a Pandora’s box we would not be able to close”.

Brazil expressed deep concern about an elastic or broad application of the national security exception. India said the national security exception under GATT should not be misused and unilateral measures have no place in the trade system. China argued that the over-protected domestic industry would never be able to solve its problems through protectionism.

Many WTO member states will most likely take the US to a dispute panel, and the outcome will have strong consequences. If the panel rules for the US, then other countries will view the decision as permission for all countries to take protectionist measures on the grounds of security.

If the decision goes against the US, it will strengthen the anti-liberal trade faction and tendency in the Trump administration to ignore or even leave the WTO.

Malaysia will be affected by the new tariffs as it exports 96,000 tonnes of steel to the US. But this is small compared to how much steel we import.

The bigger blow to us is the US measure in January to slap up to 30% tariffs on solar cells and panels. Malaysia is the largest photovoltaic cells exporter to the US, with a market share of 30%. The tariff increase will have a big impact on the solar industry, a solar company chief was quoted as saying last month.

The next big protectionist move from the US may come in a few weeks when Trump decides what action, if any, to take against China after considering a Commerce Department report on China’s trade and intellectual property practices.

If strong action against China is announced, China can be expected to take strong retaliatory action.

That may escalate the trade war that is already under way.

Global Trends MARTIN KHOR

Martin Khor is executive director of the South Centre. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Related News

---

World06 Mar 2018

Trump's extraordinary tariffs

World06 Mar 2018

WTO chief urges states to stop first dominoes of trade war

Trade war between U.S. and Europe can still be avoided - Germany

Donald Trump: Trade War Threatens Germany and Europe

Did Trump Just Start a Global Trade War? - Bloomberg

Did Trump Just Launch a Trade War? | Watching America

Why Donald Trump's steel trade war is just the start

Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs threaten a trade war

 

Related post:

 

China Constitutional change accords with times

Western system not reference for China’s Constitutional change The ongoing annual session of the 13th

WTO rules U.S. unfair subsidies for Boeing illegal

The U.S. is hailing a World Trade Organization ruling on illegal Boeing subsidies as a victory. (Roslan Rahman/AFP Reuters

The World Trade Organization has ruled that U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing received $3 billion to $4 billion in illegal subsidies in the form of federal research grants and local tax breaks, the top U.S. trade official said Monday.

But U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk called the decision "a tremendous victory" for the United States because he said a separate WTO panel ruled last year that European governments provided $18 billion in subsidized funding for Airbus.

"It is now clear that European subsidies to Airbus are far larger -- by multiples -- and far more distortive than anything that the United States does for Boeing," Kirk said in a statement.

"The United States is ready to address all of the WTO findings, and we expect Europe to do the same. Airbus is a mature, highly capable company with ready access to commercial financing. It doesn't need the launch aid that European governments are continuing to provide," he added.

The WTO appellate body ruling on Monday faulted the United States for research funded by NASA and the Department of Defense that benefited Boeing and for tax breaks granted by the state of Washington and city of Wichita, Kansas.

The United States will have six months to comply with the ruling, once it is formally adopted this month, Kirk said.  

Appellate body rules unfair US subsidies have damaged rival Airbus

GENEVA: The World Trade Organisation has ordered the United States to halt unfair subsidies and tax breaks to planemaker Boeing, judging them to have damaged European rival Airbus.

The WTO's appellate body said that it found that certain subsidies and tax breaks “caused, through their effects on Boeing's prices, serious prejudice in the form of significant lost sales” to Airbus in the market for civil aircraft with 100 to 200 seats, according to a summary of the 700-page ruling.

That segment is for the medium-haul Airbus A320 and Boeing 737, which are their top selling aircraft.

It also found that research and development subsidies skewed competition for larger aircraft of 200 to 300 seats, and that such subsidies for the 787 Dreamliner “caused serious prejudice to the interest of the European Communities.” The United States has six months to comply with the ruling.

An Airbus A380 behind a Boeing 787 plane’s vertical tail. The WTO confirms that Boeing has received illegal subsidies, a decision that is seen as a victory by both the US aircraft maker and Airbus

 

Even before the publication of the WTO ruling, both the European Union (EU) and United States claimed victory in the dispute.

The EU had launched the complaint, claiming the United States gave Boeing billions of dollars in illegal subsidies after Washington had disputed EU aid to European aircraft manufacturer Airbus.

In a ruling on March 31, 2011, the WTO partly upheld the EU complaint, but it was appealed.

The European Commission welcomed the WTO final ruling, saying it confirmed that billions of dollars in US subsidies to Boeing were illegal under WTO rules.

“The ruling vindicates the EU's long-held claims that Boeing has received massive US government hand-outs in the past and continues to do so,” said EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht.

The United States took the opposite stand, saying the WTO decision confirmed that Europe's unfair trade subsidies to Airbus have dwarfed US aid to Boeing.

“This decision is a tremendous victory for American manufacturers and workers - and demonstrates the Obama administration's commitment to ensuring a level playing field for Americans,” Ron Kirk, the US Trade Representative, said in a statement before the WTO appeals panel published its findings.

“It is now clear that European subsidies to Airbus are far larger - by multiples - and far more distortive than anything that the United States does for Boeing,” he said.

The United States highlighted that the WTO had found last May in a separate case that the EU gave Airbus US$18bil (13.7 billion euros) in subsidised funding that resulted in lost market share and sales for Boeing.

“In yesterday's findings, the comparable figures (for Boeing) were between US$3bil and US$4bil in subsidies, and lost sales (for Airbus) of just slightly more than 100 aircraft,” the statement said.

The European Commission said the WTO appeal ruling found that Boeing received between US$5bil and US$6bil of illegal subsidies between 1989 and 2006, and was estimated to have received US$3.1bil more since.

Airbus said the WTO ruling found the effects of the illegal funding were much larger.

“The report confirms the existence of illegal US subsidies to Boeing previously identified by the WTO as at least US$5.3bil' and extended by billions of US dollars as a result of yesterday's decision - resulting in an estimated loss of approximately US$45bil in sales for Airbus,” the company said in a statement. AFP

Washington seeks to extend hegemony to trade

(Global Times)

US President Barack Obama signed an order Tuesday to create an interdepartmental task force to enforce trade agreements. Some commented that it is directly targeting "unfair trade practices" by its major trade partner China. On the same day, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank, issued a report entitled Enough is Enough: Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism. 

It accused Beijing of using various tricks like subsidies or export restrictions to gain an "absolute advantage" for its companies and urged Washington to "build a global free-trade coalition" with allies to push back against China.

The US has not made such endeavors before. China is facing serious trade frictions. The US deemed that their manufacturing industry is most effective, and "unfair trade practices" are an easy target.

US politicians have repeatedly instilled voters with such information: China is challenging the global trade rule with "national capitalism," and the US must strike back.

Actually, the US is challenging and damaging the rule. Perhaps Washington feels the WTO has become less and less helpful and it has to create a new alternative. The US government now integrates resources and attempts to deal a severe blow to "unfair trade practices" at any time.

However, no matter how strong the US is, it cannot expand and impose its will to a world which will not accept a trade power overriding the WTO. If anyone can freely create an enforcement unit to pursue personal interests, where can world trade order be found?

The world's largest importer cannot seek limitless power, especially since China is only years away from becoming the top importer itself.

This year will see presidential elections in the US and politicians are scoring cheap points on the back of foreign countries. The Democratic Party and Republican Party can always find unity against China.

China has to be clear. China's annual exports to the US were $320 billion last year, but US sanctions against Chinese exports were at no more than $10 billion. The US will not risk a major showdown.

Due to strategic mistrust, mutual precautions are increasing and the risks of politicalizing future trade frictions are intensifying.

US politicians like to exaggerate matters. China should ignore this, stick to WTO rules in the trade lawsuit against the US and protect the interests of Chinese companies.

We should not be intimidated by this so-called enforcement office. The US is not in a position to assess China's trade system. Only the WTO is qualified to assess and WTO Director-general Pascal Lamy has given an A+ to China's performance since its accession.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related post:

Are Malaysia a target for regime change?

  Related Reading

1. China, US have more common interests than differences in foreign trade
2. China to optimize environment to stabilize foreign trade
3. China becomes Japan's largest trading partner for five consecutive years
4. Chinese export leader's Jan. foreign trade falls
5. China suffers double slumps in foreign trade, FDI
6. Exports face difficult outlook in 1st quarter  

China bashing not the solution !

Image via Wikipedia

Tweet

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

The US Senate is scheduled to vote this week on a “currency Bill” to allow actions against China’s imports. But blaming China may unleash a trade war without solving America’s problems.

IS China’s currency and trade performance a threat to the United States? Or are American politicians using China as a scapegoat for the country’s economic problems?

“China bashing” has been on the rise in the United States. It is widely thought that politicians of both parties are doing it to gain popularity in view of the coming elections.

For some years, Congress members have threatened to take action against Chinese imports to retaliate against what they see as China’s manipulation of its currency level.

The politicians say that the Chinese yuan is lower than what it should be if there were no government intervention.

They charge that the undervalued currency enables China to have a large trade surplus vis-a-vis the United States, and that this has caused the loss of American jobs.

These charges are refuted by the Chinese government, which argues that the US trade deficit is due to domestic factors and not Chinese policy. It also points to the 7% appreciation of the yuan versus the dollar in recent months.

This issue has been a central economic policy issue between the two major countries. It could escalate into a major battle on the ground.

The US Senate is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Bill aimed at enabling import tariffs to be placed on Chinese imports as a retaliation against the alleged currency manipulation.

In a first step, the Senate on Oct 3 voted 79-19 to allow a week-long debate on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011. The Bill mandates a process for imposing tariffs on imports of a country with allegedly “misaligned currencies”.

Though China is not named, it is obviously the target. The Bill would in effect require the US Treasury Department to determine if China was manipulating the yuan. If it finds this to be the case, extra tariffs can be placed on some imported Chinese goods.



The Bill is expected to pass in the Senate. But a similar Bill has to also go through the House of Representatives, and be approved by US President Barack Obama, before trade measures can be taken.

These two steps are far from assured. Although it seems the majority of the House are in favour, Speaker John Boehner said last week it was dangerous to be moving legislation through Congress to force “someone to deal with the value of their currency ... while I’ve got concerns about how the Chinese have dealt with their currency, I’m not sure this is the way to fix it”.

Obama last Thursday accused China of “gaming” the trade system to the disadvantage of other countries, especially the United States. But he also expressed concern that the Senate Bill “may not actually work … as it may be only ‘symbolic’, and would probably not be upheld by the World Trade Organisation (WTO)”.

Nevertheless, the probability of the passage of the Senate Bill has heightened US-China tensions and raised the potential of a serious trade war.

As could be expected, Chinese government agencies and think tanks are reacting strongly to what they perceive as a protectionist move.

The People’s Bank of China (its central bank) said the Senate Bill would not help resolve the United States’ domestic issues such as the trade deficit, low level of savings and high unemployment, but could potentially affect the economy and market confidence.

It added: “The passage of the Bill may seriously affect China’s currency reforms, potentially leading to a trade war between the two sides.”

Xu Mingqi, deputy director of the Institute of the World Economy at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, had this to say: “It is easy for the US to make China a scapegoat of its domestic problems at a time when its economy remains weak with a high unemployment rate and the next general election only 13 months away.”

In the event the Senate Bill makes its way into actual law, a dispute case will most likely be taken against the United States at the WTO.

WTO rules do not allow countries to impose punitive duties on the basis that a certain country’s currency is undervalued. That this is so is appropriate. Valuing currencies to see if they are “manipulated” is very complex and difficult.

For example, the United States has also been accused of pushing its currency down through its controversial policy of “quantitative easing” (central bank pumping of funds into the banking system).

And is Switzerland “manipulating” its currency by announcing it will not tolerate further appreciation of the franc?

Allowing the currency issue to be a subject of possible unfair practice open to trade sanctions will open the road to many other issues being similarly recognised, such as a country’s tax rates, interest rates, and labour and environmental standards. There will be no end to having reasons for new trade protectionism.

A US law based on the Senate Bill will probably be found to be inconsistent with US obligations in the WTO. But by the time the WTO dispute system panel makes a final ruling (this may take years), some damage may already be done should the United States act against Chinese imports in the meantime.

China may not take the US actions lying down, and can come up with retaliatory action on US goods. Thus, a trade war may be unleashed.

Interestingly, although some well known American economists like Paul Krugman and Fred Bergsten advocate US action against Chinese imports, some business associations as well as important newspapers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times have come out strongly against the Senate Bill for its protectionism and trade war potential.

The high-pitched attack on China because of its large trade surplus with the United States is misplaced. Little of the gross surplus actually accrues to China.

A 2010 paper by the South Centre shows that only a small part of China’s exports to the United States is actually retained as income in China.

For example, in 2005, China’s gross trade surplus with the United States was US$172bil (RM543bil), but in value-added terms (what is earned by the respective countries after deducting the import content of their exports), it was only US$40bil (RM126bil).

Further, a large part of the Chinese trade surplus in value-added terms was earned by foreign firms in China and thus, does not belong to China. As a result, income left in China was no more than 30% of the total value of exports to the United States.

Therefore, the criticism that China enjoys extraordinarily high trade surpluses with the United States is misplaced.

Also, even if US trade measures reduce Chinese imports into the United States, this does not mean that the US import bill will be reduced.

Goods from other developing countries such as Vietnam or Indonesia may just replace the Chinese goods.

Therefore, US actions based on the Senate Bill would hardly help the United States get rid of its trade deficit.

It is best that the United States take domestic actions to address its domestic economic problems, rather than make a scapegoat of other countries and potentially unleash new trade wars.

Malaysia still in pursuit of full independence

Tweet

Still in pursuit of full independence

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

Fifty-four years after Merdeka, Malaysia, like other developing countries, is still fighting for full independence in a globalised world which has grown more complex and crisis-laden.

THE Merdeka season is a good time to ponder over what independence means to Malaysia and the other developing countries that are still battling to overcome the disadvantages that the colonial era brought.
The problems of governance in a developing country, 54 years after independence, are still as complex or even more so when compared with the immediate post-colonial days.

In that first phase of independence, the developing countries were preoccupied with domestic battles – how to install domestic political processes and how to chart new economic strategies to get out of the shadow of colonial influence.

Most countries tried to shake loose from the control of foreign-owned mining and plantation companies, banks and retailers, by boosting their domestic public and private enterprises.

However, they were over-dependent on a few export commodities for a long time.

In the social sphere, there was the monumental battle to provide jobs, build up housing, schools and health systems, besides reducing poverty.

Today, many developing countries like Malaysia have succeeded, to a significant extent, to break the foreign-ownership grip on the economy and to diversify from commodities to resource-based processing, boosting manufacturing and property development.



While some countries remain poor and dependent on foreign aid, other middle-income countries have broken through into the development sphere.

Indeed, countries like Malaysia are now worried about being stuck in the “middle-income trap”.

They are no longer so competitive in the labour-intensive industries like textiles and electronics assembly because lower-wage countries have entered the scene, yet they find it difficult to break through into higher value-added sectors and activities, in order to upgrade their economic status.

While the colonial grip on their economies has loosened, the middle developing countries are now caught in the complex web of global inter-dependence, in which they have become significant players but are still not able to call the shots, nor equitably participate in decision-making.

The dependence of immediate post-colonialism is now replaced with the inter-dependence that comes with globalisation. In good times, the country soars with the world economy.

But in bad times, the domestic economy is at the mercy of rapidly falling exports and foreign-capital outflows, as the 1998-99 Asian crisis and the 2008-09 “global great recession” showed.

With the United States and Europe caught in a deflationary situation, the next few years will be another great challenge.

Will the middle developing countries sink with the major players, or break free to chart their own course?
The answer will probably be in between.

But “decoupling” from the crisis in the rich countries can properly be achieved only if there are vision and action plans, including national economic restructuring and greater regional collaboration.

Intense inter-dependence is also evident in the physical world, where the environment worldwide is collapsing because the pursuit for economic growth did not take into account resource depletion and pollution.

The science of climate change and the recent radiation from damaged nuclear plants both reveal that emissions in one part of the world affect health and life in other parts.

Global solutions are thus necessary, but negotiations to find them are bogged down by basic issues of North-South equity and the need for balance between the imperative for environmental protection and the immediate needs for development.

International negotiations are also stuck in the area of economics.

The World Trade Organisation’s Doha talks have stalled because of the unreasonable demands made by major developed countries on the big developing countries.

Despite the G20 Summits, the world is further away today from global solutions to the financial crisis than in 2008-09 when concerted actions were agreed upon to stimulate a recovery.

It appears that the US, Europe and Japan, all former colonial countries, are now afraid that their mastery over the global economy is being challenged by China, India and some other developing countries – Asean included.

The middle developing countries like Malaysia are no longer one-sidedly dependent on their former colonial masters.

But in the web of an inter-dependent and globalised world, they are still in the mode of responding to initiatives and policies of the major developed countries, or to the unfolding situation.

They do not yet have the power or confidence to initiate and coordinate their policies and take the initiative to put forward solutions to global problems.

But they now have the growing capacity to do

Fifty-four years after Merdeka, the world is still an imbalanced one, and our country is building more stepping stones towards full independence.

It must join other developing countries to get a full voice and a fair share in the benefits of the global economy.

In this complex globalised economy, the developing countries’ battle for independence continues.

Related Posts:
 The true meaning of independence
 Reviving our winning ways